Sitting of 4 June 1996

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

    Enterprise Zones
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards establishing new enterprise zones. [29769]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State apologises to the House for not being present for questions today. Madam Speaker, as you and others are aware, he is representing the United Kingdom at the United Nations Habitat II conference in Istanbul.
    In December 1987 the Government announced that the enterprise zone scheme would not be extended other than in exceptional circumstances.
    Mr. Hutton: Given that the Government's economic advisers, Cambridge Economic Consultants, recommended in 1992 that the Government establish a new enterprise zone in Barrow and that, since then, the number of people out of work and claiming unemployment benefit has increased by 45 per cent.—more than in any other area which is at present covered by an enterprise zone—is the Minister now prepared to accept the principal recommendation of the Furness 2010 conference report, of which he has a copy? The report makes it clear that it is absolutely critical to establish a new enterprise zone in the Barrow travel-to-work area.
    Sir Paul Beresford: I am very aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. We have discussed the issue with the Government office for the north-west, and I anticipate being able to meet the hon. Gentleman and a delegation to consider the matter. I suggest that we approach the issue with some caution.
    As the hon. Gentleman is aware, EZs have been successful in the past. However, the European Community rules on state aid mean that there are delays—sometimes of up to three years—between announcement and implementation, and that can cause a dearth of investment in the area and prove counter-productive. I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter, but I ask him to think carefully before progressing.
    Mr. Dover: Does my hon. Friend recall that he replied to my Adjournment debate on Royal Ordnance and the possible establishment of an enterprise zone at Chorley in my constituency? Will he confirm that the exceptional circumstance that would justify an enterprise zone application through the European Union would be a massive rundown in traditional industries, such as the coal mining and the ship building industries in Barrow and the armaments industry in Chorley, which have been designated since 1987? Will he confirm that even a three-year delay would be more than acceptable to the areas in question?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I am aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed on several occasions. However, as I have told him before, he must think very carefully before progressing further.
    Mr. Vaz: Why will the Minister not admit that fatal flaws lie at the heart of the Government's regeneration policy? There is a lack of cohesion and coherence in the Government's strategy, whether it is enterprise zones or any of the 29 schemes that they have launched in the past 17 years. Will the Minister accept the views of the public and private sectors and implement long-lasting policies rather than the quick-fix solutions that the Government advocate?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman does not learn. If he looks around the country, he will see that any flaws and difficulties are created by the neanderthal Labour authorities in many of our cities.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that enterprise zones are successful only if this country can offer competitive economic conditions to internal investors? Does he believe that those conditions would be improved by the adoption of a national minimum wage and the social chapter or by the abolition of the Government's industrial relations reforms?
    Sir Paul Beresford: As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He has touched on the point that Labour local authorities consistently and persistently fail to see.

    Air Pollution
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding air pollution. [29770]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The Department receives numerous representations on that subject.
    Mr. Wareing: I am sure that it does. What intergovernmental wrangling is causing the delay in the publication of a national air strategy? Given that my local authority is one of those used to pilot the air quality assessment scheme, should it not be given proper national guidelines and resources? Or do we see another illustration of the Government's lack of real commitment to the environment?
    Mr. Clappison: The local authorities that are involved in the air quality strategy are showing a much more positive attitude than the hon. Gentleman. He could be a little more positive about an important document that follows on from the commitments in the Environment Act 1995, which will stand alongside the Clean Air Act 1956 as a major contribution to cleaning up the air we breathe and will bring about substantial improvements. When the strategy is published, the hon. Gentleman will see that it is based on sound science and will make a major contribution to our health.
    Mr. Robathan: Is my hon. Friend aware that air pollution would be greatly reduced if more people left their motor cars at home and walked or used bicycles? Is my hon. Friend aware that this week is National Bike Week, and does he agree that it would be extremely beneficial if many Members of the House took to bicycles and did not create emissions and hot air, which pollute the environment? My hon. Friend might note that the health of one or two Opposition Front Benchers would also benefit.
    Mr. Clappison: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to think that if hon. Members took to their bicycles, it might reduce the hot air. If people took to their bicycles more generally, important reductions in emissions might occur. There are opportunities for people to use the bicycle instead of other forms of transport, and that would reduce emissions. I know that my hon. Friend is a major proponent of the use of bicycles and I am sure that he will take to his bicycle tomorrow.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given that Europe is due this year to agree stage 3 vehicle emission standards and that the rising levels of asthma, especially in children, are exacerbated by air pollution, will the Government take a robust position at stage 3 and build on the German Ministry of the Environment's proposals?
    Mr. Clappison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have taken a leading role in pushing for higher standards of vehicle technology and fuel cleanliness. That has made a major contribution in reducing emissions, and we will continue with that.
    The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the leading role that we have taken to try to reduce summertime smog, which can also be a cause of the health problems that he mentioned. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently hosted a conference of European nations in London, which put forward plans to reduce the prevalence of summertime smog. Those plans will bring real benefits and will be an ambitious step to tackle a real problem.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Notwithstanding the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), will my hon. Friend confirm that estimates show that car traffic is likely to increase by between 11 and 19 per cent. and lorry traffic by up to 16 per cent. over the next six years? Given the stricter emission controls introduced by the Government in 1992 and 1996, will my hon. Friend try to plan the Government's air quality strategy so that the amount of pollution from vehicles is lower overall at the end of the six years, and not greater?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the issue needs careful long-term planning. We have been planning carefully on a base of sound science to bring about long-term reductions in emissions. That is why we will introduce a national air strategy, which will be a document for the future and enable major improvements to be made in the air that we breathe.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authority expenditure is represented by council tax collected in (a) Ellesmere Port and Neston and (b) Westminster. [29771]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Forty-three per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Miller: Those are interesting twists of the official statistics. The Minister will recognise that Ellesmere Port and Neston borough has a better council tax collection rate than the city of Westminster and is better on planning times and a whole host of the measures set out by the Audit Commission, yet the council tax collected from residents in Ellesmere Port—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Miller: Is it the case that the council tax collected from residents of Ellesmere Port and Neston constitutes 33 per cent. of spending compared with 4 per cent. for Westminster? Is that not a disgrace and yet another Tory fiddle that disadvantages a well-run, Labour-controlled local authority?
    Mr. Curry: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got to his peroration in the end, albeit with some prompting. His figures are out of date, which is not surprising. The key statistic is that Ellesmere Port and Neston council sets a budget that is 20 per cent. higher than its standard spending assessment. If Westminster set a budget 20 per cent. above its SSA, it would have to fund 35 per cent. of its expenditure from the council tax. If Westminster set a budget 13 per cent. below its SSA and Ellesmere Port and Neston did the same, the borough could hand back £85 to band D council tax payers and would have to raise only 17 per cent. from council tax. If the Ellesmere Port and Neston council budget is so terrible, it is surprising that its Member of Parliament made no representations at the time of consultation.

    Local Government Expenditure
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received about the abolition of local authority capping; and how many supported abolition. [29772]
    Mr. Curry: We have received a number of representations on local authority capping, and many were in favour of its abolition. We also receive many letters from council tax payers complaining about high council taxes.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that even-handed reply. Does he agree that the abolition of capping would ensure a greater measure of responsibility and responsiveness being added to local authorities—particularly in respect of spending and spending policies? Does my hon. Friend further agree that local authorities would be less dependent on central Government for additional funding? Does my hon. Friend agree also that there would be much greater accountability and that abolishing capping would add a new dimension to local democracy?
    Mr. Curry: The answer to my hon. Friend's questions is obviously yes—of course it would. If local authorities could raise more of their own expenditure, local councillors would welcome that and would be more accountable in that sense. As I have constantly said in the House, there are two sides to the question. If I were a councillor, of course I would argue that capping should go, because I would like to raise what I want to spend. Central Government must take account of the fact that 25 per cent. of public expenditure is accounted for by local council spending, so no Government can afford to neglect to take a view on that volume of expenditure, given the effective management of the whole economy. There are two rights in conflict and, sensibly, we try to find a way to reconcile them and help local authorities, while making sure that central Government's economic management remains impeccable—because the economy needs local taxpayers most of all.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware of the widespread dismay in Cambridgeshire caused by the Government's decision to cap Cambridgeshire's budget at the standard spending assessment? Surely local people ought to decide how large class sizes or the charge levied in respect of elderly people who need care should be? Those matters cannot be decided by central Government.
    Mr. Curry: If it is so self-evident that such decisions must be taken by local councils and that central Government have no part to play, I am surprised that the Labour party is so strongly committed to maintaining the capping legislation on the statute book. That legislation acknowledges that, at the end of the day, central Government must take a view of total public expenditure. That is the origin of the argument about capping. I acknowledge that there is an argument from local councils about their autonomy and ability to take local decisions— I have never denied that. However, I acknowledge also as a Minister that the Government must take a view of a sensible level of public expenditure in the economy as a whole. We have been doing that, and we would be irresponsible not to do so.
    Mr. Pickles: Is my hon. Friend aware that one consequence of abolishing capping would be higher council tax bills? Is he aware that, in a recent survey conducted by The Sunday Times among the leaders of 80 Labour authorities, more than half said that they would increase the bills if capping were removed? Is my hon. Friend further aware that it was estimated that, just among the authorities sampled in that survey, an extra £500 million would be taken out of council tax payers' pockets?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The instinct of Labour-controlled local authorities is always to want to raise more taxes. That is why I believe that if the Labour party got into office it would demonstrate exactly the same instinct.

    House Building
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest annual figures for house building; and what was the figure in 1978. [29774]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): A total of 188,700 new homes were completed in Great Britain in 1995. There were 279,800 completions in 1978.
    Mr. Skinner: After 17 years of Tory Government, is it not a fact that 67,000 local authority homes were completed in 1978—the last full year of a Labour Government—and that in 1995 the number is down to a miserable 612 for the whole of the country? We have 500,000 bricklayers and construction workers on the dole. We have bricks piled up at the London Brick Company. Construction companies are going to the wall. Is it not time that the Government pulled their finger out and did something about releasing capital receipts? Do not blame the minimum wage and the social chapter for this disaster.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. We are trying to ensure that we make the most effective use of existing stock. Therefore, what is important is the number of tenancies, not the number of new buildings. A large number of schemes are in place to create extra vacancies into which people can move, to ensure that we effectively manage existing stock.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has never been a better time for first-time buyers to buy their homes? More than that, they have the incentive of mortgage rates, which are at their lowest level for 30 years. Is that not a justification of the Government's policies? They are a success and people are going with it.
    Mr. Jones: Of course my hon. Friend is right. Not only are mortgage rates low at the moment by historical standards, but they are also affordable, because of the rise in real incomes and the fall in mortgage rates; so now is a good time not just for first-time buyers but for other buyers to put their hat into the ring and buy a house.

    Ministerial Rail Travel
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of his official travel in the last 12 months has been undertaken by rail. [29776]
    Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend, with Ministers from other Departments, uses the railways whenever it is the most cost-effective and feasible form of transport.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why did the Minister not give me the percentage? Surely the Department keeps a record of miles travelled or journeys undertaken. I suggest that he

    391
    set a personal example on the control of emissions into the atmosphere. Why did the hon. Gentleman not give me the figures?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman asks for a personal example. I can tell him that, since I have been a Minister, I have made 20 visits outside London, 15 of which were made by train. I can also tell him that I used the train and the tube to come to work today from my constituency, as I do regularly. I practise what I preach. Those who do not practise what they preach inhabit the Opposition Front Bench.

    Environmental Agreements
    Mr. Bennett:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the international environmental agreements to which the UK is a party, and the extent to which the UK has met its obligation under those agreements. [29778]
    Mr. Clappison: My Department has a very good record of complying with international agreements.
    Mr. Bennett: I wonder whether the Minister will place in the Library a list of all the financial commitments that we have made under the Montreal protocol, the Rio agreement and others, the dates when we made the payments and the dates when we should be making the payments. Does he appreciate that many people in developing countries feel that we are using environmental agreements as an old form of colonialism to impose our views on them? Will he ensure that we do all that we can to transfer technology from developed countries to underdeveloped countries to ensure that they can meet high environmental standards?
    Mr. Clappison: We provide full and appropriate information about the activities that we undertake. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Government have honoured their commitments under both the agreements that he mentioned. On the Rio commitments, we recently produced our proposals for biodiversity, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, include help towards conservation in developing countries—a very important contribution to help them to meet their commitments. I think that about £130 million is the sum in the global environment facility fund. Also, on the climate convention and carbon dioxide emissions, we have more than exceeded our promises. We have also complied with our agreements on the Montreal protocol. When the Government enter into international commitments, they keep them.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my hon. Friend seen the international reports stating that the ozone layer is recovering—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) can sunbathe again if he likes. Is that recovery not due to this Government's excellent environmental policies, which lead the world?
    Mr. Clappison: The ozone layer has benefited from our commitment to the Montreal protocol, as well as a number of other international indicators.
    Mrs. Ewing: Obviously, the Minister has recognised that the disposal of any form of waste is a matter for international concern. Has he read the recent report on the disposal of nuclear waste at Dounreay in the north of Scotland? It shows that, some 30 years ago, there was a disposal of about 1,400 tonnes of fissile material, including caesium and uranium. Does that breach any international agreement? Will the hon. Gentleman give a commitment to hold a public inquiry into the situation and will he ensure that the House is kept fully informed of developments?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady will be aware that waste licensing is covered by a very strict regime—and the type of waste to which she referred comes under an especially strict regime. If she will let me have the details, I shall look into the matter.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the Government now intend to comply fully with the European urban waste water treatment directive? Will he also confirm that the Government will not repeat their previous efforts, which were turned down in the courts, to re-define the boundaries of the Humber and Severn estuaries, leaving half-treated sewage floating past Bristol and Hull?
    Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government's lawyers, when giving evidence in court, said that the Government had taken that action to save money so that things would be easier for the already fat cat bosses of Yorkshire Water and Wessex Water?
    Mr. Clappison: We have just heard a contribution to hot air. The public want a continued improvement in the quality of our bathing waters and rivers. They want clean water. Under any objective scientific test, standards are improving and British people have a higher quality of water than ever before.

    Challenge Funding
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend challenge funding. [29779]
    Mr. Curry: We announced on 15 May the Government's decision to proceed with a pilot scheme for the allocation of local authority credit approvals through competitive bidding.
    Mr. Booth: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members, at least, welcome the success of challenge funding and the principles behind it, especially as they affect inner cities? We also welcome its extension to other areas and the help that it will provide for estate action. The Opposition will never understand such success, nor could they ever achieve it, because they do not understand competition.
    Mr. Curry: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's view. I regret that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was not at the Leeds Armories 10 days ago to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke—on—Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) praising the single regeneration budget and the principle behind the

    393
    Government's regeneration policies. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is 15 years out of date.
    It is true to say that our programmes based on competition work because they oblige people to get together, to put common programmes together and to secure additional funding—and therefore they get the best out of people and out of communities. Those are the principles to which we shall continue to adhere.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the justification for extending a system which, frankly, owes more to presentation than to substance?
    Mr. Curry: The system of competitive bidding and regeneration owes everything to substance. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to take a trawl around the United Kingdom—perhaps by bicycle, if he is to follow the Opposition's precepts—and call in on some of the city challenge programmes and single regeneration budget programmes. He should also look at some of the urban development corporations. He will find that Labour authorities which, five or six years ago, were hostile to their very establishment are now saying that it has been an extremely productive use of funding, that competition works and that they hope that the programmes will continue. I pay tribute to those local authorities that are now acting co-operatively, working well and creating partnerships to deliver benefits for their communities. That is because the Government started that approach and I am glad that other people are following. The hon. Gentleman will eventually follow them.

    Wind Farms
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of existing planning guidelines in respect of wind farms; and if he will make a statement. [29781]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Planning policy guidance note 22, "Renewable Energy", provides comprehensive, robust and relevant advice on planning and wind farms in England. Our policy is to encourage the development of renewable energy sources so long as they are both economically attractive and environmentally acceptable.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that there is sensible all-party support for alternative sources of energy, not least renewables of this kind, but that, obviously, this needs to be balanced by the circumstances in each case? Will he consider—it is a typical example—the concern that exists in the highlands of Scotland, to which, I appreciate, his remit does not run in planning matters? Does he agree with the local planning authority there—this is as relevant south of the border—that these applications need to be conformable with local plans to ensure that the new brutalism that the Secretary of State has occasionally warned against is avoided at all costs?
    Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman says, the particular case is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman: it is important to get the balance right. We all subscribe to renewable energy sources as a principle, but it is
    394
    remarkable how rarely people are prepared to support their location in a particular instance. One of the things that local authorities can do is identify the best sites in their development plans so that they can be identified well in advance of any planning applications. That will serve to mitigate any controversy.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the 1980s, the so-called green movement championed wind farms? Will he confirm that the principal objectors to such schemes these days are those who are allied to the so-called green movement?
    Mr. Jones: I am sorry to have to say that my hon. Friend is right. Often, those who subscribe to these ideas in principle are those who then campaign against any particular application of them. In that respect, green pressure groups are no different from the Liberal party.

    Mobile Homes
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the application of the council tax to mobile homes. [29782]
    Sir Paul Beresford: A mobile home that is someone's sole or main residence and that is stationed with a degree of permanence will, with its pitch, constitute a dwelling, chargeable for council tax.
    Mr. Barnes: Did the Minister see Chatsworth house in Derbyshire on the telly last night? It is rather larger than a mobile home owned by one of my constituents, which is worth £3,000 on the open market. Is it reasonable that the Duke of Devonshire, the owner, for some reason, of Chatsworth house, should pay only three times as much council tax as someone in a mobile home? Should there not be a much wider distinction between the two so that there is greater range and a greater number of bands is considered?
    Sir Paul Beresford: If in fact that is correct, I would be suspicious about the valuation because, of course, it is not the variety of property, but the capital value of the property, that counts.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that what lies behind the slightly bizarre supplementary question to him is that the Labour party wants to escalate the amount of council tax paid in the range referred to in the question? The question that arises in our minds, therefore, is what does Labour have in mind for people living in semi-detached and detached houses in my constituency. Is not the answer to that large bills—as has been let out of the bag today?
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend has touched on just one aspect of the escalating burden on the taxpayer at every level that Labour would place on people, if it ever had the power to do so.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: I wonder whether the Minister would like to try again? Is he really suggesting that, because the mobile home's capital value, at £3,000, is not very different from that of Chatsworth house, it therefore does not matter that Chatsworth house's owner pays only

    395
    three times as much council tax as the mobile home's owner? Why will the Minister not consider extending council taxes so that they become a more equitable way of paying for local government?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady seems to have missed the point that I was making, but that does not surprise me. We are talking about a simple system that is easily worked out. The banding was discussed. What she is asking for would involve dramatic changes, cost council tax payers very much more and complicate the system beyond what the general public could understand.

    Challenge Funding
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans for further rounds of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. [29783]
    Mr. Curry: Bidding guidance for the third round of the single regeneration budget was published on 29 March, and the deadline for outline bids is this Friday.
    Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are providing more than £2 million over four years to assist a scheme to revitalise the Mile Cross area of my constituency, providing extra jobs, extra training and many improvements to housing? Will he also confirm that he is monitoring carefully how the money is spent? Is he surprised that Labour-controlled Norwich city council rarely, if ever, gives any credit to the Government for this type of assistance?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is correct. He is referring to one of the very first single regeneration budget schemes. The city council is heavily involved in that scheme, which is revitalising an area of inter-war housing and involves £2.2 million and a further £7 million of public sector funds. The total spend will be more than £22 million. That is substance; it is delivering regeneration and other benefits on the ground—it is not merely presentation, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) appears to believe. Norwich city council is pleased with the scheme, and I am glad that it is now co-operating fully, as it should. We shall keep an eye on the situation.
    Mr. Garrett: Regardless of this particular scheme, is not the Minister aware that Norwich has suffered most grievously under this Government? It has faced massive cuts in allowable expenditure, it has had to sack people and close valuable recreational and other facilities, and it now faces a further cut of some £3 million. Does not the scheme about which the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) is boasting pale into insignificance when viewed against the long-term damage done by this Government to public services in Norwich?
    Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the way to achieve economic revitalisation is to allow a council to continue as one of the most extravagant over-spending councils in the country, he will no doubt wish to stick with Norwich council. If, however, he wants to use local authority, Government and private sector
    396
    money creatively and effectively for real regeneration, he can deliver it through the sort of scheme from which Norwich is now benefiting. Such schemes offer a much higher quality of spend and have the advantage of pulling in significant amounts of private sector investment, which would not be the case in a scheme run solely by the local authority.

    Housing
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage more local authorities to transfer their housing stock to alternative landlords. [29784]
    Mr. Clappison: Our successful voluntary housing transfer programme will continue with help for the poorer estates in the form of the estates renewal challenge fund.
    Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the Conservative group on Wyre borough council, which initiated the scheme that resulted in Wyre borough's entire housing stock being successfully transferred to the Wyre housing association after a successful ballot which revealed that the local Labour party was hopelessly split on the issue?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The group deserves congratulations, because the scheme will benefit tenants in the form of repairs, improvements and rent guarantees. However, it is not only on Wyre borough council that there seems to be a split in the Opposition ranks. Local housing companies offer an important opportunity to attract private finance, but an attack on such companies, in the form of amendments to the Housing Bill, seems to have been mounted by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in another place—at least, they sought to mount an attack until the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) put them under a curfew. We wait to see whether this is an example of old Labour being put under a curfew alongside 10-year-olds, 16-year-olds or whoever else Labour plans to treat in this way.
    Ms Walley: Is the Minister aware that former National Coal Board homes in my constituency were sold to private landlords—to such companies as Banana Bliss—who are now asking tenants to pay rent increases ranging from £28 to £50? Can he justify that? Can he provide us with guarantees on rent control in the light of the Spath Holme court case? What guarantees will there be for tenants of privately rented properties?
    Mr. Clappison: There is a rent guarantee in the case of transfers to housing associations or local housing companies, and tenants are aware of the situation. In all cases, the transfer is subject to tenants' approval, and a large majority of tenants—as in the case of Wyre—have given their approval.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does the Minister agree that it is deplorable how many council houses are left empty and boarded up? Should not they be sold off to landlords who would make the effort to let them—thereby housing the homeless?
    Mr. Clappison: There is a problem with some empty council stock. The performance of some councils, under certain political control, falls well below that of the best performance in other cases. If those councils—some of which are in east London, such as Hackney—could put their houses in order, they could provide housing for many more tenants.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recall that the Walterton and Elgin tenants in Westminster rightly sought to transfer their homes out of the control of Westminster city council, and that they are now replacing the asbestos-ridden slums of Westminster with decent quality housing for local people? Why are the Government therefore making it impossible for any organisation led by tenants to be registered as an approved social landlord in future? Why are they making impossible the very transfers they supposedly support?
    Mr. Clappison: Because, in the type of organisations with which we are concerned, it is very important that no single group, whether the council or tenants, should have such a majority. It is important that tenants should be represented. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the advantages that tenants across the country have taken through tenant management organisation to have a say in the running of their own estates. Those are reforms that we put in place, often opposed by the Labour party.

    Regional Government (Yorkshire)
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about regional government in Yorkshire. [29785]
    Mr. Curry: Local authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside have informed me of their proposals to establish a regional assembly of local councils.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the leader of my local, Labour-controlled council of Kirklees has admitted that the proposal to which my hon. Friend has referred is designed to be the forerunner of a full-blown regional assembly in the unlikely and unhappy event of a Labour Government being elected? Does he agree that the very last thing that Yorkshire folk want is more Government regulation, more politicians interfering and a new Labour white rose tax?
    Mr. Curry: I note that there is a large number of putative leaders of this regional assembly among Yorkshire Labour leaders. What a local authority decides to do within its existing powers and within its existing budget is entirely up to it. I am entirely opposed to the creation of a new tier of unwanted, unnecessary and bureaucratic local government, which will no doubt demand more power and more money. Such a structure would not create one extra job, educate one more pupil or export one additional item. It would be an utter waste of time, and I hope that such a silly idea will not be pursued.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not the case that if there had been regional government in Yorkshire, it would have handled the Yorkshire water crisis a lot better than did the Government?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is normally very sensible, and many of his suggestions contain a grain of common sense, but this one is inherently implausible.
    Mr. Michael Brown: May I tell my hon. Friend that, after spending 17 years in this place trying to get rid of the wretched county of Humberside, and succeeding, the last thing that we want is Humberside—let alone a Greater Yorkshire or Humberside—in the form of regional government?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend. I noted that he celebrated the demise of Humberside, as did the local authorities and people of Yorkshire, who had never found it responsive to their needs. The last thing that anyone wants is a surrogate Humberside under a new name and with even more pretensions.

    Westminster City Council
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to local authorities following the publication of Mr. John Magill's inquiry into Westminster city council. [29788]
    Mr. Curry: None.
    Mr. Ainger: Does that answer mean that the Minister believes that no other local authority in the country would sink to the depths of Westminster city council, which the auditor has found acted unlawfully, through its own wilful misconduct? Does he believe that, by acting as it did, and by removing the prospect of homes from the homeless while costing the ratepayers of Westminster £31.6 million, although the council may not have been acting illegally in his terms, its actions were morally wrong?
    Mr. Curry: My answer meant that the problem arose within Westminster city council, that the report was addressed to Westminster city council, and that it is up to Westminster to sort it out.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June. [29799]
    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. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister agree that Camelot's profits of £1 million a week, and the bonuses of £100,000 being paid to the directors, are simply unacceptable? Why can we not have a non-profit making lottery, as is generally the case in Europe? When shall we start giving money to good causes instead of lining the pockets of fat cats?
    The Prime Minister: Camelot's post-tax profits are less than 1p in the pound. Camelot has been extraordinarily successful, and the hon. Gentleman ought to be pleased about that, because his constituency has so far received £1.7 million in grants from the Sports Council, the Arts Council and the National Lottery

    399
    Charities Board. The more profitable Camelot is, the more money will be available in grants for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others.
    Mr. David Hunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although last night's decision on a partial lifting of the beef ban is a welcome move in the right direction, what we need is a clear framework for a total lifting of the ban?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. Yesterday's decision was a further step towards getting the ban lifted, and I am grateful to the Commission and to the increased number of member states that gave their support. We now look to the Commission to live up to its responsibilities and, by following normal procedures, lift the ban on beef derivatives. Of course, we seek not only a lifting of the ban on derivatives but a framework for a lifting of the whole ban—a ban that is not scientifically justified.
    Mr. Blair: I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the lifting of the ban on derivatives, but is the clear framework for lifting the whole ban that he seeks to achieve before the Florence summit to include a time scale—a time by which the ban is to be lifted?
    The Prime Minister: What we seek, what we are discussing with the Commission, and what my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are discussing with their colleagues in Europe, is a clear and staged process towards the complete lifting of the beef ban, based on science rather than on the irrational argument that has sustained the ban thus far. We have put our ideas to the Commission, and they are now under negotiation. At this stage, I do not wish to go into the details of the negotiation; I do not believe that it would be productive or in the interests of the beef industry to do so. We are looking for a proper framework that will allow a staged complete lifting of the ban, commencing as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Blair: I do not expect the Prime Minister to expose his hand on the precise time scale, but will a time scale be part of the negotiation, or not? Is that to form part of the framework, or not? Obviously the issue is when the ban will be lifted, so if a time scale is not to be part of the negotiation, what is the Prime Minister's expectation? Are we talking about months, the end of the year or a longer time scale?
    The Prime Minister: I said that it would be a staged lifting. We are certainly looking for the beginning of the staged lifting at an early date, but it will be dependent on events that are yet to be discussed with the European Union. It would not be in the interests of the agriculture industry for me to go into the details at this stage, although it is tempting. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and I appreciate that we are talking about the livelihoods of 650,000 people who are involved in the beef industry in this country, many more who are involved in the beef industry across Europe and, indeed, the basis of the European internal market. All that has been put at risk by the unjustified action of other member states. We want the ban to be lifted; we are discussing that in detail. As soon as I have more to report to the House, I shall do so.
    Mr. Blair: I am not clear whether the time scale is to form part of the negotiation. We know that the cost of just the 30-month cattle slaughter policy is about £2.5 billion over the next few years and that there will be additional costs because of other measures. Will the refunding of that cost—at present only about 25 or 30 per cent. is to be refunded—be part of the clear framework that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking?
    The Prime Minister: No. A refunding mechanism for the costs of slaughter has been in place for some time. We are not discussing that matter with the European Union. I am concerned about getting the ban lifted. The ban is not justified and ought to be lifted. On the basis of the science available, what the World Health Organisation has said and the information that we have already made available to our colleagues, there is not in my judgment—or in the judgment of many independent judges—a justification for the ban to continue. I am primarily concerned, as I have said, about the health and future of the British beef industry. That is the matter under negotiation with our European partners.
    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the disastrous loss earlier today of the first Ariane 5 space rocket. While it is still too early to be sure of the reasons for that loss, will he take the opportunity to confirm the Government's support for the international collaboration that keeps so many fine British companies at the forefront of international science and technology?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, no one is quite certain what happened in the distressing loss of the Ariane rocket. I have not had the opportunity, in the few minutes since the information came through, to determine precisely the scale of British involvement. My recollection is that our involvement in Ariane 5 is relatively modest, although I think that we sponsored one of the satellites on board which would have been lost. Certainly, whatever may have happened, there is a future for co-operation with our colleagues in Europe on that and other matters.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister's policy of declaring war on Europe has resulted in the partial lifting of a ban that everybody expected to be lifted completely even before the policy was adopted. Is it not perfectly clear that nothing has been achieved by that foolish policy that could not have been achieved without it? The cost to Britain has been lost respect and lost influence abroad, and a campaign by his Back Benchers and the press at home of ugly, petty xenophobia, which insults and demeans us all.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is just being plain silly. No one, as he so absurdly put it, has declared war on Europe. What I said when I announced the policy at this Dispatch Box was that we were not getting the co-operation in discussion on the important issue—important to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents as well as to mine—that we had a right to expect as members of the European Union. If good will is not shown to us, people must not expect us to show it in return. I am determined that the matter be properly and speedily examined so that we may, first, get a lifting of the beef derivatives ban, which now looks probable in the

    401
    very short term, and then a framework for a lifting of the complete ban. Exaggerated comments such as the right hon. Gentleman has just made achieve exactly what he accuses my hon. Friends of doing.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on his election as Prime Minister of Israel? Does he agree that, following the recent welcome discussions with Yasser Arafat and, given flexibility, good will and mutual understanding on both sides, there is no reason why the peace process should not continue?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate Mr. Netanyahu on his election. The United Kingdom has a better relationship with the state of Israel today than at any stage in the history of that state. I know that the new Prime Minister is determined that that will continue, and so am I. Since his election, the Israeli Prime Minister has made it clear publicly that he wants to continue the peace process and to honour the agreements that Israel has already reached. I welcome those objectives. The House may wish to know that I have already been in touch with the new Prime Minister and invited him to the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June. [29800]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Roche: I am sure that the Prime Minister will share my delight that one of last Saturday's jackpot winners is a resident of Hornsey and Wood Green. Will he encourage Camelot to give a fair share of its profits to good causes? Will he also admit that the Government were wrong to set up the lottery in such a way and that the pay of Camelot directors is another example of taking from the many and giving to the few?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I congratulate the hon. Lady's constituent and those bodies within her constituency that have benefited from the lottery. However, perhaps she has forgotten that Camelot was awarded a licence by the regulator because it convinced the regulator that it could deliver the maximum sum of money for good causes. That is the purpose of the lottery and Camelot has achieved it spectacularly well. It also makes substantial donations to charity.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield, I am very proud of the borough of Macclesfield and its achievement in the recent local elections? Will my right hon. Friend accept an invitation from me and the leader of the council, Councillor Mrs. Margaret Duddy, to visit Macclesfield, where he will receive a warm welcome for the principled leadership that he is giving the Government
    402
    and the Conservative party, and where he will see how a well-run and accountable local authority is warmly and very well supported by its local electorate?
    The Prime Minister: From what my hon. Friend tells us, Macclesfield is a example to us all. I certainly would be very happy to visit Macclesfield at an appropriate time, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not pin me down to a date.
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June. [29802]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacShane: Has the Prime Minister read reports that 77 Republican Congressmen voted to support President Clinton's move significantly to raise the minimum wage in the United States? As America has the best job creation record in the world, why will he not send Treasury Ministers to see their Republican colleagues to learn how a statutory minimum wage goes hand in hand with fair play and good job creation?
    The Prime Minister: There are very few similarities between the structure in the United States to create jobs and the policies that those on the Opposition Front Bench advocate, which would destroy jobs. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see job creation, he can see it here in the United Kingdom. He will not see it in those countries nearby that have a minimum wage and adhere to the social chapter.
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June. [29803]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who talk tough about fighting crime must understand that we need support measures to act tough? How can any party that opposes our proposals to set up secure training centres for juvenile criminals be taken seriously when talking about curbing juvenile crime?
    The Prime Minister: I very much regret that our proposals for dealing with juvenile criminals did not receive the support of the Opposition, and I am sure that the electorate will have noticed it. I suppose that Labour's recent proposals for curfews will be adopted for a short while by some Labour Members, but will be ditched after a decent interval. I am not sure that those proposals are workable, as I believe the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has suggested. I believe that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) has made some more scathing comments about the policy.

Quarantine
3.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision in respect of quarantine.
If asked about our quarantine regulations, the average person is likely to say that quarantine has kept us free from rabies, as such sentiments have become the received truth. The quarantine regulations have assumed the status of a comfort blanket in this country—they are solid and reassuring, rather like cricket and buttered crumpets. Down the years, the image has been created of an animal-loving and rabies-free nation, separated by a few miles of water from a continent seething with half-mad, vicious and slavering animals—and that is only the European Commissioners. Like so much of the jingoistic rubbish that one hears in this country, a critical examination of the situation reveals a different picture.
No live rabies virus has been isolated from the 1.75 million mammals imported into the United Kingdom since 1970, including 200,000 dogs and cats. There were two cases of rabies in imported dogs in 1983 and 1990, but in both cases the dogs had been infected deliberately and neither revealed any clinical symptoms. The only cases of active rabies brought into the United Kingdom during the past 17 years have been carried here by humans.
The defenders of the present system must answer this question—if no cases of rabies have been detected in quarantine in the past 25 years, why are we maintaining a quarantine system? The current policy is not scientifically led—it is based on prejudice and political expediency, and is more like voodoo than science. It is bad enough that the quarantine regulations are outmoded and unnecessary, but they cause genuine suffering to the animals that endure them and to owners forced to put their pets through the ordeal.
In the past 25 years, 170,000 families have put their pets through quarantine. As I have said, there have been no cases of rabies in quarantine during this period, yet 2,500 dogs have died in quarantine—about 10 animals a month. Some die after coming into contact with other animals in the kennels, which can be kept in fairly squalid conditions, while others simply die of loneliness. An animal that is parted from its loving family does not know that it is being put into quarantine, ostensibly for its own good—all it knows is that it has been dumped. It is not surprising that a number of those creatures unfortunately die.
Many die when they come out of quarantine, having picked up something during their incarceration. Judging by the standards of some kennels, that is not surprising. There is no statutory code covering quarantine kennels, but there is a voluntary code. But voluntary codes suffer from being unnecessary for the conscientious and useless for those who are not. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food approves kennels and makes quarterly visits, but it does so to check the security of the kennels and not to check animal welfare. The RSPCA has no right of access to kennels, and it is usually refused permission by the owners when it asks. It is not cheap to board out a pet in a quarantine kennel, since the kennel owners know that the owner has no option. The charges vary enormously—between £250 and £500 a month, or
404
between £1,500 and £3,000 for six months. Conditions in the kennels vary between good and atrocious, and kennel owners vary from the conscientious to the crooked. Little wonder, then, that outside this country our system is regarded as a gulag for animals.
My Bill would institute a statutory code, enforced by the RSPCA, whose officials would be able to enter premises and prosecute on animal welfare grounds when they think necessary.
There is a great deal of disquiet about the United Kingdom's quarantine regulations among pet owners here and abroad, and the pressure for rational change is becoming irresistible. Our Agriculture Select Committee produced a report in 1994 calling for an overhaul of the system. The Committee recognised that there was no sense in maintaining quarantine for pets coming from rabies-free countries, provided that such animals came with vaccination records and other health certificates. That is, in effect, the pet passport system used in rabies-free countries such as Sweden and Norway, both of which have been rabies free for longer than the United Kingdom.
During questions to the Prime Minister today, he rightly called for scientific evidence to be used as the basis for decisions. He said that there was good scientific evidence against a beef ban. But there is also excellent scientific evidence from the European Commission to the effect that the quarantine system in this country is not efficient. A letter from Directorate-General VI states:
"As you know, we have had a high-powered group of scientists who specialise in the rabies field look at the situation and their unanimous report recommends that the vaccination, chipping and testing of dogs and cats is just as good as quarantine for dogs and cats coming from the rest of the European Union … As far as we are concerned, that's that, and we have proposed this as a solution to our betters. However. politics have now entered the arena and we all know what happens when politicians don't accept scientific advice."
Both parties are being inconsistent. European Ministers are being inconsistent in the face of scientific advice with regard to the British beef ban; and this country is being inconsistent by maintaining quarantine regulations in the face of the best veterinary and scientific advice coming from the European Commission. Surely both parties should start being consistent.
Other countries have good rabies-free policies and have maintained them with pet passport systems. Australia and New Zealand are obvious examples; Japan is a rabies-free country and has no quarantine system.
The Swedish model offers a basis for advance. If a dog or cat is imported from an EU or European Free Trade Association country there are no quarantine requirements, provided that the animal has an import licence, an appropriate identification mark, a rabies vaccination and an antibody test and is accompanied by a vaccination certificate. For animals from outside such countries, quarantine is still a compulsory requirement. That is the model that the Select Committee recommended, with good scientific advice to back it up, but the Government threw out the recommendations.
I do not understand how we can keep this system and pretend that it really works. On top of the unnecessary cruelty of the system, there is the complete lack of consistency; it applies only to pets, not to animals brought here for sale. They require only the necessary licences and vaccination certificates, just like pet passports. There are

405
no quarantine requirements for all the cattle moving in and out of this country, or for the horses that do likewise. Yet because these are warm-blooded animals, they are all capable of carrying rabies.
The Government are spending about £700,000 a year on scaring the public while allowing traded animals to come here and move around freely without being subject to quarantine requirements. That is ridiculously inconsistent.
Responsible pet owners ensure that their pets are vaccinated against rabies—and they have to put their pets into quarantine kennels. It does not make sense. The regulations unfairly affect tens of thousands of British citizens who work abroad, including diplomats, those in the armed forces—many of whom are returning to the United Kingdom from Germany and are in a quandary about quarantine—and those employed by British multinationals. The system makes no sense and it needs to be changed. Norway and Sweden have pet passports and they are concerned about rabies. Pet passports should be introduced in this country, and my Bill seeks to amend our quarantine regulations accordingly.
3.39 pm
Mr.David Shaw: I oppose the Bill. Dogs take up much of the time of the House because they are an important issue. Rabies still exists in some parts of Europe. Quarantine is effective and it works. My constituents in Dover are concerned about quarantine: first, they would be in the front line if dogs were able to roam as soon as they landed from ships and, secondly, many would lose their jobs. There are three excellent quarantine kennels in my constituency that employ 50 people directly and probably 50 people indirectly in looking after dogs.
There are between 70 and 80 quarantine kennels throughout the country and they employ some 1,000 people. It is a small but worthwhile industry. The industry is important because the alternative methods of preventing rabies in this country do not necessarily work and cannot be guaranteed. Rabies still exists in parts of Europe. The Agriculture Select Committee's fifth report of 1995 stated:
"Rabies is a horrifying disease and Britain can be rightly thankful and proud of its rabies-free status."
However, rabies exists throughout the world. It is estimated that there are 30,000 cases of rabies each year in India. Although rabies was eradicated in the United Kingdom in 1903, it made a brief reappearance in 1918 and 1922. Indeed, rabid dogs have been kept in quarantine. In 1992, in Europe there were 2,769 confirmed cases of rabies: 2,047 foxes, 126 cats and 90 dogs.
Although the number of rabies cases in the European Union has decreased, it has not yet been eradicated. At the present time, the best hope is for possible eradication by the turn of the century. The eradication of rabies means that more foxes are in existence and, as a consequence, that rabies would be easier to transmit than ever before if there is ever another outbreak in Europe.
Quarantine worked effectively between 1922 and 1969. There were only 27 cases of rabies in quarantine and the dogs were not released from the kennels before they died. Quarantine has worked and it is not unreasonably expensive. The cost of quarantine is paid by the dog
406
owners. If it is a tax in any respect, it hits only the users of the service. If vaccination were used as an alternative to quarantine and if every dog in the country were vaccinated the cost would be enormously high. In addition, it would be almost impossible to police and to carry out.
The alternatives to quarantine do not work. Dogs have to be properly vaccinated before exposure to rabies and we cannot be certain that they will be properly vaccinated every time. Dogs have to satisfy a blood test before having a passport issued to them—if a pet passport is the proposed method. We have to check that that process takes place properly. One cannot be certain that a dog may be conclusively identified from its passport —some dogs, like some people, look alike. Under the passport system, dogs must have residency certificates but their accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The passport system requires owners to act honestly and in a disciplined manner. Owners would also incur additional expense.
In practice, the system would be adhered to only rarely. Many countries do not have reliable systems of enforcement. The House is often concerned that many of the laws passed by Brussels are not enforced properly. The introduction of pet passports, or Euro pet passports, to replace quarantine cannot be guaranteed to work. Only about a third of dogs in this country are licensed by their owners. Therefore, I do not believe that pet passporting would be adopted universally if the system were introduced.
Furthermore, the system may be illegal under European law as its enforcement would require the reintroduction of some form of border control. In Dover we are told perpetually that we cannot have border controls to prevent the smuggling of alcohol and other goods through customs. Therefore, I do not see how such controls could be reintroduced under the pet passport system.
Quarantine is enormously effective. It relies on an efficient licensing system, the proper transportation of animals by approved carriers and the notification of animals' arrival at a port. There is also a six-month observation period. For those reasons, quarantine is very good.
In conclusion, I oppose the Bill on the basis that there is no scientific case for relaxing quarantine. No scientific argument could guarantee that the United Kingdom would remain 100 per cent. rabies free if we were to abolish quarantine and introduce a system of pet passports. Therefore, I believe that the Bill should not be passed by the House.
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), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Simon Hughes, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Alan Meale, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. David Mellor.

QUARANTINE
Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision in respect of quarantine: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July 1996 and to be printed. [Bill 141].
Orders of the Day

  Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.48 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Government are firmly committed to the promotion of quality, diversity and choice across the whole of society, and our achievements in the field of education demonstrate the reality of that commitment. Raising standards, reporting to parents, placing requests, assisted places, school boards, the option of self-governing status and many more initiatives show that our record in that field stands squarely behind those aims.
  Many, if not most, of the now valued changes to Scottish education introduced by the Government were greeted initially with scepticism, if not hostility. I know that well. I think particularly of the five to 14 programme, national testing and of the Howie report. Many of the ideas that I promoted were said by Opposition Members to be totally unworkable, but those ideas are now accepted as uncontroversial and even embraced as part of the Opposition's programme. The Education (Scotland) Bill will further those ideas even more.
  The Bill has benefited from the special procedures introduced by the Government for handling Scottish legislation. As a result of the evidence presented at the Select Committee in Glasgow in March, a number of useful amendments were made to the Bill in Committee in another place.
  The Bill is a balanced package of measures, ranging from important improvements to our existing successful policies on school boards and placing requests to the restructuring of the qualifications and assessment arrangements in Scotland and measures that will facilitate the implementation of our policies on pre-school education.
  Our commitment to standards underlies our plans for improving qualifications for the over-16 age group. "Higher Still" will deliver a unified curriculum and assessment for that age group from 1998. It will create a coherent, unified qualifications system that incorporates both the academic and vocational strands of learning. It will improve the quality of education available to all students whether they are in school or further education. It will also promote parity of esteem between different branches of learning, enabling Scotland to bridge the academic and vocational divide. That is an objective we share with almost all other western industrial nations, but in Scotland we can soon convert that to reality.
  "Higher Still" strengthened the case for creating a unified organisation for assessment and certification. Consultation last year showed strong and widespread support for a new single body to incorporate existing functions and to manage "Higher Still". Part I of the Bill will set up such a body. The Scottish Qualifications Authority, or SQA, will take over the existing functions
  408
  and assets of the Scottish Examination Board, or SEB, and the Scottish Vocational Education Council—SCOTVEC. It will also administer the "Higher Still" qualifications.
  The SQA will build on the high reputations of the existing bodies to improve the quality of Scottish qualifications and enhance their status abroad. It will be responsive to all those who use its services. We are determined to improve the quality and standards in Scottish education. That area is vital to all those involved in education and training, including teachers, students and employers.
  I turn now to the provisions in part II. I am delighted to have this opportunity to explain the Government's policy on the expansion of pre-school education in Scotland. Our approach to this initiative is driven by careful forward planning, widespread consultation, and commitment to parent choice, educational quality, diversity of provision and value for money.
  The Government's policy of expanding pre-school education has been welcomed throughout Scotland, and the case in principle for more pre-school education is already clear. The benefits to children, first and foremost, as well as to their parents are well recognised and not in dispute.
  There were more than 170 responses to the consultation we carried out last autumn. All endorsed the principle of more pre-school provision.
  Mr. George Robertson: Of the 170 representations made to the Secretary of State, how many endorsed vouchers as a method of expanding nursery education?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman might be patient. He is correct to say that serious reservations were expressed by some of the old Labour interests in Scotland about the principle of giving parents choice. Some people, such as the hon. Gentleman himself, would much prefer a system that dictates to parents rather than allows them to decide for themselves what is appropriate.
  Our preparations for full implementation of the voucher initiative will be greatly assisted by a thorough and comprehensive consideration of the operational details. I can announce to the House today that a team from Stirling university has been appointed to carry out the evaluation.
  Mr.Michael Connarty: Answer the question.
  Mr. Forsyth: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have appreciated the fact that his alma mater will undertake the task, but I am not sure that he is a great advertisement for its achievements.
  Mr. Connarty: As I am a member of the university's governing body, it seems happy to have me—and to report to me every year, as one of the local Members of Parliament. The Secretary of State's disparaging remark was unnecessary. However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being so munificent, in placing the evaluation with a university that will be in the Ochil constituency after the next general election, not that of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Forsyth: That is true, but despite the Labour party's gerrymandering, I intend to represent Stirling for

  409
  the foreseeable future. I hope that it will not be long before Stirling university is back where it should be—in the Stirling constituency.
  Part II will, for the first time, give all parents freedom of choice in pre-school education—a chance for all to gain access to good-quality pre-school education and unparalleled diversity of provision. It will add up to £30 million of new public money each year to perhaps the most vital area of education—that of our youngest children.
  In a process beginning this August, parents in North Ayrshire and East Renfrewshire, and in parts of Highland and of Argyll and Bute, will be able to choose where their pre-school children will be educated, confident of their entitlement to vouchers of the value of £1,100. One year later, parents across Scotland will have that choice.
  Vouchers are a straightforward and effective way of seeing that services are client led and responsive to individual needs and preferences.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: What advice has the Secretary of State been given by his officials about the voucher system's administrative costs? Is it correct that £200 or £300 out of every £1,100 will be swallowed up by administration costs?
  Mr. Forsyth: It would be correct to say that the cost is about 2 per cent.—which is low.
  Mr.Worthington indicated dissent.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman might like to consider how much is spent by local authority headquarters before money actually reaches the classroom.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On the subject of one's alma mater, my clear recollection is that the Secretary of State once argued for a voucher system for not just nursery education but primary, secondary and tertiary education. Is that still the right hon. Gentleman's position? If not, when did he stop believing in that policy?
  Mr. Forsyth: I have long argued for an extension of parental choice. This may not have happened with the hon. Gentleman but as most of us grow older, we take a more realistic view of the world and combine our idealism with practicality. The sort of idealism for which I spoke in St. Andrews in those days is now embraced throughout the world—we have seen the success of privatisation. The hon. Gentleman and his party find themselves isolated with their rather left-wing views. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the success of a Labour council in Fife in introducing vouchers for people involved in training, which is a form of tertiary education. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that he has lost the argument on extending parental choice. He no longer has the courage, as he had at St. Andrews, to argue against the vouchers that have been so successful for training in Fife and elsewhere.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As I grow older, I not only take a more realistic view of the world but of how wool can be pulled over the eyes of hon. Members. May we be given, in the wind-up, some actual figures of how
  410
  much the voucher system will cost? The Department must have notional figures of the cost per voucher. If such a figure is not available, that is a disgrace to the Scottish Education Department.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman can have it in the winding-up speech, but I have just given the House the figure. It is 2 per cent. of the cost.[Interruption.] Each voucher is £1,100, and 2 per cent. of £1,100 is £22. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
  As the hon. Member for Linlithgow gets older, he continues to ask important questions. I wish that his friends on the Opposition Front Bench would answer the famous West Lothian question, which is so much a part of the vital debate in Scotland. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Dumbarton does not want me to talk about these matters, but they are extremely important in the context of education, because our ability—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that this is nonsense. We have pilots in place. They will be evaluated. Thank goodness we have some Labour and Liberal councils that are prepared to put parental interest and choice before dogma, which is more than I can say for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend should welcome the interest from Opposition Members about the administrative costs of providing education at all levels, because it is important that the House examines carefully what the administrative costs were, for example, at local authority level and in the universities and elsewhere. Then we can judge whether they are on to a good thing.
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not hear the Opposition complain about the idea of vouchers for skill seekers. Skill-seeker opportunities, which are client led, have transformed the way in which young people make training choices. Why do the Opposition not complain about choice in that area? The voucher mechanism applied to pre-school education will put the real power of choice in the hands of parents, which is where it should be.
  Mr. George Robertson: Let us go back to the administrative cost. Perhaps the junior Minister will give the right hon. Gentleman the answer. It is estimated that, in England and Wales, the cost per voucher of administration is £264. How on earth does he expect anybody to take seriously a figure per voucher of £22, which is barely likely to cover the cost of the postage involved in administering the scheme?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should watch my lips. The voucher system will cost £70 million. The administrative costs will be 2 per cent. of that. The figures that he quoted for England have been demolished by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not answer for England. If the hon. Gentleman is reduced to scrabbling around with figures that the National Audit Office has discredited, he is in a desperate situation. He should talk to his colleagues in the Labour party who have given the people whom they represent the opportunity of choice in nursery education by introducing a voucher pilot. In Stirling, only the other day someone came to my

  411
  surgery, asking, "Why are we not able to get vouchers here?" The answer to that is because the Labour council puts dogma before the interests of parents.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I give way to the hon. Lady, the champion of precisely such dogma.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Secretary of State for that recognition.
  On idealism giving way to practicality, if the right hon. Gentleman's notional ideal of a voucher system is proved by the pilot schemes to be unworkable and useless, will he give up the idea, or will he still insist on imposing it on parents, who prefer local authority education and have said so clearly?
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall do a deal with the hon. Lady. If she will give up all the ideas that are unworkable and useless and which are part of her party's programme, I shall certainly give that commitment, which I would freely give any way. The Government have never been attached to any policies that are unworkable and useless. [Laughter.] The rate at which—if I can be heard above the hilarity on the Opposition Front Bench—her party is ditching its own policies, to which she has committed her lifetime in politics supporting, must be of considerable alarm to her.
  Mr.Connarty rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  In the pilot areas, both providers of pre-school education and parents are showing their enthusiasm for the voucher initiative in a practical way—in a workable way, I must tell the hon. Member for Maryhill. Already, 3,889 voucher application forms have been sent to parents in the pilot areas, and more than 72 per cent. have been returned. Moreover, 71 centres in the voluntary and private sectors have applied to be newly recognised as education providers and admitted into the voucher system. I am sorry that Opposition Members are disappointed by that good news. I expected them to welcome the news from the front that our scheme is working well.
  The helpline that handles inquiries from parents and providers has fielded many calls from people all over Scotland wanting information and demanding to know when they will be eligible to receive vouchers.
  Mr. James Wallace rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I listened to the hon. Gentleman on the radio this morning.
  Mr. Wallace: I am glad that I had an audience. What answer would the right hon. Gentleman give to a parent in the Western Isles asking for a nursery voucher, when there is no nursery education provision in the Western Isles? How can that parent do anything with that voucher?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure that the House has been listening to what I have been saying. I said that in respect
  412
  of the pilot schemes, 71 centres in the voluntary and private sectors have applied to be newly recognised. If we give people purchasing power, the market will provide to meet their needs. For those in the Western Isles—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has someone helping him out in his duties. For those in the Western Isles, this is an additional resource over and above what is available to the education authority. It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. Member for Western Isles oppose a scheme that would give money for nursery education to their constituencies. Does the hon. Member for Western Isles wish to argue against that? No.
  Those who understand the great potential benefit of vouchers, such as the Scottish Consumer Council, have been quick to endorse our approach. They realise that vouchers will put real purchasing power into the hands of thousands of parents for the first time. They also understand a very simple truth—that strengthening demand stimulates supply
  In East Renfrewshire, the benefits of the voucher system are already apparent. A partnership involving the public, private and voluntary sectors has been established and is working very well; so well, in fact, that its members are confident that between them they will be able to provide a place for every child in East Renfrewshire in their pre-school year from the start of the voucher system in August for the first time ever—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) is listening. Perhaps it is because she does not know the facts that she continues to oppose the scheme.
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: Do not get so upset.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am not upset; I am delighted that, for the first time ever, from August there will be a place for every child in East Renfrewshire. The hon. Lady has been going up and down Scotland saying that that could not be achieved. The scheme is working and it is appreciated.
  The East Renfrewshire partnership is a shining example of what can be achieved. New places across all sectors are being brought on stream. It is no wonder that parents in East Renfrewshire, and in all the other pilot areas, have so enthusiastically responded to the issue of voucher application forms.
  It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would today make his views clear. Does he support giving Scotland's parents more power to choose the right pre-school education for their children? The approach taken in another place and in public debate gave us cause to doubt the Opposition's commitment to parents and choice. This is the moment when the hon. Gentleman can repent and make it clear whether he stands by choice and the interests of parents.
  It seems that the Opposition believe that choice should be made by public officials rather than by the public. Do they think that people should be told what they should have, rather than choose for themselves? I have to tell the House that I do not believe that it is right that parents should be told what to do by officials. Parents know their children best and understand best what sort of pre-school education they need. This Government stand for choice and for the rights of parents.
  Mr. George Robertson: In that case, what about choice? The English system is moving ahead more

  413
  quickly so we can test some of the right hon. Gentleman's assertions. Why is it that the Minister with responsibility for schools said in England on 9 January:
  "It is impossible to say that every single four-year-old will have a place."
  The Department for Education and Employment information pack says that there is
  "no cast iron guarantee of a place until new places are introduced in response to parental demand."
  Are we saying that a choice will be available for everyone, or will it be the usual Hobson's choice of this Government:whatever the right hon. Gentleman says is the choice?
  Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Gentleman is having some difficulties these days and has been hiding from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on the tartan tax issue. I did not think that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was hiding in England and I do not know why we are being told about the position in England. This debate is on Scottish education and I have just told the House that in East Renfrewshire, where we have the first pilot, every child will be guaranteed a place. Why is the hon. Gentleman raising these red herrings? The system is up and working. It is successful in Scotland. Labour authorities are piloting it. I asked him to give a commitment to say that he supported choice. I gave way to him and we still await that commitment. He believes that bureaucrats, and not parents, should decide what is good for people.
  Mrs. Liddell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I give way to the hon. Lady on one condition: that she tells me whether she supports parents' right to choose.
  Mrs. Liddell: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will advise parents of children in a nursery school that serves East Renfrewshire and that is run by Mrs. Valerie White. Five children from East Renfrewshire are in her nursery school and four of their younger siblings are due to attend the nursery school. Because of inadequate forward planning in trying to get the pilot scheme off the ground before the general election to try to save the seat of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), Mrs. White is about to lose £40,000 a year as the vouchers cannot be applied to her nursery school. What advice would the right hon. Gentleman give to parents of Mrs. White's pupils?
  Mr. Forsyth: The advice that I would give Mrs. White is to have nothing to do with the hon. Lady and her party because, for vouchers to be extended beyond the existing boundaries of the pilot schemes, we need another Conservative Government, who will introduce vouchers for the whole of Scotland. If the hon. Lady and her friends ever get into power, there will be no vouchers and we will be back to the position that I had in my constituency surgery on Friday, with a parent telling me that her child had been denied a place because the child's name did not come out of a hat as she was not a single parent.
  That is the difference. Labour offers the choice of the lottery of names out of a hat and priority to single parents, whereas we the Conservatives offer choice for all and
  414
  parents the freedom to choose what is right for their children. The hon. Lady should stop throwing stones, come clean and admit to the House and to the people of Scotland that she is opposed to parents being empowered and given choice in this area.
  Mr. Connarty: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Connarty: I ask a very simple question. Is the Secretary of State willing to say that he endorses the view of Stirling's nursery provision that he has just described, or is it the belief just of his constituent? Is he saying that Stirling discriminates in favour of single parents and against people who are not?
  Mr. Forsyth: Of course I am saying that. I believe that it is called a social strategy.
  Mr. Forsyth: That was the position before Stirling council.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that that was the position before Stirling. If it has changed, that is the first benefit of the change to single unitary authorities. It was a disgraceful policy. A parent at my surgery on Friday was a victim of that. What does the hon. Gentleman say to a child whose colleagues and friends have a nursery place, but who does not have such a place because his name did not come out of a hat? What happens when he goes to primary school? Under our proposal, every parent with children in the year before—
  Mr. Worthington: It is a total disgrace.
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree. Under our proposal, every parent will have choice.
  Let me spell it out. At a time when government is becoming ever more complex, it is more incumbent on democrats than ever before to remember that the Government exist to serve people, not people to serve the Government. The Opposition do not seem to have grasped the breadth of the voucher initiative. On the contrary, bound up in their concern to fossilise present arrangements, they focus on a narrow set of issues and seek to deny parents the benefit of the expansion in opportunity that our policy would bring. They have concentrated on worrying people with mischievous talk of high costs and poor-quality provision—myths of their own invention. [Interruption.].The hon. Member for Hamilton is still banging on about how expensive it will be to run. A management company will administer the system at a very low unit cost, with all the economies of scale that national operation offers. Indeed, the cost of issuing and redeeming the vouchers will be less than 2 per cent. of the total voucher programme. When the Opposition hear of the efficiency of the voucher process, they say that it is too complicated for parents. Would the Opposition really have us believe that Scottish parents are incapable of signing an application form and posting it back? It would certainly go with a belief that parents are too inadequate to choose their children's pre-school education. Both beliefs are equally insulting.

  415
  My greatest difficulty with what the Opposition have been saying—and, clearly, their greatest difficulty in understanding the nature of the proposals—relates to the quality of provision. It is scaremongering of the worst kind, and the hon. Member for Monklands, East in particular should be ashamed of herself. However, her treatment of this issue is on a par with her other policy initiatives—or lack of them—on education.
  Earlier this year, the hon. Lady published a document pretentiously entitled "Every Child is Special: a Compact for Scotland's Future". Hon. Members might regard me as ungallant if I described her document as "empty-headed" and said that it
  "showed a paucity of thought",
  but they are not my words—they are the criticisms of it by the Educational Institute of Scotland, which should be her natural ally but which quickly discerned how little powder there was in the hon. Lady's compact.
  We have made it clear from the very beginning that we are committed to quality. The voucher initiative will introduce for the very first time a system of quality assurance that will apply to all providing centres, whether they are from the public, private or voluntary sectors. The voucher initiative will represent the first ever comprehensive assurance of quality in respect of all pre-school education provision. We have no interest in subsidising poor-quality provision.
  Non-school centres will have to complete an initial quality test to the satisfaction of the inspectorate before being admitted to the system. All centres will be subject to regular and rigorous inspection by HMI of the quality of education they provide. These measures will give parents a guarantee of quality in respect of any centre participating in the voucher initiative.
  Mr. Worthington rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I have been very generous in giving way. Oh, very well; I give way.
  Mr. Worthington: I greatly appreciate the Secretary of State's generosity. As there is to be an important quality assurance, will he tell us how many of the inspectorate will be involved—[Interruption.] Perhaps it would be easier if the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), gave him the answer. How many of the inspectorate will be involved in quality assurance before the voucher scheme gets under way?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend to give him the answer, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will do so when he winds up. However, the answer is that we shall be recruiting two new people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two?"]—to supplement the existing considerable resources of the inspectorate for this purpose. All centres will be subject to regular and rigorousߞ[Interruption.] Opposition Members sit there mocking, but they are quite happy to have Labour councils running nursery provision which is not subject to inspection at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members will have to get their facts right. If they think that there is going to be a problem with inspection because
  416
  of the additional nurseries that are not in the local authority sector, that is hardly consistent with their arguments that problems will arise as a result of the nursery voucher scheme. They should stop making up the criticisms as they go along.
  Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman has touched on quality. The profile of education provision, which I think has been sent to all those registering, contains the suggestion—indeed, it is a requirement—that they consider the guidance and good practice set out for children with special educational needs. I am sure that we all agree that that is important. Does the Secretary of State accept that the amount of the voucher may have to be greater for children with special educational needs if adequate provision is to be made?
  Mr. Forsyth: It is an important matter although no one has yet argued that case in the pilot schemes. However, I am prepared to consider the matter in the light of our experience with the pilots. There are arguments to be made for both sides, including that of stigmatising children with particular learning needs. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the matter, which I shall examine closely in the light of our experience with the pilot schemes.
  It is not concern over quality that agitates Opposition Members, it is concern over choice. Choice is anathema to them. Labour writhes in discomfort every time anyone makes a personal choice in any sphere of life instead of abdicating decision-making to the State.
  We are also putting effort into developing more fully the curriculum for children in their pre-school year. We will be consulting on that matter shortly.
  Today I can also tell the House that I am committing £400,000 over two years to pre-five development officers. Their job will be to support the pre-five initiative and, in particular, to help providers in the voluntary and private sectors to achieve required quality standards. During the pilot year, and in the light of experience, I shall also be considering the need for further action on staff training and qualifications.
  I turn now to part III of the Bill, clauses 28 to 31, with schedule 4, which amend the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. School boards represent a successful partnership between parents, teachers and the wider community. They work well in the interests of their schools and of the pupils who attend them. In their short existence since 1989, school boards have become an established and successful part of our education system.
  We want to build on that success. I am delighted to say that the legislation generally works well, but this Bill brings in a number of useful improvements in the light of practical experience and after wide consultation.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I know that the Secretary of State sees a rosy picture when looking at how school boards are working. He talks about parental choice, but may I remind him that parents are voting with their feet and that school boards are not being formed—even at his former school, Arbroath high school? School boards do not exist in those schools because parents do not agree with his philosophy, and they did not want his policy in the first place.
  Mr. Forsyth: My philosophy is that parents have choice. If they do not want to have a school board, they

  417
  do not have a school board. But the vast majority of schools have a school board, and school boards have been very successful. It is extraordinary for a party that argues for self-determination to have a policy against self-determination in schools. Apparently there should be self-determination only at a country level.
  The Bill simplifies electoral procedures, makes it easier for parents to join a school board and generally tidies up provisions.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; as he said, he has been generous. In his criticism of Opposition Members and of our position on school boards, he said that we are against the devolution of responsibility to school boards. Is not he risking having his integrity called into doubt by criticising Opposition Members for wanting to devolve power to the people of Scotland?
  Mr. Forsyth: I do not criticise the people of Scotland for anything. If the people of Scotland want to vote for independence or for a tax-raising parliament that would destroy the Union, they are entitled to do so. It is my job to warn them of the dangers. I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has come into the Chamber, because I understand that some of those arguments are finding some force and are being embraced in certain sections and at senior levels of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has been placed in a very unfortunate position, and I hope that the hon. Member for Garscadden will come to his rescue on that matter.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Are not the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) absolutely wrong? The devolved assembly to which he referred would suck up all the responsibilities that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to pass down to local authorities and to parents, through school boards.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure that such a parliament would do anything but put up taxes and do a lot of talking. If we are not going to have the tartan tax—which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) expressed concern about this morning on the radio; it is the first time that I have heard a politician complaining in an interview that it might not be possible to raise extra taxes, and that that was a matter of alarm for the Scottish people—that parliament will only be a glorified wind machine.
  I turn now to part IV. Clause 32 amends the placing request provision in section 28A of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. The placing request system enables parents as of right to choose their children's school. For our schools and our country to be successful, schools must be sensitive to the needs of children, they must be responsive to the wishes of parents and they must provide their pupils with the skills and knowledge that industry and commerce require.
  Parental choice is a catalyst in schools achieving those goals and helps parents to fulfil their aspirations for their children. Since the legislation on placing requests was introduced in 1981, the policy has been extremely successful. We want that success to continue, and will do nothing to detract from the underlying principle that parental choice should be maximised.
  418
  Currently, places may not be reserved for children who are likely to move into the area served by a school after the usual cut-off date for decisions on admissions. That has caused problems, as I know well from experience in my own constituency with the very successful Balfron high school.
  Under clause 32, a local authority will in certain circumstances be able to refuse a placing request for a child living outwith the catchment area of a school if accepting the request would prevent it from retaining places for incomers to the catchment area.
  An authority will be able to retain only places that would reasonably be required to accommodate incomers, and will be able to do so only where there is no other equivalent school under its management within reasonable walking distance of the school for which the placing request has been made. We shall also have the long-stop power of prescribing the maximum number of places that may be retained. The change to the current rules has been tightly drawn to ensure that the placing request system continues to maximise parental choice.
  The Bill will undoubtedly improve quality and choice. Those are the key themes in the Government's overall programme, and we are determined to pursue all avenues to improve quality and choice. I therefore announce today that I intend to take the opportunity presented by the Bill to extend the existing power to regulate testing, which at present applies only to primary schools, to secondary schools, so that pupils in S1 and S2 and their parents can benefit from the advantages of national testing as quickly as possible.
  National testing in Scotland is the regular and systematic appraisal of pupils' progress in the light of nationally agreed standards in reading, writing and mathematics. It is an integral part of the five-to-14 programme, and provides vital information for teachers and parents. The system is now well established in primary schools, to the benefit of teachers, parents and pupils alike.
  Unfortunately, once a pupil moves to secondary school the system breaks down, because some authorities and schools do not consider that they need to carry out their responsibilities in that respect. As a result, parents can no longer count on receiving information on the progress of their children as they have come to expect, teachers no longer have the opportunity to confirm their assessment of the level attained by each child, and no one has the evidence to evaluate how successful teaching and learning has been in adding educational value to a pupil's experience in the important first two years of secondary school.
  In the first six months of last year, no child in a secondary school in Tayside was tested in mathematics, reading or writing; only 1 per cent. were tested in reading in Lothian, and only 1 per cent. in maths in Grampian. Indeed, in the whole of Scotland only 6 per cent. of pupils were tested in mathematics and reading, and only 4 per cent. in writing. That is completely unacceptable.
  The appalling lack of progress in introducing national testing in secondary schools has made it imperative that action be taken immediately. I therefore intend to introduce amendments in Committee to require external testing in mathematics, reading and writing. That will allow competence in those subjects at S1 and S2 to be established. I shall consult shortly on the details.

  419
  It is time to put testing into perspective. For too long the hysterical opposition of doctrinaire egalitarians has created a bogey out of that most natural and essential educational procedure, the objective assessment of a child's abilities and progress. Even parents have been brainwashed into imagining that testing is sinister. To attempt to educate a pupil without testing is as absurd as running a business without keeping accounts.
  Mr. Welsh: Surely the Secretary of State cannot pretend that parents do not already know how their children are progressing educationally. With all the parent-teacher meetings and constant assessment, parents know exactly how their children are progressing. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants choice, but it appears that the only choice is to be, "You'll take what the Government give you." If he really wants choice for parents, why does he not ask them whether they want testing? Why does he not ask the professionals in education? Parents know how their children are progressing, and they certainly do not want to return to some of the worst aspects of past systems.
  Mr. Forsyth: As I said, we have to put up with a certain amount of hysteria, and we have just heard some of that from the hon. Gentleman. The fact of the matter is that all parents want to ensure that their children are given the best opportunities in school. Testing enables difficulties to be identified at an early stage and remedial action to be taken. That is why we are determined to introduce a system for national testing.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister has just been emphasising the value that he places on choice. If it is the choice of the parents of the pupils that he has been describing that their children should not be submitted to testing, will that choice be given effect?
  Mr. Forsyth: We are proposing a national system of testing that will be externally applied. Whether parents are not prepared to allow their children to take part in the testing is of course a matter for them. I am determined that in every school in Scotland there should be an opportunity for children to be tested. [Interruption.] Is it not amazing? We hear from the Leader of the Opposition and from Opposition spokesmen in England how the Labour party believes in testing and that we must have objective standards. Yet whenever we announce such a measure for north of the border, Labour Members make it clear that old Labour is alive and kicking. There is a belief in the Labour party and among Liberal Democrats north of the border, and indeed in the Scottish National party, that objective standards should not be applied.
  Mr. John McFall: We are asking not about ideology but precision of language. If we on the Opposition Front Bench heard the Minister correctly in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), he said that testing will not be compulsory. Is that correct?
  Mr. Forsyth: It will be a matter of statute that the tests will have to be applied in Scotland's schools. The hon.
  420
  and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked about parents who felt that their children should not sit the tests, just as there are parents who feel that their children should not sit standard grades or highers. There is always the option not to do so, but that would obviously not be in the child's interest. I would have thought that that was perfectly clear. Will the hon. Member for Hamilton tell me whether the Labour party welcomes the opportunity for testing in Scotland's schools, in line with the rhetoric that we have heard from Labour Members? I would happily give way. There he sits; this is the modern Labour party, all rhetoric—
  Mr. George Robertson rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way.
  Mr. Robertson: What is the Secretary of State proposing? He has told us about amendments that are not being tabled today. Is he proposing voluntary compulsory testing or compulsory voluntary testing? He was run out of Scotland the last time he tried this game because Scottish parents do not want the sort of testing about which he is talking to be imposed on the system.
  Mr. Forsyth indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robertson: He was drummed out of Scotland. On an earlier occasion, an accommodation was reached on testing in Scottish schools to which his successor agreed. That has stood the test of time. Will there be voluntary compulsory testing or will a system be imposed irrespective of parents' wishes?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that only 6 per cent. of children being tested in secondary schools in Scotland shows that the system has stood the test of time. He has a nerve to lecture me on the success of our education policies. I ask him to read the Leader of the Opposition's speeches and what his party's education spokesman has to say about testing. We have won the argument on testing and it is high time that the hon. Member for Hamilton stopped pretending that it is possible to argue that parents should have objective assessments of their children's standards of attainment south of the border, but that somehow in Scotland they should not. He is in hock to the Educational Institute of Scotland and the teaching unions that dictate his party's policy on such matters.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton knows perfectly well what I have said. Tests will be organised externally by the Scottish Qualifications Authority which all children in Scotland will be required to sit. The tests will be marked externally and the results will be reported to the parents. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked a straight question on whether we would insist that children whose parents did not wish them to take the tests would have to do so, and I answered him fairly and squarely that we would not.
  Mr. Dalyell: What figures does the Minister have for the external marking of S1 and S2 testing? How much will it cost?
  Mr. Forsyth: That will depend on the nature of the tests and the way in which they are implemented. I shall

  421
  be consulting on that and I should be grateful for any advice from the hon. Gentleman. However, the costs of not identifying children who have difficulties with the three Rs and addressing those difficulties at an early stage are too high for any society to pay. That is why we are determined to tackle the problem.
  The Opposition's education policy is second only to their devolution policy in disarray, impracticality and contradictions. There have been seven reforming Education Acts since 1979—expanding parental choice and diversity of provision. Labour voted against them all.
  The Opposition's record in Government was appalling. Under the last Labour Government, spending on education fell by £1.6 billion and spending on universities fell by 12.6 per cent.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am becoming increasingly curious about the following matter. Throughout his speech, the Secretary of State was understandably relying on copious notes. Of course, he is perfectly entitled to all the advice of his civil servants, but he was obviously using those copious notes to make tendentious remarks about Labour party policy. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to use Scottish Office civil servants to produce such a script? If he said that it was produced by central office or his own resources, that would be quite acceptable. I asked about—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have been rather tolerant with the hon. Gentleman. It was fairly obvious from the earlier part of his intervention that his point of order was not a matter for the Chair, and it did not get any better as he continued.
  Mr. Forsyth: Given his close association with the last Labour Government, I understand why the hon. Gentleman should find it painful for me to read out their record in education. As he interrupted me, I shall repeat those points for his benefit.
  Under the last Labour Government, spending on education fell by £1.6 billion and spending on universities, which are dear to the hon. Gentleman's heart, fell by 12.6 per cent. in real terms. The number of full-time students in higher education fell and teachers' pay rose by just 6 per cent. in real terms—just one fifth of the increase under the present Government.
  Today, Opposition Members are totally incoherent on education issues, as was witnessed by their response on testing, to which they keep telling us their party is committed. They want to abolish child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education, or at least the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) wants to do that, but he is not very well informed. He claimed that 80 per cent. of the children of unskilled parents leave school at 16. That was true back in the dark ages of the last Labour Government. Today, thanks to the policy of the present Government, fewer than half the children of unskilled parents leave school at 16. However, the hon. Gentleman's blunder could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If he came to power and abolished child benefit, those
  422
  children would leave education prematurely as they did in the bad old days. What passes for Labour education policy is scribbled on the back of an envelope.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that all this guff should have been written by Scottish Office civil servants?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is vastly experienced in the House. He knows full well that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Forsyth: To describe the record of the last Labour Government as guff is astonishing—even for the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) wants to give teachers a sabbatical year out of the classroom. The cost of that would be £4.96 billion. He recently commended traditional methods in education. I agree. Let me remind the House what those methods are: discipline, setting and, above all, testing. It really is time for Opposition Members to give the soundbites a rest and engage in some hard thinking.
  One of the greatest Conservative Prime Ministers memorably said that the youth of a nation are the trustees of posterity. That is still the belief of Conservatives in Government. We know that there is no more important responsibility than moulding the values and skills of the new generations. But we do not assume that we should arrogate to ourselves that vital task—it is primarily the responsibility of parents and, secondarily, of teachers. The Government have a duty to provide the environment and the resources, but the important decisions belong in the family. Our role is empowerment, and that is the enlightened path that education globally will take in the new millennium.
  For the generation of Scots who will inherit that millennium, the Bill is a further enabling measure. It is about quality, diversity and choice—themes at the heart of everything we do in education. The establishment of the Scottish Qualifications Authority will improve quality and promote parity of esteem in the later stages of school and beyond. My announcement today about tests in S1 and S2 will improve standards in the earlier age group. Choice and diversity are at the heart of the pre-school vouchers initiative. The amendments to the legislation on school boards will simplify and improve the way in which boards work. The amendments on placing requests will ensure that children can secure a place at a local school.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords]because it makes provision to implement the introduction of nursery vouchers for Scottish nursery education, an innovation which is educationally unsound, administratively wasteful and socially divisive."
  The Secretary of State's extremely long-winded speech—lasting more than 50 minutes—showed that the Bill is about nursery vouchers. It does not really say that, of course, but pretends to deal with largely uncontroversial and consensual Scottish issues, including

  423
  the introduction of the new Scottish Qualifications Authority—another quango, with three quarters of its places in the sole gift of the Secretary of State.
  The Bill tinkers with the school boards system, making changes that are almost as irrelevant as the boards themselves. It introduces a change in the law on placing requests, in a vain attempt to help the Secretary of State get re-elected in Stirling. The fact is, however, that, although vouchers are referred to in only 16 words in the long title of the Bill and five clauses within it, the Bill is about the introduction of yet another failed, discredited and doomed ideological experiment into Scottish education.
  We came to the House today to listen to the Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill, but we have been told that a major feature of the legislation is to be introduced without notice and without the House being told in advance anything about the Government's intentions. We are seeing the return of the failed policies of the former Minister of State, Scottish Office, including compulsory testing—except, thanks to his apparent confusion, it is to be compulsory, semi-voluntary testing.
  That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman said the last time he attempted to introduce such measures into the Scottish education system. This time, however, his approach is incoherent, irrelevant, spur-of-the-moment, ill-thought-out and uncosted—on top of all the other problems he experienced last time.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Why does Labour think that testing in schools in England is right, but testing in schools in Scotland is not?
  Mr. Robertson: As the Secretary of State keeps telling me, the system in England is different from the system in Scotland. After his failed attempt to impose testing last time, an agreement was reached that was satisfactory to the Scottish Office, teachers and parents. Let me remind the Secretary of State where he went wrong last time, and where he fell foul of public and Conservative party opinion in Scotland.
  What brought about the right hon. Gentleman's downfall then was not a campaign by the teaching unions or by the intelligentsia in Scotland against testing, but a boycott by parents—the very parents he now says should have the choice. They brought him down and almost terminally affected his political career. [Interruption.] He has been resurrected, and that is why he is back with the same old rubbish. He thinks that he will get away with it as he is now in the Cabinet, but he will not.
  Mr. Forsyth: I asked the hon. Gentleman a question that was not difficult, and he ought to answer it. If it is Labour's policy that there should be testing in England to ensure that parents get reports on the standards of achievement in schools, why should parents in Scotland not have that choice? Is it not true that the hon. Gentleman is terrified of the Educational Institute of Scotland, and that the teaching unions are deciding Labour's policy?
  Mr. Robertson: I remind the Secretary of State again that a parental boycott killed compulsory testing last time. Scottish education now has a reasonable way in which
  424
  assessment of performance can be made without the rigidities of the system that he wanted to bring in at that time. In the English system—which, after all, is entirely different from the Scottish system—it may be appropriate to go down the road of national testing in the form that my colleagues have suggested. But nobody in Scotland wants it, and nobody wanted it last time.
  However, the Secretary of State will now—by law—impose it on the very parents he claims are supposed to have the ultimate choice in education. The Secretary of State will get another bloody nose. He is coming back with the same old ideas, and he will get the same message from the Scottish people—they do not want this failed experiment, despite his belief that he has all the levers of power in his hands.
  Another remarkable feature of today's debate is that the Secretary of State was not supposed to make the opening speech. Until this morning, the Minister for Education, Housing and Fisheries was set to launch the flagship of the Conservative party's education policy in the House. Why was the junior Minister replaced at the last minute? Why did the Secretary of State not want to introduce the Bill? I have a theory—I believe that the Secretary of State is ashamed of the vouchers policy, because he knows that nobody in Scotland wants it. That is why he did not want to be here for the Second Reading of what he considers to be one of the most important Bills that the Government have introduced.
  The Government received 170 responses to their consultation, according to the Secretary of State. When asked how many of those responses endorsed the idea of vouchers, he dodged the question. Only one conclusion can be drawn from that—the number of people who endorsed the principle of vouchers was so derisory that he felt it impossible to admit it to the House of Commons. Hardly a soul in Scotland supports the proposal. Local councils, Children in Scotland, the Scottish Pre-School Play Association, trade unions and individuals across Scotland are opposed to the supermarketing of early years education.
  The Secretary of State may be ashamed of something else. At the Grand Committee in Stirling on 29 January, he said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell):
  "The Bill's provisions are about ensuring proper standards of inspection, which she and her colleagues have been telling people would not be included."
  But the Bill does not state that at all, and simply adds a little to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. The Secretary of State continued:
  "The Bill will ensure the standards that she is misleading the country about."— [Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 29 January 1996; c. 14.]
  The Bill says nothing about the standards that will be laid down.
  I wish to draw the House's attention to a matter of some interest. At the end of the debate in Stirling—when he had run out of time because of the abuse he was hurling at the Opposition—the Minister for Education, Housing and Fisheries chose to announce that he was to issue a document on quality assurance. That document is not on the Table of the House today. The Secretary of State said that the Bill includes certain provisions, but it does not. They are included in another document on quality

  425
  assurance. That document is not here today, as it should be as we consider a Bill that relates to the provisions for nursery vouchers in Scotland. I wonder why that can be.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State thought that, in all honour, he would have to apologise for what he said in Stirling, because the provisions on protection and standards are not in the Bill. Perhaps it would be easier for him to stay well below the parapet rather than make such an apology. So be it. If he does not apologise, people will read the record and make up their own mind.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has used the word "confusion", and I must admit that I am a little confused. He initially complained about the setting up of a quango, but he fails to realise that by setting up one quango, we are demolishing two, so a gain is made. He also suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chickened out of addressing the issue of nursery vouchers today, but the hon. Gentleman complained about the length of time that my right hon. Friend took to advocate nursery vouchers. Is there not something wrong with the hon. Gentleman's argument?
  Mr. Robertson: I shall take a couple of seconds to clarify the hon. Gentleman's mind—a difficult enough task at any time. First, I did not attack the creation of a quango. We are in favour of a Scottish Qualifications Authority. I simply made the point that three quarters of the places on that new quango will be in the sole gift of the Secretary of State for Scotland—unlike the old Scottish Examinations Board, which included a fair representation from the various constituencies involved in the examination boards. That should have been the model for the new authority.
  Secondly, I did not accuse the Secretary of State of being chicken. He was the one who made a huge fuss about my not speaking in the Grand Committee debate in Stirling. I made the point that, until lunchtime today, we had been authoritatively told that the junior Minister would open the debate on this flagship Bill. Indeed, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State came here and has attempted to defend his policies.
  The Secretary of State can hide behind his tartan soundbites, but these ideological transplants, such as the voucher scheme, offer compelling evidence of the sort that will eventually send him and the Government packing from power. What is the Government's real agenda? It is certainly not nursery education—
  Mr. Forsyth: I have just been perusing the Bill—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity to do so yet—to find the relevant words, since the hon. Gentleman has accused me of misleading the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) in respect of powers of inspection. He will find them in schedule 5(2) to the Bill.
  Mr. Robertson: That just refers to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. The Secretary of State, I must remind him, told the Grand Committee:
  "The Bill will ensure the standards that she is misleading the country about."
  The right hon. Gentleman was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East at the time. The standards are not specified in the Bill; they will be
  426
  specified by order, and they were outlined in a document on quality assurance that was thrown to the press at the end of the debate in question.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he reads schedule 5 carefully, he will see that it is an amendment to the 1980 Act, inserting a paragraph which enables inspections to be made by Her Majesty's inspectors on behalf of the Secretary of State to ensure that standards are maintained. That is the provision to which I referred in Stirling.
  Mr. Robertson: Let me read it again slowly, so that the Secretary of State can understand what he said in January:
  "The Bill will ensure the standards that she is misleading the country about."— [Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 29 January 1996; c. 14.]
  Schedule 5 merely gives the Secretary of State the power to cause inspections to be made. It is not about any standards that may be required.
  So it is clear that standards for public inspection are not included. The Minister has merely given himself a blanket power—
  Mr. Forsyth: It is true that we are taking a power to get the inspectorate to inspect nursery providers. When this Government take powers, they intend to use them. We do not take power only so as not to use it. We are taking the power to hold inspections because we are going to do just that—it is just like the tartan tax in that respect.
  Mr. Robertson: So that is what the Secretary of State means by compulsory voluntary testing, is it? He is saying that he will produce legislation that will introduce testing to secondary education, but that parents who do not want that can opt out of it. Will a statutory obligation be included? The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government do not take powers unless they intend to use them. In that case, will parents be forced to have their children take the tests?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, they will not be so forced—but they will not be in a position in which local authorities make no provision for testing, either. There will be a nationally organised programme of testing. Children will be able to participate in it, and parents who want national, objective assessments of their children's skills in the three Rs will be able to have them done, just as they can get information about standards.
  I find the hon. Gentleman's position amazing. He is against externally marked tests for S1 and S2, but in favour of standard grade and, presumably, of highers. What is the difference? He seems to be putting dogma before the interests of pupils and their parents.
  There is no question of compulsion, but the opportunity will be given, and there will be a national system. If the hon. Gentleman were true to the principles of new Labour, he would endorse that.
  Mr. Robertson: So there will be no compulsion. Remarkably, people can pick and choose with this system of compulsory voluntary testing. Again, I remind the Secretary of State that last time it was the parents who brought about the downfall of his scheme—not teachers

  427
  or education authorities. And it is the parents who will ultimately decide whether his ideological experiments work or not.
  Mr. Forsyth: It is important to be quite clear about this. Why is the hon. Gentleman making such a meal of it? No one is compelled to take standard grades, which are organised nationally. This is an external assessment of ability. So why is the hon. Gentleman against the idea?
  Mr. Robertson: We know nothing about the costing or the administration of the scheme. The Secretary of State has now returned to the old qualifying examinations: the standard grade and the highers. On the one hand, he is offering these voluntary compulsory tests; on the other, he compares them with examinations that result in qualifications for those who pass. I do not think that he has thought the matter through. When told at lunchtime today that he would have to speak to the Bill, he decided, on a whim, to go for the failed old experiment for which he virtually fell on his sword last time. He will not get away with it this time, either—
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I have given way generously, almost to the point of abusing the House's procedures, but I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later, as he perhaps represents a different strain of Conservatism.
  All this certainly has nothing to do with nursery education. The right hon. Gentleman's mentor, Baroness Thatcher, said a long time ago that she was in favour of nursery education, but in her 11 years as Prime Minister she did nothing about it. Then came the memorable words of the political adviser to the current Secretary of State for Scotland, who wrote an article on 4 June last year—
  Mr. Wallace: Today is the anniversary of the article.
  Mr. Robertson: On this very day a year ago, Mr. Gerald Warner, yet another failed Tory candidate for Hamilton, penned an article that deserves to be read to the House in its entirety. I, however, will quote only a small part of it. Under the title "Sick Trustees of Posterity", he wrote:
  "Now the Tories are committing themselves to further expansion of nursery education. It is a longstanding obsession with them: Margaret Thatcher pursued the same unholy grail, as education minister, in the early 1970s … presumably their calculation is that it will attract votes from working mothers. Such opportunism ignores the chilling reality that every incentive luring mothers out of the home is an investment in Armageddon".
  The peroration to this remarkable article deserves a hearing:
  "We have heard much about the problems of our underclass. These are real and must be addressed; but they are less daunting than the threat to the social order posed by a rising generation of affluent, ill-educated, spiritually dead and amoral androids. In Rutter and Smith's report we have seen the future and it does not work."
  This is the man who pens the speeches of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—the man who ghosts the right hon. Gentleman's soundbites. This is the man whose views are repudiated in public. He is cossetted to the tune of £40,000 a year of public money. Perhaps he is expressing the Government's secret agenda.
  428
  The Bill is not about nursery education. Over the past 17 years, the Government have done nothing to suggest that they give a damn about early age education. What is going on? What is the hidden agenda of school vouchers? It is quite simple: next there will be vouchers for primary, secondary and, ultimately, higher education. The Government desperately want to extend the market place into what is, for them, real education. They will do it if they can get away with it.
  I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland unreservedly to state today that he rejects the idea of primary school vouchers. Will he repudiate secondary school vouchers? Will he, without any ambiguity, disclaim any idea of university or higher education vouchers either now or in the future? Would the Secretary of State like to give the House these assurances?
  Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review of higher education is currently under way, and I understood that the Labour party was prepared to look at all options. I read a report in The Guardian that said that elements within the Labour party are advocating vouchers in the areas of higher and further education. Would the hon. Gentleman like to say something about the Labour party's attitude on vouchers in higher education?
  Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State should not believe everything he reads in The Guardian. He did not answer my questions. I asked him specific questions: will he give an assurance that the Government will not introduce primary and secondary school vouchers now or in the future? Yes or no?
  Mr. Forsyth: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no plans to introduce vouchers beyond nursery provision in the Bill.
  Mr. Robertson: There is the answer—and we knew it all along. The Secretary of State appeared before the Scottish Grand Committee on 29 January, in his own constituency, and he was asked about this. He said:
  "The Government's policy is absolutely clear—we want to build on our previous success with vouchers for training. We hold the odd belief'—
  that is not the only odd belief—
  "that people know better than politicians and are entitled to choice."
  When the Secretary of State was under pressure, he remembered that he was in the Cabinet and not in a cupboard at the Adam Smith Institute, so he lamely said:
  "It is not the Government's policy to introduce vouchers into higher education. My policy is the Government's policy"—
  just in case we thought that he actually agreed with it.
  People know what the nursery education vouchers system is all about: it is the Trojan horse for the failed experiments of the Thatcherite 1980s—the universal school voucher system bringing the street market into the classrooms of Britain.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I will give the Under-Secretary a chance, because he has been denied the opportunity to make a big speech.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is ranting against vouchers. What does he say to his right

  429
  hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who, when asked on "A Week in Politics" on Channel 4 on 8 July last year whether he would get rid of the voucher system when he was in power, said:
  "No; if it is in place you have to work with the system when you take over"?
  Mr. George Robertson: Of course one has to work with the system that one takes over. The voucher system will not be in place in Scotland, and we will get rid of it elsewhere as quickly as we can, for reasons that I will outline. It is unsound educationally, it is an administrative nightmare, and it is a costly way of providing nursery education. The Labour party is committed to the proper provision of nursery education and to giving people a real choice.
  The Secretary of State should look at the history of education vouchers. In 1984, before the right hon. Member came into the House of Commons, Sir Keith Joseph—whom I found to be an engaging, if not a slightly loopy, gentleman—signed the obituary of the voucher system. On 22 June 1984, Sir Keith Joseph said:
  "I was intellectually attracted to the idea of education vouchers because it seemed to offer the possibility of some kind of market mechanism which would increase the choice and diversity of schools".
  He continued:
  "In the course of my examination of this possibility, it became clear that there would be great practical difficulties in making any voucher system compatible with the requirements that schooling should be available to all without charge, compulsory and of an acceptable standard."
  He was a wise man who was speaking wise words, at a time when he and Margaret Thatcher were not convinced that vouchers could work. He said:
  "For these reasons, the idea of vouchers is no longer on the agenda." — [Official Report, 22 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 290.]
  Sir Keith Joseph was not the only person to hold that view: the Secretary of State was a signatory to the pamphlet entitled "Save Our Schools", issued by the No Turning Back group. The pamphlet explored the idea of nursery vouchers, and stated:
  "The voucher system has been widely canvassed as a means of bringing parental choice into education, and has very many excellent features, but some drawbacks. The economic theory which underlies it is admirable, but it has serious political weaknesses."
  Those are not my words, nor the words of the Labour party, nor the words of any left-wing. ideologist-those are the words of the right-wing vanguard of the Conservative party.
  The pamphlet continued:
  "Experiments have been proposed, studies undertaken. Not even the combination of a sympathetic Secretary of State and an enthusiastic Under-Secretary succeeded in getting the idea off the ground."
  The pamphlet discussed the idea of piloting-we have heard a lot about this from the Secretary of State this afternoon. It stated:
  "It is difficult to allay fears by an experiment with vouchers. By confining vouchers to a particular area, genuine choice is denied and little idea given of what the national implications would be."
  Perhaps, when the Secretary of State refers to tiny East Renfrewshire, he will bear in mind the conclusions of the pamphlet—written when he was younger and a hell of a lot wiser.
  430
  As the Secretary of State said during his speech, nursery education is critical to the development of a child. Half a child's education development is believed to take place in the first five years of life. All recent research shows that pre-school education is positive, aids behaviour and performance, compensates for disadvantage, reduces delinquency and allows help for those with special needs at the earliest possible moment. That is why the Labour party is committed to providing nursery places for all three-year-olds and all four-year-olds whose parents want it.
  Existing local authority provision is simple and cost-effective. It allows choice, it is easily accessible and it is easily understood by parents. The model of inclusive co-operation between the state, voluntary and other sectors has proved successful in practice. It needs to be expanded, and it does not need nursery vouchers.
  According to all the evidence and the vast majority of the views submitted to the Government in a consultation exercise that they undertook but have chosen to reject, vouchers for nursery education will be costly and wasteful to run, immensely bureaucratic to administer, and will endanger existing provision to three-year-olds and to those with special educational needs. Vouchers will drag down standards and restrict or eliminate choice for those in rural and remote areas of Scotland. The Government know this only too well, but the ideological steamroller drives on, just like the poll tax did so devastatingly only a few years ago.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have a large rural constituency. I trust that he will also acknowledge that in my constituency there is a demand for nursery education. My constituents would be happy to take part in a pilot scheme if they were given the opportunity.
  Mr. Robertson: People in the hon. Gentleman's constituency may ultimately get vouchers, but whether they get nursery education is another matter. People cannot use their vouchers if there is not a provider. A voucher will be a meaningless piece of paper for people in remote areas. It is not a guarantee that a place will be found.
  Mr. Walker rose—
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has intervened, and he will undoubtedly speak in the debate. If he listens carefully to my views and to those expressed by people in rural and remote areas, he will hear some common sense. In The Times last April, the Secretary of State for Education said:
  "Vouchers are not the favoured option."
  In October 1994, the right hon. Lady told The Independent newspaper:
  "I am very conscious of the unwieldy nature of vouchers".
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden)— a rare wise voice among the gibbering rabble that are today's Tory party—described the nursery voucher system as a
  "rather spatchcocked scheme to provide a little more partial nursery education to a few more people aged 5".
  In January this year, he complained in the House about the fact that the Government would hand millions of pounds to people who can afford to pay for private

  431
  education. This ludicrous experiment is not about choice—although the Secretary of State insists it is. In Stirling, he said:
  "our proposals will enable them"—
  parents—
  "to spend the voucher money on the nursery education that they choose".
  No, it will not—it will provide a voucher, not a place.
  I shall deal now with the detailed criticisms of the scheme made by virtually every organisation that submitted evidence to the Government during the consultation process. I wonder why the Secretary of State says that the scheme has been thought through and is subject to consultation when he ignores the outcome of the consultation process. Why is he so arrogant in saying that it will go ahead, irrespective of the views he has canvassed?
  The first criticism is that the voucher scheme will be very costly to run. New providers will receive no money to meet start-up costs for buildings, facilities and implementation and training. The voucher will not cover the full cost of a place, and nothing is being done to create new places. The Government are waiting for providers to appear like street peddlers on the day of a football match.
  It will be a bureaucratic nightmare. Administration has already taken £3 million out of the pot available for the pilot studies, with an unspecified amount going to the consultants, Capita. That sum alone would have provided some 1,800 nursery places across Scotland. [Interruption.] I wonder whether Ministers are in the Chamber to listen, to learn and to respond. I wonder how the Under—Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will be able to wind up the debate if he does not listen to what is being said.
  The Secretary of State told us that a voucher of £1,100 will have a £22 administration cost attached to it. However, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council has published the bureaucratic steps—which it is widely acknowledged are accurate—that will be required for the voucher system to work.
  The process will involve 10 stages. In stage 1, the Child Benefit Agency sends an application for a voucher to the parents, and advertisements are placed. In stage 2, the parents complete the form and send it to Capita. In stage 3, Capita sends the voucher back. In stage 4, the parents select a nursery school from the list, and, if there is a vacancy, enrol their child. In stage 5, parents give the voucher to the nursery. In stage 6, the nursery gives the voucher to the local authority, which, in stage 7, returns it to Capita. In stage 8, Capita confirms receipt of the voucher to the Department of Education in the Scottish Office, which, in stage 9, sends the money to the local authority. In stage 10, the money is sent to the school.
  We are told that that process will cost only £22 per nursery voucher. That is not credible, and no one will believe it for a moment. The process is mind-boggling in its complexity, and enormous in its bureaucracy. We are told that it will cost only £22, but that simply will not wash.
  The nursery voucher scheme will endanger existing provision for three-year-olds in Scotland. At present, education for three and four-year-olds is not compulsory.
  432
  With all the attention on four-year-olds, focus will be diverted from existing provision for three-year-olds. What about special needs education provision for three-year-olds?
  Virtually all the organisations that have submitted evidence have said that the system will seriously erode standards in Scottish education. It is no wonder that the Secretary of State chose to confuse us in January-he certainly could not convince us about standards. It seems that teachers may not be employed in the nurseries. In Stirling, the Secretary of State said:
  "views are divided on whether it is necessary to provide fully trained teachers".
  Of course opinion is divided: everyone is on one side of the argument and the Secretary of State and his Ministers are on the other. That is the division. We all know what the Secretary of State means: he will decide for us. It is either education or it is not. If there is no education, nurseries will become expensive playgrounds, and that is all. The Secretary of State should be honest about that.
  But the question of nursery standards goes even deeper. What about the premises that will be provided for nursery schools? What about the non-teachers who will staff them, and their qualifications? What about safety in nursery schools? What about school security, about which Lord Cullen is inquiring presently in Stirling?
  The Secretary of State said that proper standards of inspection would be spelled out in the Bill, but they are not. There are provisions regarding powers for the Secretary of State, but he did not identify the standards. He told us today that two additional inspectors will be hired to inspect the new providers. There are 100 inspectors in England, and that is too few. Few of the measures regarding standards and inspection from the English legislation are in the Scottish legislation. Why have the Government chosen to use orders and negative procedures in Parliament instead of including the measures in primary legislation?
  We know from the Government's quality assurance document that quality assurance is a vague approach to self-completion of a profile and self-evaluation and inspection. That will be done by ministerial fiat—through unspecified blanket powers given to the Secretary of State by the Bill. Unless minimum standards are spelled out in the Bill and in public—we know what light-touch quality assurance is—we can conclude only one thing: this project is about low standards, low quality and cheapskate provision which is of no educational value.
  We know what the Secretary of State is up to. If he is to hand out the money before the election, there must be places and there will be no places without providers. Therefore, standards will be deliberately dropped in order to encourage the providers to come forward quickly. That is the market solution: pile 'em high and sell 'em quick. That is the Government's approach to education, and to everything else.
  The voucher system is a serious danger to special needs education at pre-school level. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) correctly pointed out that special needs education is not tackled in the Government's Bill. The Secretary of State said in Stirling:
  "the pilot scheme will test the best way to achieve that".

  433
  He repeated that vague statement this afternoon.
  The Secretary of State also said:
  "some argue that vouchers should be more valuable for children with Special Education Needs. Others say that it is not right and that resources must be directed in other ways".
  Why did the Government not know the answers to those questions before the piloting began? The Secretary of State said that the system had been thought through. Why was that critical issue not thought through before the plan was wheeled out conveniently before the election? Do the Government not care about those vulnerable kids in pre-school education who have special needs? What about all the rural areas that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) mentioned, where an £1,100 voucher will simply be a useless piece of paper and a meaningless election bribe of no consequence to finding a pre-school place?
  This country needs good nursery education, and Scottish children deserve the best. They deserve more than this botched experiment in ideological alchemy. Labour believes in nursery education, and Labour will deliver.
  Our country is now 35th in the world's education and training league, and the Government should be deeply ashamed of that striking and revealing fact. We spend less per pupil on early education than every European Union country except Ireland, and we spend a smaller proportion of our education budget on three and four-year-olds than any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. That may help to explain the humiliation of our 35th place.
  The voucher scheme is doomed to failure. It is shoddy in character and deficient in detail, and will be lamentable in effect. It is simply a forerunner to the ultimate Thatcherite ambition of the creation of a supermarket in education. That creation will be properly stillborn when the electorate have their say within the next 50 weeks.
  5.20 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: First, I wish to say "welcome back" to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State after his outstanding visit to the far east. All of us in Scotland, even Opposition Members, will welcome his achievement because it will bring more jobs to Scotland. That is a first class achievement and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) did not mention it in his opening remarks, if only on behalf of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
  It is a long time since I was a Minister for education in 1971–74. Then, the battle was entirely different. It was about roofs over heads; there was no school accommodation and we were short of teachers. All those problems have been mostly overcome, although I know that some of the school buildings erected in the 1950s and 1960s are now tired. That is an added problem for education authorities trying to keep their schools up to the standard that we would all like.
  I felt thoroughly depressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton, who spoke for the Labour party today. He seems to be against everything.
  Mr. John Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman had that written down before he even heard his speech.
  Sir Hector Monro: I did not. The hon. Gentleman is wrong—not for the first time—but I do not wish to quarrel with him.
  434
  It was disappointing that we heard such a negative speech from the hon. Member for Hamilton and that he was supported by only six or seven Back Benchers. I should have thought that for such an important debate on education in Scotland—
  Mr. George Robertson: Where are the Tories?
  Sir Hector Monro: Every Conservative who can speak in the debate is present. On the Labour side, only a small percentage of those eligible to speak are here. The hon. Gentleman should be disappointed that this major debate on education—perhaps the most important debate for Scotland in the House this Session—is so poorly supported by Labour Members. Perhaps they are at odds with him, like the rest of the country. It was also depressing to witness the semantic wriggling of the hon. Member as he attempted to escape the hooks on which he is caught by his policies. He is like an inverted Micawber, looking for something to turn down rather than something to turn up. That is not good news for Scottish education.
  The Bill is about choice and standards. Both sides of the House sometimes underestimate the standard of much of our education. Many of the schools in Scotland, especially rural schools, are of a high standard. That is backed up by the inspectors' reports, which I am sure we all read when we receive them from the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department. Those reports highlight how well many of the schools are doing. If we have been reading such reports for long enough, we can read between the lines and tell when an inspector is not pleased with a school, but the majority of the reports are complimentary. That progress will be backed up, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today, by the appropriate tests.
  As this country approaches the millennium, we must take every opportunity to reach higher standards of training if we are to produce youngsters, both boys and girls, who can work in the future. I agree with the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Hamilton that we must not overlook those who have special needs. I frequently feel a little disappointed at the amount of progress on issues such as dyslexia, because those who suffer from it need specialist support.
  The many new plans in the Bill will enable important steps to be taken to raise standards and enhance qualifications, especially through the new Scottish Qualifications Authority. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded the House that Government expenditure on education has gone up by 15 per cent. in real terms since 1979, from £1 billion under Labour to £2.5 billion today. He also reminded us that we spend 25 per cent. more on education in Scotland than in England and Wales.
  Today, we are right to support pre-school playgroups, nursery education and more formal education for the under-fives, because that is what many parents in Scotland want. The vouchers will be a new resource to help to provide that education for our youngsters. I say that with a wry smile because in December 1973, as a Minister responsible for education, I produced a White Paper which proposed nursery education for all. Here we are, 20 years later, about to put a first foot on the ladder towards providing that. Of course, any education authority could have provided full nursery education under current

  435
  legislation, but they have all been reluctant to do so, usually with the good excuse that they never had any money.
  Mr. Gallie: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend's remarks about what was on the cards in 1973. Surely the downfall for nursery education was the election of a Labour Government in 1974.
  Sir Hector Monro: Yes. A number of good policies that I proposed in 1973 and 1974 got scrapped, but the Labour party shows no sign of conscience about what it failed to do for so long.
  Whatever Opposition Members say, there is no doubt that parental choice has been a success. In areas where school boards have been introduced, they have been extremely valuable and shown how parents want to assist with the provision of their children's education in a host of ways, in a community sense rather than a strictly educational sense. One or two problems have been caused by parental choice and they are addressed in clause 32. Some good rural schools, which are about five or 10 miles from an urban area, have been inundated with youngsters from that area because the schools have a good reputation. That has caused immense problems with the catchment areas of rural schools. We must be flexible and consider carefully how to deal with that problem in the Bill.
  Frequently, I have seen good country schools, with one, two or three teachers and fewer than 100 pupils, whose success has acted like a honeypot and they have drawn in pupils from urban areas. The schools have started to burst at the seams and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech, we have reached an illogical position in which local children—who perhaps live within sight of the school, a quarter or half a mile or even 100 yards away—are unable to get into their local rural school because it has too many pupils, many of whom have come from outwith the catchment area. That is not acceptable and I am glad that the Bill will deal with that problem.
  The problem will not be easily resolved, and I shall study carefully the distances given in the Bill. I do not know why in a United Kingdom Parliament we have to deal with kilometres in respect of school catchment areas. Why can we not deal with miles? Then the average parent could get in his or her motor car and work out from the mileometer the distance from home to school, which cannot be done in kilometres. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food talks about metres, kilometres and hectares. Why can we not use British measurements, particularly in the Bill? I shall certainly work out how many miles are involved when we get to the Committee stage—not that I am volunteering to serve on the Committee, although it is likely that that will happen.
  We must get everything right because there is a lot of friction in the countryside. The legislation must help education authorities that are providing good schools to overcome the issue of parental choice, which I have been dealing with recently in my constituency.
  I have been concerned long enough, particularly in respect of primary and secondary schools, about how little the average child knows about the environment and the countryside, as highlighted by the bovine spongiform
  436
  encephalopathy crisis and the advice to schools about the food that children should eat. Even a cramped curriculum should provide some opportunity to teach children about the land in which they live, how farms operate, how food is produced and the way in which the food chain works. No doubt in common with many other hon. Members, I should also like more to be done in schools in respect of sport and recreation, but that is for another debate.
  I should like to think that more could be built on farm visits, with first and second year secondary pupils visiting a farm once a year to see how it works and learn how the countryside develops, so that when they grow up they will tend to husband the environment that will be so important to them in the future. Perhaps education authorities and the National Farmers Union could work together to bring more practical knowledge to the average pupil. The cost need not be high—perhaps £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000 a year for the average authority. Time is more problematical, whether one is talking about sport, religious education or the many other subjects in which we would like to educate children.
  As to school transport and statutory walking distances, particularly in respect of catchment areas, we are at risk of being a little out of date. Years ago, walking five miles to school was no problem but today it is. More worrying, in terms of personal security, is the prospect of children walking home in the dark. Wherever possible, local authorities try to avoid that happening by providing school buses or taxis, even for short distances. We must consider carefully the distance that a child is required to walk to and from school in the 1990s.
  We must also re-examine in the near future the subject of school security, which is currently a sensitive issue-I had a problem in my own constituency at the weekend. The Government and all education authorities are considering school security. It is difficult to balance the community feeling that we want in schools with a prison-like security system—bearing in mind the fact that nearly every school has umpteen points of access and it is difficult to monitor every one. However, we can consider using closed-circuit television and janitors in prominent locations.
  The Committee stage will provide the opportunity to debate much of value to school children, which is the Government's whole objective in presenting the Bill. It is particularly disappointing that the Labour party is being so negative. I hope that we shall hear something more constructive from the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists. So far, one is profoundly disappointed at the attitude of the official Opposition towards the education of our children, which must be a top priority in Scotland.
  5.34 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave one of the longest speeches that he has ever made in introducing a Bill—and still we wait for him to address the special educational needs of children. The Conservatives have been in power for umpteen years, they have been in charge of the education of many young people all their school lives, yet teenagers are still leaving school without the achievements of which they are capable.
  The Secretary of State, answering an intervention, said that he would think about special needs provision. Last summer, parents and organisations started telling me and

  437
  other hon. Members of their concerns about children with special educational needs, so it is high time that the right hon. Gentleman gave that matter serious thought. We should have proposals before us today. It is not adequate to say that testing will be undertaken in the pilot, because nothing has been done to provide for special needs in the pilot.
  The problem of funding has been widely raised. Children with special educational needs will obviously cost more per place. Another crucial aspect that the Secretary of State has failed to address is how a child with special educational needs will be identified by the rank amateurs who will be running wee nurseries simply because parents can produce vouchers.
  Mr. Raymond SRobertson: The hon. Lady has not quite grasped the point that my right hon. Friend was making. He said that when the authorities were invited to propose special adjustments to the pilot they said that they could cope with special educational needs within the pilot scheme. That assertion came from the authorities, not the Government.
  Mrs. Fyfe: We have become used to that kind of complacency from the Government. We are meant to be representing the concerns of parents. Often it is only when a child reaches primary school that his or her special needs are identified. We want a system to ensure that such needs are recognised as early as possible, and to ensure that resources are in place to meet those needs. That could mean dealing with a mental impairment, or something as simple as providing spectacles. All sorts of problems can be identified in a child at three years of age.
  The Bill states that nursery providers will have to meet the Secretary of State's requirements, but we have yet to be told the minimum requirements. We await details of the curriculum, which should have been before us for this debate. It is not difficult to get people working on an adequate minimum curriculum for children of the age range in question. Nothing has been said about staff qualifications, the ratio of qualified to unqualified staff or the ratio of staff to the number of children attending. That, too, remains up in the air. The Bill does not even make specific mention of basic requirements such as a nursery's ability to provide first aid for the sort of accidents that can befall young children. It does not mention equal opportunities for access to nurseries, nor does it refer to complaints procedures. We have been told, to our astonishment, that there will be two extra inspectors, but nothing was said about how frequently they will inspect or what will happen as a result of their inspections.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Fyfe: Let me make some progress.
  A crucial point arises about facilities. In the Scottish Grand Committee, I asked a question about outdoor play facilities, because the Minister had said that church halls would be available throughout Scotland and that they were appropriate for nursery provision. If there is no outdoor play space, they are grossly inadequate. We do not want to see young children cooped up indoors, regardless of the weather, unable to play outside and benefit from the educational play and sporting opportunities that could be made available to them. It is
  438
  not good enough to say that church halls are available all over the place. We must ensure that the facilities are appropriate for the children. They should have furniture and toilet facilities sized to their needs instead of having to make do with inadequate facilities.
  Why are the Government so negative about the needs of our youngest children? I have never understood that. We have had umpteen debates in the House about education—largely about higher education and children of school age. Yet when we finally have a debate about the needs of the pre-fives, the Government want to fob off our youngest children with an inadequate system and inadequate provision.
  The Secretary of State has said that nursery education is extremely valuable. Of course it is. It can give a child a flying start at primary school. Crucially, it provides for that child's social education. At nursery school, children can learn not to be selfish, to share, to sort out quarrels peaceably and to come together for activities. Perhaps all this sounds too socialist for Conservative Members. Perhaps that is why they are against social education. A wealth of experience can be opened up to children through the books, toys, games and activities that can be made available in a properly run and managed nursery school run by people who know what they are doing. The same applies to well-run play groups, but the Bill does not guarantee that those standards will be applied, and it does not say what will happen when they are not. That should all be at the top of the education agenda and not dealt with at the minimum possible cost.
  It has already been pointed out that the voucher scheme is full of problems. Those problems were identified by private sector providers, as well as by parents, teachers and others. I want the Minister to answer this point. It is unclear how the voucher system will affect the child care disregard for low-wage earners. If the Minister would listen to me, he might be able to answer the point, so I shall wait until he is listening.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am listening.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister.
  At present, low-wage earners cannot subtract a proportion of child care costs—currently £60—from net income when making or renewing family credit claims. That is crucial for low-wage earners, particularly lone parents, to enable them to take up employment opportunities. It is high time that such detail was spelt out, but in his 50-minute speech the Secretary of State did not mention that crucial aspect.
  All the problems have been raised by people who know what they are doing, who already have experience of running pre-five provision. The private sector providers told me last summer that they were worried about fraud in a system that is open to abuse. They pointed out that there could easily be a market in vouchers, and that impoverished parents might well attempt to pass on their vouchers to other people. Cheap, minimal providers could drive out of business the responsible, sensible, good providers who set higher standards and pay higher wages for more capable staff. The private sector providers said that they were worried that cheap-jacks might drive them out where there might be more providers than children coming forward. The Secretary of State failed to address that problem. We talk about there being a market, but sometimes the market results in a worse standard. There is no protection in the Bill to guard against that possibility.

  439
  I cannot understand why the Secretary of State did not listen to parents, whose clearly stated view was that they preferred local authority nurseries as their first choice. Yes, they had good words to say about play groups and about a large number of private sector providers, but in the Scottish Parent Teacher Association questionnaire, to which a large number of parents replied, they said that if the breadth of choice of different providers were available to them, their first choice would be the local authority providers. Yet the Secretary of State ignored the fact that empty classrooms are available, especially with the closure of schools that might have remained open if resources were made available to allow a nursery school to use such premises. This is not a new idea. There are excellent examples of nursery provision within a primary school building. Why do the Government not think of that as one way to expand education rather than just handing it to somebody and hoping that somehow a nursery school or class will be set up?
  On testing, the Secretary of State is again trying to mislead parents. Every time a teacher sets homework or class work, the teacher can see whether the lesson has been grasped or what points of difficulty the pupil has. The teacher responds to that and the child can start to make progress. Sometimes teachers have to try two or three different ways before the child grasps the point and can move on. The Minister has experience of teaching. He knows that what I am saying is true. That is what teaching is supposed to be about.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The Minister shakes his head, but if the child does not make progress, we have a system to check on the activities of the teachers and the classes. That is why local authorities check on how schools carry out the education of children. If children do not make the progress that they should, that must be addressed. No one on the Opposition Benches is arguing that children should be ill educated or that they should be allowed to leave school without the qualifications that they are capable of achieving. Why do the Government not listen to parents, who said that they were against testing at secondary one and two? It is the parents who realised that it would be a return to the "quali".
  Hon. Members who had the benefit of higher or further education will remember that there was always at least one person in the class—I remember it well when I was at Strathclyde—who went on to take high-quality degrees, getting upper seconds and firsts, having been told at 11 or 12 that they had better go and find a job at Woolworth's because they were not going to make it. We all know of people who came through nevertheless and did exceedingly well, but how many must have been discouraged for life? How many must have been made to feel, when the old "quali" existed, that they just could not hack it? How many were told, "You're one of nature's thickies—you can't do it." The child's hopes and ambitions would have been destroyed at a young age. That is why parents are against it. That is why we should listen to them.
  I hope that when the Bill is considered in Committee the Government will finally listen to those of us who speak on behalf of Scottish parents.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak. I shall be brief, not because I do not have much to say but because, as I am sure the House will understand, I have other duties. I am chairing a Committee upstairs.
  I should like to address the question of testing, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). They spoke about testing for qualifications, and treat that as something different from testing to see whether individuals need help and assistance. I speak as someone who understands what the education exam, the "quali", as it was called, really meant to people of my age group. I am unique in that I am probably the only hon. Member to have left school at 14. I did so because economic circumstances and other things at that time made it inevitable. I do not take the view that the system that then existed failed me. I take the view that circumstances, which my children and most hon. Members never had to suffer, required me to contribute to the family coffers. The House will understand that, in large industrial industries, pre-war, that was a fact of life, particularly if one's father was unemployed. We had to face the fact that circumstances often dictated what we did or did not do. The system that existed then had little to do with the fact that I left school at an age when I probably would have benefited from remaining.
  Testing for qualifications is an essential part of knowing whether individuals are capable and ready to move on to other challenges. That is what it represents. Testing to find out whether someone is inadequate in some areas is absolutely vital in the first and second years of secondary education. I have never understood the view that that is not critical—they are the critical years in a child's development. It is equally true that the years before the age of five are important in the development of a child as an individual. That is why I believe that the nursery voucher system and the pilot schemes are vital.
  I am astonished by the comments of Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), about rural areas. The best schools in Scotland are in rural areas because the best teachers are in rural areas. People like living in rural communities because the quality of life is superior. That is why we are able to attract high-quality teachers to our small rural schools. I also believe that the things that attract teachers to rural areas will attract the private sector—which the Opposition seem to find so offensive—to provide pre-school education. The village and church halls in the rural areas are a hub of activity, so I do not envisage the problems that others do.
  I accept that there may be problems in the big cities, but it is astonishing that the Opposition are basing their argument on some belief that the vouchers will be worthless to someone living in Glen Lyon or Glen Farg or some of the other lovely glens around Tayside. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) represents Glen Farg. I picked it deliberately because I know it well. When someone picks something outside his constituency, it is always wise to pick something that was previously in his constituency before the boundary changes.
  Contrary to what the hon. Member for Hamilton said, I believe that the rural communities will respond to this new opportunity and will grasp it because of the quality

  441
  of people living in our rural areas and the quality of the teachers. Of course, not all teachers are able to work full time once they have had children, but they can certainly become involved—
  Mr. Connarty: I am worried that the hon. Gentleman is painting a picture so unlike the reality of Scottish education. Does he not realise that the best schools, judged by the standards set by the Government, tend to be in cities or large towns, not rural areas? It is wrong to create a dichotomy between the schools. I believe that the best school in Scotland is in Dunblane—which, with 10,000 people, is not a rural community.
  Mr. Walker: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would do his homework more thoroughly and carefully. Tayside is the area that I know in particular, and North Tayside in detail. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we do not have the best schools, he obviously does not know what is happening in Tayside. I am proud of my rural schools. I am proud of the standards that they achieve. I am proud of what appears on the statistical records—
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady has some fine schools in her constituency. My children went to them.
  Ms Cunningham: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that under SNP administration Tayside has the best schools in Scotland.
  Mr. Walker: I have already given the reason why rural schools are so good—it is because of the quality of the teachers. Often, that was despite the activities and effects—
  Ms Cunningham: I see.
  Mr. Walker: When the hon. Lady has been here a little longer, she will realise that I have fought my constituency's corner in every battle in this place. I have often had to draw attention to the inadequacies of Tayside region and I am still doing so—for example, the former social work department. However, that matter is being addressed by an inquiry.
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Mr. Walker: I cannot give way as I must watch the time.
  The Bill will make a valuable contribution towards choice, quality and diversity, about all of which I care deeply. One of the things that motivated me to become a Member of Parliament—as it probably motivated others—was my experience of life. I was motivated by the circumstances in which I grew up in Dundee. It made me determined that my children and grandchildren would have better quality, greater diversity and greater choice. I looked at the contributions made by statutory bodies and others and I arrived at my political convictions not out of some mischance of birth, but out of my experience. I do not apologise for that.
  I believe that getting the balance right between the public and the private sectors is the best way to provide choice. The voucher system will achieve that in a way
  442
  that nothing else could do. The administrators will not be able to dictate their dogma. One of the problems with Scottish education has been local government dogma. That is rather sad because once, a long time ago, Scotland had the best education in Europe and therefore in the western world. That is not true today. It is why I welcome the Bill, which will make a massive contribution out of all proportion to the money spent.
  Over the long time that I have been in this House I have listened to the Opposition's arguments against the changes in education and other areas that the Government have introduced, so it is interesting to note that it is the Opposition who have changed—the Government have not.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) made some interesting points about education in rural areas, to which I shall return later in relation to nursery provision. I do not think that there is any dispute across the House about the importance and value of pre-school education. What is at issue is whether the Government's chosen means to deliver that is the most effective.
  The debate is taking place in this Chamber rather than in the Scottish Grand Committee. Despite the much-vaunted claims by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that the revamped Scottish Grand Committee is as good as a Scottish Parliament, it has fallen at the second hurdle—or the third hurdle if we include the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill as well as the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
  I read the exchanges in the Scottish Grand Committee on 20 May. The Secretary of State said that the Opposition had not requested that this debate be held in the Committee. That was one of the most disingenuous excuses that I have heard in a long time, especially as the Secretary of State is not usually a shrinking violet in need of persuasion. Apart from anything else, what he said was not true. On a number of occasions we have challenged the Government to take the motion to discuss the principles of this Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee, but that has not happened because the Government know that part II of the Bill does not command the support of the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament. If the Bill were debated in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Committee would be shown up for what it is—a talking shop with no effective powers of decision making. That is why the Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House.
  There are some parts of the Bill on which there is common ground. The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made a cogent case, to supplement that of the Secretary of State, with regard to placing requests and the need to ensure that local children can attend local schools. Likewise, my right hon. and hon. Friends do not object—indeed they support—the merger between the Scottish Vocational Education Council and the Scottish Examination Board. That has had widespread approval, although the Committee will wish to examine in detail the way in which the body will be composed.
  Perhaps one of the tasks that the new Scottish Qualifications Authority can undertake is to simplify for the benefit of employers the relative merit of many of the qualifications that seem to abound these days. I would not be surprised if many employers were confused by a

  443
  plethora of modules and acronyms. Any simplification so that employers know the quality and standard of the passes that they are examining would be welcome. One employer to whom I have talked recently mentioned that the fees that were charged at every turn—tuition, examination and marking fees—were putting off employers from going down that road, and that some were using city and guilds. Clause 6(2) provides the power to charge, in accordance with criteria laid down by the Secretary of State. I hope that the criteria will reflect the burden on businesses, which have to meet costs in respect of their trainees.
  On the question of finance too, will the Minister comment in his reply on a complaint made to me that, in some examinations—specifically, the Scottish Examination Board's examinations in English were referred to—pre-testing of questions, which is, I think, sometimes done south of border, and which ensures that exams achieve what they intend to achieve and that rogue questions can be discovered and expunged, has been withdrawn? That may be a small matter, but if the process will make exams and results reliable, we want an assurance that corners are not to be cut for the sake of meeting financial targets.
  In his speech,the Secretary of State for Scotland launched on the House a reference to testing in secondary one and secondary two. He was somewhat thrown by a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who asked whether children whose parents did not wish their children to be tested would still be required to be tested. The Secretary of State, true to his belief in parental choice, had to accept that the tests would not be compulsory if parents did not wish their children to sit them. He went on to say that it would not be in children's interests to do so, taking the view that he knows better than parents what is in children's interests.
  The Secretary of State went on to make an even more curious point. He drew a parallel and said that there was a similarity between the tests in S1 and S2, which he is proposing, and standard grade and higher grade examinations. That was a worrying statement for the Secretary of State to have made. In one respect, it is not consistent with his comment in another part of his presentation that one of the purposes of the tests was to identify educational needs at an early stage. There is a world of difference between tests designed to identify educational needs and examinations designed to give pupils qualifications either to go out into the world of employment or to further and higher education. The Secretary of State, however, categorised the new tests with the standard and higher grade exams.
  The House is entitled to be told by the Minister whether what is proposed is not simply tests to measure a level of achievement or to identify particular needs, but qualification tests as well. Would one have to pass the test in S1 to sit the test in S2? Would one have to sit the test in S2 to be allowed to go on to the course that will lead eventually to standard grade?
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's customary courtesy, but he does not have to wait until the winding-up speech. In the comparison that he used, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
  444
  Scotland was making the point that the new Scottish Qualifications Authority would be required—as I think the whole House agrees it should—to set standard grade exams and the new "higher still" exams. As an additional function, it will set national exams in reading, writing and mathematics in S1 and S2. There is no prerequisite to sit an exam in S1 to go into S2 and/or to sit one in S2 to go on to standard grade. My right hon. Friend's point was that the SQA will be supplying exams at standard grade and higher grade. It is up to parents, teachers and pupils whether pupils sit those exams. It will be the same for new national exams set by the SQA at S1 and S2.
  Mr. Wallace: That helps to clarify the matter up to a point. It suggests that, when he made that direct comparison, the Secretary of State was getting into waters that he had not thought about. The House will note the Minister's comment that it would be up to parents, teachers and pupils as to whether pupils sat the exams in S1 and S2. That is a further development on what was said by the Secretary of State.
  As has been said, the most controversial part of the Bill relates to nursery vouchers. I got the impression that the more volume the Secretary of State turned up in his defence of vouchers, the more he was not quite convinced by his argument. I do not doubt for one minute his commitment to the concept of choice. As a party, we also adhere to that concept. The problem for the Secretary of State is that he recognises that his chosen means of providing education for pre-fives will not necessarily deliver the sort of choice that he was praising so highly.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said that a Scottish Pre-School Play Association questionnaire showed that the number one choice for the majority of parents was local authority nursery education. That in no way devalues or detracts from other pre-school provision, but that was the parents' choice.
  It is also clear that, in many parts of Scotland, local authority-provided nursery education is not available. Underlying all this is that one may receive a voucher and use the system and child benefits to work out who is entitled to vouchers, but the voucher itself is no guarantee of a place. For some people in other parts of Scotland, it will be a Hobson's choice. There may be only the one option. Choice will not be there.
  I agree with the comment that, when the vouchers are introduced in regions where pilot schemes are working, 100,000 flowers will bloom and new projects will spring up all over the place. I suspect that, in many places, existing playgroups are anxious not to lose out and are filing applications. That is not necessarily to detract from or in any way to decry what they are doing, but we may not be seeing a great expansion in the number of places.
  We may also be reducing the number of places available for three-year-olds. In many parts of Scotland, where some local authorities have made the effort, provision is made for three-year-olds. There must be concern that, in the effort to expand, through the scheme, nursery provision for four-year-olds, three-year-olds who would have a place may be denied one.
  Liberal Democrat Members are also concerned that the voucher's value will not cover the costs of a nursery place. I understand that, in evidence given by Fife regional council to the Select Committee of the other House, the figure of £3,000 for a full-time place in a

  445
  free-standing nursery was mentioned. Clearly, a £1,100 voucher would not meet that. I have been told that, in the Orkney part of my constituency, the average cost of a place in some nurseries could be covered by £1,100, although whether it could cover five-day sessions is not entirely clear.
  The important point was made, however, that that will apply only if there were a roll of 18 or more. The pilot study will have to consider whether the numbers will be there to make the voucher's value cover the cost of providing a nursery place in some of Scotland's more thinly populated regions, where it is always difficult to find rolls of 18 children aged four years, or even aged three and four years. In relation to the pilot scheme, the Government may have to consider the possibility of different value vouchers in different regions.
  Equally, the local authority or others may expect to provide places for nursery pupils in remote regions, but the chances are that those are the same regions where pupils have to travel some distance and where additional costs of providing transport are involved.
  There is a serious question mark over whether the placement costs will be covered but capital costs will not be covered by the vouchers. They are the costs, in the setting up of new provision, of meeting health and safety requirements and being able to train staff to the standard that we believe is necessary to look after the under-fives. It is not so long since my children were under five and I can well remember what they were like. Looking after children of that age requires considerable skill and ability.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to a passage in the record of the Scottish Grand Committee in Stirling and quoted what the Secretary of State said in response, I think, to an intervention that I had made. Many of us were appalled and shocked to hear the Secretary of State suggest that full and proper training might be an ideal to which we could aspire but which, in the real world, we might not be able to reach. The cost of providing adequately trained staff is an important part of the equation and one which vouchers will not cover.
  The matter of quality assurance has been mentioned. We have been told that the number of inspectors will be increased by two. I have seen figures suggesting that a nursery class can expect to be inspected on average once every 17 years. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm that; if he cannot, I should like to know how often nursery classes are inspected and how much more frequently they are likely to be inspected as a result of the two additional inspectors.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Every provider in the pilot areas will be inspected in the pilot year. We would then expect that nationally every new operator would be inspected in the first 24 months of the system.
  Mr. Wallace: That is quite an undertaking, given what the situation appears to be at the moment. Of course, it is not only what happens at first or in the pilot scheme in the first year that we have to consider; inspection needs to be on-going, and I suspect that assurances of quality will not suffice in the longer term. By comparison, I understand that social work departments inspect playgroups annually. If playgroups expect to be upgraded, it is important that the inspections continue.
  446
  In an intervention on the Secretary of State, I referred to special needs education. I shall not elaborate because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) dealt with the subject very well.
  While we have been debating this afternoon, the Scottish Pre-School Play Association has been holding a reception in another part of the building. Although the Minister with responsibility for education has said that the SPPA will receive some assistance to reach voucher-eligible status, it is very concerned that funding for its other work—work that is not related to the pre-school voucher initiative—is under threat, especially as the Scottish Office has said that the SPPA will not be receiving funding from the Scottish Office's education and industry section for some of its on-going costs.
  We all recognise the valuable work of the SPPA. It is the umbrella group for playgroups across Scotland, which provide services for some 82,000 children. The SPPA says that it is important to distinguish between the organisation's need for an increase in funding to meet its recurring commitments and the arrival of the pre-school voucher initiative. I hope that it is not too late for the Minister to have second thoughts.
  If the SPPA does not receive its essential core funding, any work that it might be able to do with the pre-school voucher initiative might fall by the wayside because, as it says, its funding crisis would prevent it from providing services and threaten the very viability of the organisation. It would be regrettable if the funding for the voucher system was found at the expense of a very valuable organisation.
  All hon. Members recognise pre-school education as a valuable provision. It can help to identify children's particular needs at an early stage and it helps young people acquire social and communication skills. It would miss the point if pre-school provision had a purely educational remit as much learning can be done through play. Until now, Scotland has enjoyed a variety of provision not only through nursery classes but through playgroups. Also, some parents require not nursery classes or playgroups but care for their children. That is not covered by the voucher system. For the reasons that I have outlined, we do not believe that the voucher system will deal with the needs of all children or provide the adequate and proper pre-school provision that people want. Scotland's young people deserve better than what is being proposed.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I must begin by expressing my disappointment that no other Ayrshire Member of Parliament has been here for this important debate. I know that some Ayrshire Members are in the building and might have other duties to perform, but nothing is more important for the future of Scotland than the education of our young people. I deplore the fact that the Bill does not seem to inspire the interest that I believe it deserves.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) mentioned the Scottish Grand Committee. I understand what he says. This is an important Bill, but the reality is that we do not have a majority on the Scottish Grand Committee, so we cannot introduce controversial legislation in that forum. Nevertheless, any party in government that could command a majority in it could pass all legislation affecting Scotland in the Scottish Grand

  447
  Committee. It is worth remembering, however, that a Scottish Grand Committee can hear from Ministers with United Kingdom posts that have a bearing on Scottish issues, whereas a Scottish Assembly, were we to have one, could not. While I accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism in respect of this Bill, the realities are as I have stated.
  Mr. McAvoy: Can we take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the practicalities of the present composition of the Scottish Grand Committee that he accepts that he, his party and the Government are unrepresentative of the people of Scotland?
  Mr. Gallie: No. I accept that, at the previous general election, we did not get as many Scottish Tories elected as I should have liked. I think that we shall rectify that next time, but that remains to be seen. More Scottish Tories will be elected at the next election and they will be sitting on the Government Benches, attending key debates such as this.
  I do not accept that the Scottish Grand Committee is a talking shop. We have achieved much. The Scottish people have gained much from the fact that the Committee has moved around Scotland, engendering interest wherever it goes.
  If we were to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, we should not have been able to pass important legislation such as the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995. That Act tightens law and order provisions, but the Opposition would not have supported it. The same is true of the legislation introducing single-tier authorities in Scotland—having heard the debates on it, I am sure that we would not have been able to pass it in a Scottish Grand Committee. However, many people recognise the wisdom of what the Government have done in Scotland. Perhaps some Opposition Members might support us in changed circumstances—I leave that as a matter for further thought.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also said that three-year-olds could lose out if the nursery voucher system were introduced. I do not think that that will be the case. We should consider the matter more positively, although the hon. Gentleman's remarks were more positive than those that I have heard from the Labour party.
  We must recognise that when we talk about provision for three-year-olds we are not necessarily thinking of education but of social services. I shall address the points on playgroups and playschools later in my speech.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made one interesting point about the cost of service provision. He said that nursery schools in Orkney and Shetland can provide approximately £1,000 to £1,500 for full-time sessions. I am quite surprised about that, and I compliment them if they can provide that service. We must come back to the basics. We are not offering a full-time nursery education service for all pre-school children. Our hope is that we can work towards that. This provision is a major step forward, and all hon. Members should realise that great benefits will come from it.
  I should like to list a number of reasons why I welcome the Bill. It addresses several key issues about the education of our children for the future and recognises a
  448
  need for some change. "Change" is a word that we live with day to day. It is not a popular word with everyone. At times, change can create a great deal of uncertainty. I suggest that the word "change" puts a damper on what I believe is the current feel-good factor in the United Kingdom, and in Scotland. Change has that effect, because people worry about it as it is a move away from what they recognise and understand. It causes anxiety.
  Regardless of the anxiety that is caused by change, a responsible Government must recognise the need for it. Change is essential, whether in the world of work, in the world of leisure or in the world of education.
  Mr. Connarty: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that change should be welcomed when there is some doubt about the current system, whether it is a system of work or of education? Is he really saying that the pre-school nursery provision that is available—when the money is available—needs to be changed to provision that is cheaper, and therefore less substantial and less successful?
  Mr. Gallie: I am saying that nursery education has been talked about right back to 1973, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) introduced his plans for the provision of nursery education. He did not get that opportunity, because a Labour Government were elected and did not subscribe to the line of providing nursery education. That was regrettable.
  No doubt there were other priorities in the 1980s, but the Conservative party has always aimed towards providing nursery education. The Conservative party is making additional resources available to take a first major step towards creating a national nursery education system, which I should have thought every hon. Member would welcome. I am absolutely astonished that people want to turn their backs on additional Government money being made available for such a service. When the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) talked about change, he dealt with one part of the Bill. There is another very important part of it, which I shall deal with shortly.
  Major changes to our educational structures have occurred in the past 17 years, and there have been major improvements in a variety of ways. The Government have introduced standard grades to the great benefit of youngsters in my constituency and across the country.
  The introduction of vocational qualifications was a major step forward. That was something new, and it was a part of the Government's vision. I do not believe that any hon. Member would now seek to repeal the legislation that introduced those changes in vocational education. The changes were good for Scotland and for young people. They set a goal for young people—people who were perhaps not good in theoretical matters but who were good in practical matters. Vocational qualifications are good for those people, and Conservative Members should take great pride in that fact.
  Let us consider primary school testing. There was occasionally great dispute about testing, but that change was necessary. I have recently been watching events far across the waters—in Taiwan and in China. Testing is a part of everyday education in those countries. There is testing at every stage. If we consider the example of Taiwan, we find very high levels of success and extremely high standards are achieved. Achievement levels among their primary school children frequently exceed those of our children.

  449
  We should learn from their achievements, and we should not mock. I detected some mocking among Opposition Members when I was speaking about the Chinese and the Taiwanese. We should not mock those people. They have their own cultures and their own ways. We can learn from them, just as they can learn from us.
  Mr. Connarty: Does the hon. Gentleman know anything about the five-to-14 programme? Can he tell me where assessment fits in the modes of learning in five-to-14? Can he tell me where assessment is currently deficient and where it does not exist from 5-to-14, from primary 1 to S2 in Scotland?
  Mr. Gallie: The five-to-14 programme was introduced by this Government. They recognised the benefits of such a programme and introduced it. If I think back to my time at school, I cannot remember a time when there was not some formal testing. I cannot remember a time in secondary school, at first and second year levels, when there were not tests. The problem was perhaps that the tests tended to be fragmented and that there was no base level that everyone had to achieve. Testing will perhaps remove that problem in the future. I shall speak about testing later in my speech.
  Parental choice is another very important aspect of the Government's treatment of education. Many of my constituents take advantage of the ability to move their children outside their catchment area. They do so for a range of reasons, and not only to send their children to the high-standard school to which everyone wants to send their children. They do so for family reasons. For example, it may be handy for parents to take their children to a particular school. Parents have that level of choice, which improves the quality of life for them and for their children.
  Opposition Members dramatically opposed those provisions when they were introduced some years ago. Perhaps there has now been some change. Perhaps the Labour spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), will tell us that a Labour Government would never go back on those provisions for parental choice. I do not believe that they would go back on them. If such a Government intended to do so, I do not think that they would have the benefit of the backing of Liberal Members, on whom such a Government would almost certainly depend were they ever elected.
  Parental involvement in school boards is another aspect of the Government's education policy. I accept what the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) said about schools, such as Arbroath high school, not having a school board. That is the parents' choice, and it is very sad, but perhaps they felt that school boards do not have enough power. Putting that right might be an opportunity that the Bill misses; perhaps we should consider it in the future.
  Parliament sets the agenda in all these matters, but, ultimately, local authorities deliver. Perhaps that is a weakness in the education system in Scotland. Perhaps our devolving so much responsibility to local authorities is a flaw in the system. We have introduced major changes in secondary schools. We have affected the number of children who stay on at school—42.6 per cent. of pupils go on to the fifth year, and then on to the sixth year. That is quite a step up from the situation in 1979—it is almost double the number. It is a magnificent achievement.
  450
  The number of school leavers who go into higher education now stands at 43 per cent. That is phenomenal. What is wrong with Scottish education? Why are we hearing all these gripes? I do not understand the complaints, because we are succeeding and we are achieving.
  I am very impressed with the standard and quality of many of the young people who come out of our schools these days and go into university. They are absolutely tremendous; I am proud of them. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I believe that there are many high fliers and high achievers coming through our schools. In many ways, our education system encourages them and gives them opportunities.
  There are now 413,000 Scottish students in higher and further education. We have doubled the number since 1979. That is a remarkable achievement, despite the despondent and denigrating comments of Opposition Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commented earlier on Labour's record in the 1970s and, thinking of that, I have to ask Opposition Members how on earth they can criticise us. They should look back at their own record. I shall read Hansard tomorrow, look at the figures and get my press releases ready for the weekend, because I think that they are blinking good figures.
  Part I of the Bill is about the Scottish Qualifications Authority, which seems to have been a gleam in the eye since the mid-1980s. Now is the right time to introduce the change. People in the world of education recognise the need, have been consulted and have given their support. To his credit, even the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) supports the idea. I can tell the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that that is one element of change that he will support, because I do not reckon that he would want to cut across the aims of the hon. Member for Hamilton. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East criticised me when I was talking about some elements of change, but here is one element of change in the Bill to which he will give whole-hearted backing. That is nice, and I welcome it.
  The Bill represents a forging together of secondary school qualifications and vocational qualifications. That is important. It must help with co-ordination and improve quality, and it recognises the needs both of academia and of commercial interests. Those steps will do much not only for educational provision, but will improve the standards of the youngsters who go into business, and on whom Britain's future will be built.
  The Bill will set standards and create a quality assurance trail. It will blend in with, and build upon, what was there before. We should not denigrate what was in place before. We should recognise the achievements, and pay tribute to those who have served on the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council. All of them have contributed something.
  I had just got used to SCOTVEC, NVQs and SVQs, but now I suppose I must start getting used to talking about the SQA instead. [Interruption.] I think that the Minister is telling me that those qualifications will still exist, and I take my hon. Friend's guidance on that.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton talked about the composition of the new body, but I cannot imagine a composition very different from that recommended by my

  451
  right hon. Friend. Naturally, the Secretary of State would want to control to some degree such an important body, and I have no objection to that.
  However, the SQA will be obliged to establish an accreditation committee, which will be quorate only if it has a majority of non-SQA members. Perhaps either in his winding-up speech or by picking up the point now, my hon. Friend the Minister will say a little about the accreditation committee, because although I have read the Bill carefully I do not quite understand what it is for, or why it should be balanced in such a way.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend now. That point was raised in another place, too. We are determined that the accreditation committee, although part of the SQA, will be separate from the authority's other functions. The committee's purpose will be to accredit other bodies that award qualifications, such as the City and Guilds, to ensure that their qualifications are up to the necessary standard and meet all the criteria.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend. Does that suggest that, through accreditation, some of our major institutions will still have an input into the awards? I hope that my hon. Friend will think about that and come back to the issue—if not now, in Committee, because I should like to follow it up.
  The amendment tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, with a rag, tag and bobtail bunch following behind, is totally negative. It says nothing good or positive about the Bill; it is simply a damnation of the nursery education aspect of it. In my view, the amendment is pretty pathetic—and it was reflected in the quality of the speech made by the hon. Member for Hamilton.
  I referred earlier to the establishing of single-tier authorities in Scotland. Now, I should like to pay a little tribute to the new Labour-run South Ayrshire authority, which has recognised that, over the years, Strathclyde regional council had no intention of fulfilling the desires and hopes of the people in my constituency for the provision of nursery education.
  South Ayrshire now has the powers and can deal with the matter locally, and it is attempting to provide a basic nursery education system. For 20 years, Strathclyde regional council failed to do that, yet in its first year the new single-tier authority is already addressing an issue that the locals really want to be tackled.
  However, the authority was somewhat misguided in that it failed to push for inclusion in the voucher scheme project, which has cost my constituents a lot of money. Although added cash could have come into South Ayrshire, council tax payers will have to pay for the change instead, and I greatly regret that. Although I praise the council's action in providing nursery education, I criticise it for failing to get its act together on the nursery education voucher scheme.
  Perhaps I put that slightly unfairly, because the leader of the authority challenged me the other day by saying, "We didn't fail to get our act together; we simply decided not to go for the scheme." I suggest that that was even worse; once again, it meant added costs for my council tax payers, and it removed opportunities from many children in my constituency because the pre-school scheme will be limited.
  452
  Many children in my constituency attend private nursery schools. Perhaps they could have been given the opportunity to spend more time there, or perhaps parents could have sent a second child along too. Who knows? In any case, the opportunity was lost.
  The scheme is also seriously flawed in terms of its effect on playgroups. South Ayrshire is pushing out one or two playgroups that meet in schools, and very little help is being offered to them at present. Not only has the authority cost parents dear by not going for the scheme, but it is also depriving to some degree those whose parents chose the playgroup option. I regret that.
  However, the council intends to look into what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) described as the "church hall" scenario. I understand that it is prepared to put cash in for the capital equipment that the church hall groups need to meet the basic standards required for the provision of playgroup or nursery education.
  I have heard much today about a failure to control and inspect nursery schools, but in fact such schools are already examined by local authorities. In the private sector, they cannot go ahead without such inspection, so standards and levels of inspection have already been set.
  I regret that we have failed to cash in on the opportunity for nursery provision, but I am delighted that, due to the Bill, the problem will not last for too long. The Bill will fulfil the aims and aspirations of many of the young mothers who made representations to me before the 1992 election. They stated clearly that they wanted nursery school provision. The Bill gives a commitment to fund every pre-school child to the tune of £1,100—quite a commitment.
  More important, the way in which the provision will be introduced will give parents an element of choice. Not every parent wants their child to receive nursery education; some want the option of a playgroup. Why should they not be able to benefit from such choice? The Bill will allow that choice. The Bill will also allow local authorities to gain additional funding. If they provide services and people want to use them, they will attract more funding in the longer term. On that basis, I will welcome the Bill becoming law.
  The amendment tabled by the Opposition says that the nursery voucher scheme is "educationally unsound". It is not; it is an educational advancement. Where there was no provision before, there will be in future. I find the suggestion that the scheme is educationally unsound insulting, given some of the excellent private nursery school facilities in Scotland. There are some excellent schools, which have been well used by parents, where teachers are of a high standard and provide a quality service. Labour is wrong to suggest that the scheme is educationally unsound.
  The amendment also describes the scheme as "administratively wasteful". I do not believe that it is. Many of the facilities have already been provided. Provision in our schools and local authorities can be used. Playgroups already have resources. Any scheme that builds on that can hardly be considered wasteful. I do not accept that the scheme is wasteful; Labour is wrong again.
  We are told in the amendment that the scheme is "socially divisive". I suggest that there is equal opportunity for all. The provision of £1,100 for every pre-school child must mean equal opportunity. At present,

  453
  there is not equal opportunity because in many areas such facilities have not been provided by the local authorities that have had responsibility.
  Labour Members have a cheek to talk about social division in such issues. They seem to believe that what is good for their leaders should not be available to the great mass of the population. We have only to look at the children of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). Indeed, we should look further back, to the education of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), and even the arch-socialist, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who I know is on parliamentary business elsewhere. I shall not criticise him as I did other Opposition Members who represent Ayrshire, but even he, an ardent socialist, took advantage of the private education facilities of which he would deprive others. Labour is wrong, too, about the Bill causing social divisions—there will be none.
  Part III deals with school boards, which have been opposed by the Labour party. In my view they are a significant success. The Bill could be criticised, as I said earlier, for missing an opportunity to strengthen school boards. We could have ensured that head teachers were obliged to submit to school boards all their funding requirements under devolved school management. That would have given school boards some teeth and perhaps encouraged others to join them.
  If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would pay some attention—
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson indicated assent.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for his attention. I should like him to look again at the requirement in schedule 4(3) that all councillors in a school catchment area should have the right to participate on the school board. In some areas, far too many councillors would qualify, and they would grossly outnumber members of the school board.
  Mr. Robertson: That point has often been raised with us. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities asked for the change, and we shall obviously return to the matter in Committee. If my hon. Friend wants to pick up on it then, we shall look at it.
  Mr. Gallie: I can think of no better reason for rejecting the proposal than the fact that it has been suggested by COSLA. I suggest that my hon. Friend talks to school board members and the people who are showing interest, listens to what they are saying and accepts their judgments rather than those of COSLA. I accept that it would be reasonable for a local councillor to have an input into a school board. Councillors whose wards include certain schools should have a right to be on their boards. Thereafter, it seems entirely reasonable that others may be invited by the board to specific meetings rather than attend by right.
  More could have been made of the use of school buildings. It could have been part of a requirement on local authorities' additional involvement outside normal school times. Perhaps we shall address that opportunity later. We have a heck of a lot of national capital tied up
  454
  in school buildings and we do not always get maximum return on its use. It may have been difficult to include such matters in the Bill. I recognise that we have to walk before we can run and that we cannot have everything.
  I also have a gripe about the fact that there is nothing in the Bill about sports in school, which are a very important part of any school's activities. It would have been nice if something along those lines could have been included. Perhaps we shall look at such issues in the Government's next term of office and introduce changes at that time.
  I very much welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comments on testing. Testing is absolutely essential for the future. It is stupid not to monitor sufficiently young people—the products of our schools. Many successful, quality young people are coming out of our schools. A great majority of them will achieve, but there will always be a significant minority who do not. Testing should be introduced to ensure that such young people can catch up and improve. We must help them. Testing is designed to help not those at the top of the ladder, but those at the bottom.
  I was totally confused by some of the topsyturvy suggestions made by Opposition Members—but that is nothing new. I always expect to be confused by Opposition Members who, it seems, do not think as rationally as me.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) for allowing me some time to speak after he has replied to the debate. I always have the feeling that that is what he is doing as he covers every other speech that has been made. As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was sure that the Minister was scoring through points that he had intended to make.
  It was worth waiting to speak, however. Hon. Members will have to make up their own minds as to whether my speech was worth waiting for. If the Minister manages to stay awake, I am sure that he will take note of the points that I intend to raise and respond to them in his reply.
  The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who unfortunately is not in his place, reminisced about being the Minister responsible for education in Scotland in 1971–74. He spoke about the problems that still occur in schools that were built in the 1950s and 1960s.
  This year, my constituency is celebrating the centenary of Maddiston primary school. As the Minister knows because he was good enough to visit Bo'ness school, that building dates from the 1950s or the 1960s. It was made of the wrong kind of concrete and—slowly but surely—it is crumbling and falling apart. My constituents in the Braes—the former East Stirlingshire area—send their children to two schools that are not in my constituency. One third of my constituency does not have a secondary school. Children attend either Woodlands—the former Falkirk high school, which is more than 100 years old, and which moved to different premises some 30 or 40 years ago leaving behind a school that is still in use.
  The Minister has also been invited to inspect Graeme high school, the main school for the Braes, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). It used to be the old technical

  455
  school. I understand that he has accepted that invitation, although we are still awaiting a date. The music department used to be the old foundry and the practice rooms are reached by a wooden staircase that should not conform to modern health and safety standards, but the school has to manage with that until the Government provide more resources.
  Some of the Bill's provisions are the Government's way of trying to fulfil the aspirations of the right hon. Member for Dumfries in 1971–74 to provide nursery education for every child in Scotland. That did not happen because the Governments of the day—Labour and Conservative—did not put enough money into the project. We are now being offered the voucher system, which is a cheap and shoddy imitation of proper nursery education.
  There have been some attacks on the Labour party and I am not unhappy to defend Labour's record in the 1960s as Labour came to power after a long period of Conservative Government. The economy had been destroyed, as had people's hopes and dreams. The 1950s and the 1960s before Labour regained power saw the flight of capital from Britain, and we ended up having to rescue Britain from an incredible balance of payments problem that should have led to immediate devaluation. As the Government and the public were either unaware of the need for that or unwilling to make the political choice, we suffered the consequences in the 1960s and 1970s. The Minister can trot out the figures, but the country was facing economic problems that were created by Conservative profligacy and reliance on a completely free market.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) is not in his place because, as he explained, he has left to chair a Committee. However, he treated us to some Tayside xenophobia. He said that only rural schools in Tayside were worthy of praise.
  I was a teacher for 15 years. I taught mainly in special education by choice. My wife is a trained primary teacher and a graduate and now a senior educational officer, and I have spent much time in debate, discussion and observation of the Scottish education at the primary stage and into adulthood.
  There are wonderful teachers in wonderful schools throughout Scotland. However, in some schools there are substantial social pressures, both economically and because of the fabric of the schools and the straitened circumstances of people living in the outskirts of Scottish cities and in some Scottish town centres. None of those difficulties will be alleviated by the Bill. People will not be rushing to claim their £1,100 because what they want, and what some local authorities—Labour Conservative and SNP—are providing is proper nursery education.
  Everyone is wondering who will suffer when the £1,100 voucher system becomes universal in Scotland. What will happen? The necessary funds to provide proper nursery places—which can cost as much as £3,500—will be shattered into segments of £1,100 and spread around. That will not supplement existing provision, as the hon. Member for Ayr tried to impress on the House, but undermine, destroy and wear away the provision that is
  456
  already being made by many Scottish local authorities, sometimes under seriously straitened financial circumstances.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber during my right hon. Friend's opening speech, his comments seem rather strange. Did he not hear that in East Renfrewshire, every holder of a voucher has been guaranteed a nursery place under the scheme and that to date almost three quarters of eligible parents have taken the opportunity of getting a voucher? That does not sit with what he has just said—that parents will not be rushing to get their vouchers. They are doing just that.
  Mr. Connarty: The Secretary of State did not answer my question as he did not accept my intervention on that point. I wished to ask him to give me one instance—unlike his surgery tale of a woman who did not get nursery places for her children—of someone saying, "My child has a proper nursery place, but I want to give up that place and take a voucher."
  We are talking about an area where there may have been a partnership, as has been explained. I am not saying that there should be no variety, but parents whose children have a nursery place want to hang on to it. When people see the benefits of a proper nursery place, they aspire to that for their children. There is nothing wrong with wanting a halfway house when there is no other provision, but that is not the aspiration of the Opposition. We do not want to cheapen and devalue, but to increase the nursery provision for three and four-year-olds.
  Mr. Welsh: There is a flaw in the Government's logic when they assume that a voucher worth £1,100 has the same value in the Gorbals as it has in Eastwood. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be far better if we invested properly in the existing national system. The local authorities are the best providers, giving a high-quality service, but as usual with the present Government, they are under-resourced.
  Mr. Connarty: I concur with that succinct and accurate analysis. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Dumfries has returned to the Chamber. I mentioned him when he was not in his place, not in any way to criticise his aspirations, but to point out that since his period in office, the Government have not funded nursery education to the level required to provide what we need—a proper headstart.
  I use the word headstart as when I studied for my diploma at university and college, there was a large American project called Headstart. People thought that it was not working because it did not achieve immediate results. As middle-class children with good social backgrounds were doing just as well as if not better than those involved in the project at primary 1 and primary 2, which is elementary 1, elementary 2 and elementary 3 in the United States, funding was discontinued and the programme was run down. However, some 10 years later, the young people who had been involved in Headstart were going to college. They were not just taking a high school diploma, but they were matching their middle-class counterparts and going on to further and higher education in America. Headstart is now being revived in the United States and money is being put into pre-school nursery

  457
  education because it extends the learning process and encourages young people to aspire to further and higher education.
  Sadly, the Secretary of State made a rather snide and disparaging remark about myself in relation to Stirling university, which he announced would be conducting research into nursery education. As a graduate of Stirling university, I should like to put a few points on record so that he can read them and reconsider his disparaging remarks about whether my work at Stirling university and since leaving gives me some credentials to speak about higher and further education.
  I was an undergraduate at Stirling from 1967 to 1972. In 1970–71 I was elected student president of the university, and in 1983–84 I was elected honorary president or rector. I am currently a member of the university conference, as is the Secretary of State for Scotland as a local Member of Parliament.
  The Secretary of State may have been making the same mistake as his Conservative colleagues in Falkirk, who tried to insinuate that I was at the university at the time of the debacle of the Queen's visit in 1972. At a funeral in Stirling last week, I was told by an elderly lady that I had been blamed for that. But I had been living in Canterbury from June of that year, and I had not been back to Stirling. [Interruption.] The Minister with responsibility for education, housing and fisheries should listen, as his colleagues are making these remarks. The members of Falkirk council have a poster—
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Get on with it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that I can be trusted to look after these matters, rather than a junior Minister speaking from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Connarty: I shall deal with the matter quickly. The Secretary of State made an unfounded and disparaging remark that should be discounted, as the Conservative members of Falkirk council now accept that I was not at the university at the time of the Queen's visit. I am proud of my contribution since then. I was the leader of Stirling council, and we built the management centre that the Secretary of State is always describing as an example of private enterprise and universities working together. The council has continued to work with the university since then.
  Part I of the Bill deals with the Scottish Qualifications Authority. It would be unfortunate if there was to be a split in the all-party support for that authority, as we had—believe it or not—before the creation of Scottish Enterprise all-party support for the idea of the Scottish Development Agency and the Manpower Services Commission joining together. Sadly, the Government underfunded Scottish Enterprise and, as a result, the quality of training has been poorer than would have been the case had the two organisations remained apart.
  My worry is that the Scottish Qualifications Authority will be underfunded by the Government. As a result, we will not have parity of esteem—something to which we all aspire—so that vocational and academic qualifications will be as one. We will instead have a spectrum of qualifications, with academic qualifications at the top and vocational qualifications at the bottom. The members of
  458
  the body should not be appointed by the Secretary of State, who may be driven by an ideology that may not be in the interests of all the people of Scotland who want vocational or academic qualifications. The danger is that there will be pressure to focus on either of the areas, and the body will not give parity of esteem.
  I believe that the Scottish Qualifications Authority will rely for its success on the resourcing of "Higher Still". Everybody to whom I have talked about "Higher Still" has said that although the pilot projects have been fine, there is no indication in the Government's budgets that the scheme is to be continuously resourced. I am in daily contact with people in the academic world—particularly in high schools—and they are not buoyant about the scheme. Many are saying that although they have been involved in the pilots, they will not continue with "Higher Still" unless they receive the resources. If the resources are not provided, there will be no proper training and the scheme will stumble. Problems will be created by the Government cutting corners, as that will result in a cut in quality.
  I am glad that the Minister responded as he did to his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr on the accreditation organisation, as I was going to point out that City and Guilds has re-established itself in Scotland. In addition, the Royal Society of Arts—which does tremendous work in commercial and office training—plays a fundamental part in the transition from school to a working environment, and often to further and higher education, for many young people. I am glad that the Minister recognises that.
  We do not want one organisation and a single approach but many approaches, all of which people can take at different times in their lives. I remember meeting young people who had not gone to high school, but who were studying in university—and in the library where I and my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) studied for our highers—for their PhDs. They were studying in the library because their family circumstances did not allow them to work at home. There are many routes to further and higher education, and I hope that the Scottish Qualifications Authority will not cut them.
  I have some reservations about the authority—for example, it will not have enough local authority members. The hon. Member for Ayr suggested that the Government take the view that COSLA is an antagonist—although perhaps not an enemy—and would not be included among the Government's automatic choices for consultees. That worries me, because I believe that COSLA is a responsible organisation. Education authorities have made many changes—as a result not of Government pressure, but of pressure from academics, researchers and parents, whom they take seriously and try to represent. COSLA should be involved in that organisation. It has bid for a certain percentage of places and while I would not go so far as to say that we should accede to its request, I believe that COSLA should be represented in large numbers.
  It has been suggested that training providers should be predominant in the accreditation committee, and that should be looked at seriously by the Government. We have talked in the Scottish Grand Committee about the Fast-trac scheme in Fife, and there is a strong view there that we should talk to those who provide rather than intermediaries or academics. The Government should make sure that an adequate number of places are provided

  459
  for providers. The hon. Member for Ayr referred to providers in universities, but I believe that those who turn the aspirations of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds into NVQs should also be included.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The Bill requires that the Secretary of State must consult widely before making any appointment. Therefore, the matter to which the hon. Gentleman is referring is catered for in the Bill.
  Mr. Connarty: I am grateful for that assurance, but it has been said that consultation under this Government—particularly in Scotland—is someone being asked for his opinion and then being told that he will get what the Government planned anyway. We can think back to the Scottish local government legislation, when there was clear opposition from the Scottish people to the proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has pointed out also that the people of Scotland do not want nursery vouchers, but the Government have introduced them anyway. I am glad that the Secretary of State will consult, but I hope that he will do more and will take on board the aspirations of those whom he consults.
  As someone who worked in the field for 15 years, I am concerned that there is no commitment in the Bill to special educational needs qualifications. I found it difficult to shoe-horn the abilities and the massive and complex difficulties of my students aged between 11 and 19 into five-to-14. That was a wonderful innovation, but it did not fit the needs of those children. Often, individual children had programmes designed specifically for them. Yet at the end of the programme, we were asked to grade them A, B or C. It was not sensible. I hope that some prescriptive protection can be provided in Committee, or perhaps graded qualifications in special educational needs could be developed to help people pass through the system and fit into five-to-14 and "Higher Still".
  Children with special educational needs are often below the basic level of the standard grade qualification that they are trying to achieve. But they want to achieve something, because a child with special educational needs makes just as much effort to get to a pre-general stage—never mind the general stage of a standard grade. The Minister, who was a teacher, knows that. I hope that the organisation will look at that matter.
  I will not deal with the Bill in order, because I want to get to the meat at the end. I wish to refer to the alterations to school boards. The school board system is not massively succesful, as the hon. Member for Ayr said. It has many flaws, and it staggers and stumbles in different areas. People are co-opted on to boards because they cannot get anyone to volunteer. Some areas are not represented, with people from one community on school boards while those from other communities are not. That is no substitute for a statutory right for every parent to have access to and influence on what happens in a school. For instance, clause 28(8) allows certain people to stay on in post until the next election even though they have ceased to have any parental or other connection. Those who have volunteered to be co-opted may have wives or husbands on the board; they can stay on until they eventually have to leave. The Government are responding to the problem of gaps appearing in the school board
  460
  system. The hon. Member for Ayr talked about budgets and expenditure as providing a role for the boards, but that could end up with people arguing about the price of the postage stamps instead of concentrating on things that affect the school.
  I want the whole ethos of schools to be discussed. All the research shows that school boards should not feel detached from school affairs but should help teachers in their tasks. That would give them a real role in a school's aspirations.
  Perhaps school boards do not represent the right way forward in any event. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East has been looking seriously—while drawing up a consultation document—at other approaches. We need to revitalise the relationship between parents and schools, not just to patch up the holes in the system.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman is being a little insulting to school boards when he talks of discussions of postage stamps and so on. Boards are interested in the books and equipment that schools use and in other major issues. My experience is that they like to feel that they are making a contribution in that way.
  Mr. Connarty: My experience is somewhat different. If the Minister cares to visit Graeme High, just as he visited Bo'ness in my constituency, he will find that the school board and action group want to discuss not the internal affairs of the school but the need for more resources—just as happened at Bo'ness. The group's members do not want to sit down with the headmaster to divide up the school's resources—they trust the professionals to do that well—but they do want to make the case for more and better resources. If the Government recognised the validity of allowing people some degree of subsidiarity so that they could speak out democratically, they might get on better.
  Clause 32 might be aptly named the Balfron clause, as it clearly stems from the Secretary of State's experience at Balfron in the west of his constituency. For some time now people have been crossing the border from Strathclyde mainly because, once over the hill, people look down on Balfron in the Blane valley, not at Glasgow. I was the leader of the local council for 10 years so I know the area well. I should like to record my commendation of Jim Fleming, the head teacher whom I knew for many years as a fellow modern studies teacher—just as the Minister used to be before his temporary incarnation as a politician. I am sure that he will go back to teaching when he leaves this place—
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am too old.
  Mr. Connarty: This place's loss would be modern studies' gain. I have heard no criticism of the hon. Gentleman's period as a modern studies teacher, although I have heard him criticised as a Minister.
  The school attracts people, but many schools in the same situation attract so many that they squeeze out their local catchment area pupils. Clause 32 is therefore long overdue.
  Today, the Secretary of State made his usual and typical disparaging personal remark about me, but we are old sparring partners. My problem with what he had to say

  461
  was echoed earlier by the hon. Member for Ayr. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the nursery places being provided are additional. They are certainly additional in the pilot schemes, but that is what bribery is all about. The same happened with the capital offered to opting out schools in England and Wales. Such schools are now being told that there will be no more bribes, with the result that many of them have run into difficulties.
  It is easy to get people to take up an option that includes more money. The councils that have taken the money have clearly decided that although they do not like the political ideology behind them they need the extra cash offered in the pilot schemes. So their choice was between taking some money or taking nothing—and some took it. I do not wish to act as judge and jury; I do not know what pressures such councils have been subjected to, or how they have resolved them.
  What is clear is that, after the pilots are over, the provision will have to be delivered universally, and if £1,100 per pupil is universally offered it will not amount to that much money on top of what is already spent by local authorities on nursery education. Both the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Ayr know that. Just because everyone queues up for vouchers in one local authority area does not mean that that authority will have the money to provide them all with places—certainly not of the quality to which the right hon. Member for Dumfries aspires. The pre-five organisations in my area, too, know that the provision will not be adequate.
  As for clause 24, the administration of the voucher system constitutes a blank cheque for political interference. Some of the clauses in this Bill smack not of a nanny state but of a dogmatic state, because they allow the Secretary of State first to decide on the requirements and then to change them at any time after payment: if the requirements are not met, the money can be called in again. It seems that the Secretary of State can change the rules on his personal whim. He may, for instance, decide that too much partnership with local authorities should result in a shift to the private sector. Failing that, the money can be taken away. There will be continual pressures of this kind, which is why I hope that clause 24 will be examined in great detail by the Standing Committee.
  The safeguards written into the Bill may, according to clause 24(2)(b),
  "be varied, waived or removed."
  In effect, the Secretary of State can apply pressure and then take away the safeguards written into the agreements with the people who set up the system. The whole thing is fraught with difficulties, and clauses 24 and 25 are dangerous parts of the Bill.
  Clause 25 deals with setting up a nursery voucher company, Capita. I have visited the Student Loans Company so I know what a disaster it is. This one will be the same. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton described the complexities which the Government say do not exist, and I certainly cannot see how the system can be run on spending of £22 per person out of the £1,100. That represents £1 million of the £70 million. It is ridiculous to believe that an organisation can be run on that, although no doubt a private company will be set up if the banks think that there is money to be made—just as they did with Motability. I predict that problems will follow.
  462
  Clause 26 refers to the Secretary of State's ability to release social security information about people. That is worrying. The defence will be that information was released unknowingly to third parties. The Government tell us that they want freedom and choice, and that they want to get the state off people's backs, but clause 26 allows personal information to be passed on to others.
  The point has been made again and again that vouchers do not mean places—they just mean vouchers. Because they want to be seen to have introduced broader nursery education for more people, the Government are willing to spread the available jam more and more thinly. The result will be something that sustains no one; it will not achieve the impact to which Headstart aspired in America, or even the impact achieved by the pre-fives groups in Strathclyde and in other local authorities. Yet the Secretary of State is trying to sell the idea to the people of Scotland.
  Does the Minister really believe that this £1,100 will buy the same quality nursery provision as local authorities currently make? If he does, his view will be subjected to scrutiny during the pilot period and will be found wanting.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman does not have to take my word for it: the National Audit Office has said that £1,100 will pay for everything except the most high-quality and the most expensive places—the voucher scheme was never intended to pay for those places. The independent National Audit Office is saying this, not me.
  Mr. Connarty: It is the independent National Audit Office for England and Wales. I would like to see someone from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy or the Comptroller of Audit in Scotland do it. I remember that when we had the debate about the cost of local authority reorganisation, CIPFA put out a paper to show that the reorganisation cost will be much dearer than the one put forward by the Government. The Government's chosen consultant, Touche Ross, borrowed the Government's watch and told them the time the Government wanted to hear.
  Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman not being a wee bit arrogant to think that he knows better than the National Audit Office?
  Mr. Connarty: I was the treasurer of my council and I was the deputy leader of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, so I suppose I can be a little arrogant in thinking that local government experience may outweigh the accountants' slide rule, but we will test that as time goes on.
  The Secretary of State spoke about people being brainwashed. I was amazed by the statement. When it was pointed out that everyone is against the proposal, the Secretary of State said that even the parents and people of Scotland have been brainwashed by the Labour party. That is an incredible insult. I see one of the English Members, the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), backing up the Minister and nodding his head. That shows that he does not know much about Scottish society because in Scottish society there is a common weal, a belief among the people, that there are certain aspirations that we should all share. If we do not share those aspirations, or are willing to tread on them, we are betraying not just ourselves but the society in which we live.

  463
  I believe that that society aspires to have the best for the largest number of people and it wants to give a chance to the 30 per cent. —it is 30 per cent. at the moment—who are not getting a chance in the Scottish society that we have created over the past 17 years. We are doing it for moral and emotional reasons and for reasons of logic. But there are sound economic reasons as well. Society will carry those 30 per cent. on our backs—through transfer payments, and through social unrest, disruption and disfunctionality for the next generation. I believe that people want to see an effort being made to right that wrong in Scotland. I do not think that the people are in any way brainwashed. The Secretary of State said that the parents are brainwashed and that the voters are brainwashed. The Conservative party is down to 12 per cent. in the polls in Scotland, not because of brainwashing but because people are sick to their teeth of this ideology.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend will know that I was a member of Strathclyde regional council for almost 10 years. I remember what happened in 1978—and we thought that they were bleak years. At that time, Scottish education was renowned the world over and we were praised for the standard that we achieved. We are on rocky ground after 16 years of Tory Government. Education resources are constantly eroded by the Government. The morality of the Government is now in deep question by the people who deliver educational services in Scotland.
  Mr. Connarty: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I hold up one hope. I believe that we survived it. The innovation that I have seen in local government and in education over the past 16 or 17 years has been tremendous. It is not driven by the Government—in a sense people are showing innovation to prevent the damage that the Government wish to do. Education is hit hard because it is the largest and most labour-intensive part of a local authority budget. It is easy to pressure that budget by taking a few hundred thousand pounds out here and a few hundred thousand pounds out there. I know that every local authority is going through traumas in education at the moment because of the cut in the budget, because of local government reorganisation and because of the paltry sum given to them by the Secretary of State.
  I believe that there is brainwashing: I think the Secretary of State and some of his colleagues were brainwashed when they went to St. Andrews. The political economy lecturers were Hayekians—now called the Austrian school—and they proselytised the theories of Hayek to their students. They were taken up by the Secretary of State and others. If one looks back at the so-called Thatcher years they were years when the Hayek model of the economy—a free market, deregulated economy—was to the fore.
  There has been brainwashing, but it has been of Ministers and the Secretary of State—who has enthusiastically talked for that model. The past 17 years have shown that that model has denuded Britain of its ability to survive in the world, and reduced the capacity of the economy. We are now 35th in the league of investment in education and 18th in the prosperity league in the world. That is not something that happened because
  464
  the world turned against us—it happened because those theories were carried to the extreme. It is not wrong to have a mix, but it was carried to the extreme—where only the free-market model was acceptable.
  I do not believe that the aspiration of nursery education is to have, as the Secretary of State said, a system where some kind of overriding social strategy allows people to parachute in because they have a designated social need and take a place away from a local resident. We have to get the balance right. In Central region there have been revisions of the policy since the new councils came in and they are trying to get the balance correct between social need and the aspirations of local people. One should not be denied by the other.
  Another point continually made by the Secretary of State and other Ministers is that we have a voucher system for training and it works. That is not true: we have a voucher system for training, but it does not work. I have spent 18 months studying the skill seekers programme and looking at the aspirations. The people who thought it up—I said this in the Scottish Grand Committee—said that it will work properly only if there is intermediate employment for people to train with their job. Training on its own will not create people who can get a job. We need to get the other half of the equation correct.
  In Fast-trac we have a model that we can look at. Fife Enterprise has admitted that it does not have anything going for special educational needs. The Minister said that the nursery providers said that they can cope in the pilots with special educational needs with the funding that is available. That is not true because when we look at the needs of people post-school it is taking 40 per cent. of some skill seekers programme budgets to provide for the 15 per cent. of people who are designated as having special educational needs in some areas.
  Mr. Raymonds Robertson rose—
  Mr. Connarty: I will let the Minister intervene in a moment. I have been looking closely at the figures. In one local enterprise company area they aspired to have 1,000 people in the skill seekers programme with 52 per cent. of them in a job with training. When I inquired, they announced that they had reached the target—in fact, they were over it, with 56 per cent. of people in training. When I looked I found that the total number in the programme was not 1,000 but 700, so it was 56 per cent. of 700, not 56 per cent. of the 1,000 originally targeted. That is the picture throughout Scotland, apart from Grampian, which has been running the longest and has the most buoyant economy. I am not against the voucher system in training—it just needs to have Government input at the right resource level to provide jobs that people can then take their training into.
  Mr. Robertson: I tried to intervene on the hon. Gentleman when he was talking about special educational needs. He has to be consistent in this. Ten minutes ago he was lecturing us and saying that local authorities knew best. Local authorities are now saying that they can cope with special educational needs and he is saying that they do not know what they are talking about.
  Mr. Connarty: The simple thing for the Minister to look at is what it costs to look after one special

  465
  educational needs pupil compared with a pupil in a standard secondary school. It costs £12,000 for a place in the school where I taught for 15 years and it costs an average of £3,000 for a secondary education place. The size of the budget disparity is enormous. I think that special educational needs will suffer. They will suffer because the Government aspire to give this voucher only to four-year-olds.
  Every single authority that has looked seriously at a pre-five strategy—through the social work department, and the special educational needs provision, and the psychological services—is doing a complete screening of its younger people and is looking for people with special needs. Problems with dyslexia, dysphasia and minor cerebral palsy are being revealed in this screening. They are the people who are getting priority at the moment in local authority schemes.
  If the Minister tells me that the Government will provide for every young person who comes through that screening with special educational needs the extra resources required so that they can start at the age of three or even earlier in home-based pre-school experiences he will at least have said something positive today. If he is not going to do that now, he can do it in his reply. We will need more than £1,100 if we are going to do that. The Government do not recognise that people are going for three-year-olds not just to win votes but because the earlier we intervene in the pre-school experience the better we can do what we intend to do.
  As to the idea of regulating testing in secondary schools, the Minister's contention—he said it again earlier from a sedentary position—is that an S1-S2 national testing programme is the only way to get added value in S1 and S2. His mythological education authority in Tayside is not the same as the one that I have heard my colleagues from Tayside speak about. There are constant continual assessments as part of S1 and S2—some in the five-to-14 mode and some in the S1-S2 mode.
  Teachers do not survive in the classroom if they do not conduct tests because they will have no information upon which to base further work with their pupils. As a former teacher, I am sure that the Minister tested his pupils regularly to see how well they were doing. The Government put about that mythology because they want to conduct a propaganda and an ideological battle. They do not want to accept that the five-to-14 programme has changed things fundamentally and that the S1 and S2 experience will continue to change for young people. The ethos in primary schools, using all the modes of five-to-14, will continue into S1 and S2.
  The idea that any teacher could continue to teach for two years without assessing his or her pupils and using that assessment, as the Minister said, to diagnose their needs, to discover their weaknesses and provide educational experiences that will correct them is nonsense. A barrage of tests or a national testing programme has been put up only because the Secretary of State believes that there is some latent desire in the community for him to champion the idea of grading, setting and streaming. I do not think that there is that desire. I think that the Secretary of State will come a cropper, as he did—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton pointed out—when he tried to do that in primary schools.
  466
  In that case, the assessment examples were absorbed into local authorities and worked alongside their continuous assessment and testing programme. I watched that happen in the schools in which I taught and I watched it happen within education authorities that I knew very well. I hope that this mad, hare-brained idea will be absorbed into the continuous assessment programme of secondary schools in Scotland at S1 and S2 if there is some benefit to be gained from national test items.
  The real question is how much longer the people of Scotland must suffer from the fanatical zealotry coming out of St. Andrews. That mad Hayekian model of the economy filtered through the Adam Smith Institute and into the heart and the mind of the Conservative party in Scotland. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State says that he went to Glasgow, but he is obviously following in the footsteps of another influence. Perhaps he has not read Hayek—I do not know whether he has read any fundamental economic books. However, the Secretary of State has. He has published little articles for the Adam Smith Institute which show quite clearly where he is coming from—whether it is competitive tendering or the market for nursery vouchers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton exposed the fact that the Secretary of State still aspires to a market for secondary education and higher education vouchers.
  It is logical that we need a full partnership. It cannot be a bit of a partnership with the people whom the Government allow in and believe that they can work with; it must be a partnership with all those who care about, and have aspirations for, our children's future. I do not see any of that in the Bill. The Government have tried to slip in unnecessary and unwanted voucher and testing schemes in a Bill which just tinkers with school boards and pulls together the general aspiration to have one qualifications authority in Scotland. It is a shoddy piece of work. The Government have been found out and the Conservatives will lose the next election as a result.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Education has always been a Scottish priority: it is an important part of our life, outlook and culture. Our system is basically strong, but it is under-resourced. I believe that investment in Scotland's education system will pay massive dividends.
  I make a plea on behalf of the Scottish Pre-School Play Association. That organisation provides quality assurance and training schemes and has 3,000 groups throughout Scotland which represent excellent value for money. It is the largest single pre-school carer and education organisation in Scotland and it needs about £500,000 to build on its existing high quality service. I was shocked to learn that it receives only 37 per cent. of the funding received by its equivalent organisation in England and Wales, and only 13 per cent. of the funding given to the equivalent organisation in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to provide that core funding to the SPPA, as a small investment in such a tried, trusted and successful organisation will reap rich dividends in the long term.
  As Scottish education generally has received poor treatment from the Conservative Government, it is incumbent on Scottish Members of Parliament to do our utmost to prevent the Government from inflicting further damage on education provision in Scotland. The Minister

  467
  will be relieved to hear that I do not oppose everything in the Bill. The establishment of the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the principle of a single authority are welcomed conditionally. I say "conditionally" because I do not want to see that body become another quango filled with Tory yes-men. We shall watch carefully to ensure that Lord Lindsay honours his commitment, made during debate in another place, to consult properly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the SQA's membership. There must be adequate provision to ensure that the merger between the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council occurs smoothly and with minimum disruption both to staff and to those who benefit from the service.
  I shall focus on part II of the Bill, which refers to education for children under school age. That is a much greater concern. Although the Bill states that it relates to the provision of grants and social security information to pre-school education providers, we know that they are simply mechanisms for facilitating the Government's unwanted and unnecessary voucher scheme. It is somewhat devious and deceitful of the Government to obscure that fact by not referring explicitly to the voucher scheme.
  The Scottish National party is strongly in favour of expanding pre-school education for children under five. We made a detailed pledge to do so in our costed budget proposals, with a commitment to spend an extra £194 million on pre-school education in the first four years of an independent SNP Government. That would ensure a nursery place for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that when those budget proposals were independently costed it was found that they would create an £8 billion deficit?
  Mr. Welsh: That figure exists only in the Minister's imagination. If one stands upside down with one's head at a 45-degree angle and imagines a Tory wonderland, one might arrive at £8 billion, but the reality is that the Minister is a Scottish politician who takes every opportunity to downgrade and debase his country. He cannot believe that, of all the countries of western Europe, only Scotland would run an £8 billion deficit given all of our resources. It has been shown clearly that Scotland has a budget surplus.
  The Minister plays down his country because he sees this place as providing his sole career opportunity, but he will not be in Government after the next election, and I hope that, following a future Scottish election, all those who care about Scotland will return to Scotland to legislate on behalf of the Scottish people in accordance with their wishes. If the Government had listened to the Scottish people for one second, this nonsense would not be headed towards the statute book.
  The Minister has redefined the word "consultation": he will listen to what everyone says and then ignore them. We do not have government: we have dictation. That poses a danger to every citizen in a representative parliamentary democracy. The Minister does not like that,
  468
  but he sparked those comments with his distorted view of his country's economy. He does not recognise Scotland's true wealth and he should be ashamed of himself.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is living in fantasy land. They are not my figures: they are from the Fraser of Allander Institute, which every Opposition Member has quoted in the House at some stage.
  Mr. Welsh: The figures have been demolished absolutely. If one stands on one's head, squints a lot and uses one's imagination, one might arrive at an £8 billion deficit, but it is strange that the Minister believes that Scotland is the only country in Europe that would be too poor to run its own affairs: only a Unionist could dream that up, because the reality is very different and the Scottish people know it.
  We not only oppose the Government and all their works; we believe that the proposed voucher scheme is morally wrong and completely impractical. It undermines the principle of universality in our education system and the ability of local authorities to maintain existing levels of pre-school provision, which are already under strain due to lack of resources. The Minister does not even understand the basic principles of the education system through which he went and through which the majority of our children go. Those principles have always informed that system and made it strong.
  It is widely acknowledged that the £1,100 value of each voucher is not enough to cover a full-time nursery place. The Educational Institute of Scotland estimates that the cost is about £3,000 in the Strathclyde region. In the Select Committee, the Minister himself acknowledged that the voucher will cover only a part-time place. That sums up the Government's attitude to the situation. It is ludicrous to suppose, as the scheme does, that the cost of educating every child is the same. For children with special needs, the real cost of providing even a part-time place is well over £1,100. We heard vague noises from Secretary of State today about special needs children, but that is not good enough. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will give us more than vague noises of concern about special needs. The £1,100 voucher will not cover the necessary educational provision for that important and vulnerable group. I wish to see positive proposals made on that subject before the Bill becomes law.
  Better-off families have the option of topping up the value of the voucher, but that option is not open to most families whose need is usually greater. The Government's policy is socially divisive and will not meet educational need. Pre-school education is supposed to begin the process of trying to create a level playing field for children, regardless of background. It is not supposed to reinforce existing inequalities. A £1,100 voucher will not have the same value in the Gorbals as it will in East Renfrew or Eastwood.
  The scheme will be specifically aimed at children in their pre-school year, but it will fail to guarantee quality education for all. The English Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment, was forced to concede that possession of a voucher will not guarantee that four-year-olds will be granted a nursery place. Will the Minister concede that the same applies in Scotland? It should not.
  Mr. Robertson: Why is the hon. Gentleman flailing around for an example in England to rubbish the scheme

  469
  when there is an example in Scotland in East Renfrewshire? Every child who has a voucher has been guaranteed a place. Why does not he use that as an example and stop flailing around in England?
  Mr. Welsh: With his prize test cases, the Under-Secretary of State may be able to achieve those results, but can he replicate that throughout the country? His English colleague cannot. I merely repeated the words of his English colleague who put the scheme into practice and found it wanting. If the scheme fails, I do not want it to be inflicted on Scotland, but the Under-Secretary of State clearly views the situation differently.
  Nursery education should be a natural part of our existing national education system, which has a tradition from elementary through to university education. Nursery education should be slotted into the existing Scottish philosophy and system. That would guarantee quality and give assurances to all Scottish parents, who want a system run by the Scottish local authorities which they elect and trust. Scottish parents can put faith in the quality of the product of their local authorities. Instead, the Government are pursuing their economic dogma with a fragmented, socially divisive scheme that will be sheared off from the mainstream provision of education in Scotland. We have already seen the havoc wreaked on the national health service by the imposition of a purchaser-provider split in the delivery of health care. We have witnessed an explosion of bureaucracy which will be repeated in pre-school education if the scheme goes ahead.
  The Government like to talk about efficiency. The Secretary of State mentioned 2 per cent. administration costs, but we should consider the process that he is about to inflict on us. Parents will have to request application forms, complete them and send them to the private company that is handling the scheme. That company, Capita, will send out the vouchers which the parents will take to the provider in the private, voluntary or public sector with whom they hope to enrol their children. The provider will then send the vouchers to the local authority, which will gather all the vouchers it receives and send them to Capita. Capita will do the calculations and send them to the Scottish Office, which will send the grants to the local authority. The local authority will then have to distribute the money to the providers according to the number of vouchers received. That bureaucratic nightmare will be repeated three times a year, once in each term. Does the Minister call that efficient? How does he think that it can be run cheaply?
  That description does not even take into account the chaos that will result from the parents' confusion about the working of such a complicated system. I will use the English example again because the scheme has been put into practice there. [Interruption.] Would the Minister care to listen? I repeat that I will use the English example because schools there have had inflicted on them what the Minister is trying to enforce in Scotland. After the pilot scheme was introduced in March, the Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment, was forced to admit that parents were confused about the application process. Almost a third of parents failed to apply and there is no reason to assume that the situation would be any different in Scotland, because the scheme will be the same.
  The voucher process is outrageous and expensive and it will impose market conditions where no market should be. It will inevitably divert vital resources from the task
  470
  at hand—the universal provision of top quality education for pre-school children. Resources will be taken from that, not given to it. The voucher scheme marks yet another stage in the Tory Government's war against Scotland's local authorities. Instead of using that valuable asset to provide services for the people of Scotland, the Government bypass, under-resource and attack local government. That is a mistake.
  Questions must be raised about the honesty of the pilot scheme. Will the Minister confirm the basis on which the pilot scheme will be independently researched and evaluated? The participating authorities are not representative of local authorities as a whole. They tend to have low existing provision for pre-school education. The evaluation must therefore measure what can be achieved by spending £1,100 per pupil and whether that matches the high standards in local authorities with more widespread provision. The evaluation should be honest and compare like with like. I do not believe that the £1,100 voucher will ever come close to matching the existing provision, nor will it be adequate for the task that will be set.
  In the Lords Select Committee in Glasgow, the Under-Secretary of State dodged Lord Addington' s question about whether the whole scheme would be scrapped if, after independent evaluation, the pilot scheme is deemed to have failed. If the Minister cannot give that assurance, how can we believe that the evaluation will be independent? If the evaluation shows that the scheme is not up to standard, will the Minister guarantee to scrap it?
  Mr. Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the evaluation will be real, thorough and intensive. It will be completely independent and we are soon to announce the identity of all those involved in the committee that will carry out the evaluation. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the English example, with a third of parents not applying for vouchers. In Scotland 75 per cent. of eligible parents have applied for vouchers, so why does he go on about England?
  Mr. Welsh: In England the scheme has already been inflicted and we can see it in practice. Is scrapping the scheme an option? The Under-Secretary of State has ducked the question. If the independent evaluation finds that the scheme is not up to scratch, will the Minister undertake to scrap it?
  Mr. Robertson: We shall conduct a full evaluation of every aspect of the scheme, but the early reports show that it will be a roaring success.
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister has failed to answer the question yet again.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: This exchange about the evaluation of the scheme is interesting. Earlier in the debate the Secretary of State put much emphasis on the tests that would take place at S1 and S2. We all recognise that those tests are important, but the Secretary of State could not tell us the cost of the tests. I hope that everyone in the House recognises that the earlier a child with special needs is assessed, the better. I should like the Minister to tell us, in his closing speech, how much money will be spent on the administration of tests at

  471
  S1 and S2 and how that will compare with the administrative costs of the nursery voucher scheme that he is now trying to implement.
  Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend poses important questions, which I hope will be answered. Testing at S1 and S2 is no small change but a fundamental alteration that will affect the system from top to bottom. There is already a massive gravitational pull towards standard grade and higher for all Scottish school children who reach that stage. If the Minister proposes to introduce national examinations at S1 and S2, the gravitational pull will be increased—and that will have repercussions throughout the system. I should like the Minister to explain the costings in detail and to answer my hon. Friend's questions. The Government refuse to listen. Instead, they impose their personal dogma on Scottish needs.
  The timing of the pilot scheme also raises questions as to its genuineness. The independent evaluation is not due to report until August 1997; yet under the existing timetable local authorities will have to start issuing vouchers the previous May. If the pilot is to be genuine, the Government must await the evaluation—or is this further evidence to justify our suspicion that any negative evaluation will be ignored by a Government who are determined to press on and impose their dogmatic views, despite the wishes of parents and professionals in education? The consultation process clearly lacked all substance, as the scheme is going ahead despite its rejection by more than 80 per cent. of the respondents. Will the so-called independent evaluation also be devoid of substance, or will the Minister commit himself to adhering to the reality of its findings?
  I am concerned about the continued erosion of democratic local authority control in state education provision, and about the role of a private company in the scheme's administration. To whom will that company be accountable? If it is to the Scottish Office, that rules out any accountability to the Scottish people. If the Government get their way on this important matter, it will be the start of a programme of back-door privatisation of Scotland's education system. The Secretary of State has clearly shown the way he wants to go. We can expect the voucher system to be extended to primary and secondary schools, because that is where the right hon. Gentleman's dogma leads him. Such a development would be against the wishes of the Scottish people and a disaster for Scotland's education system.
  The Secretary of State pretended that there is no assessment of pupils' progress and that parents have no knowledge of their children's attainment. Clearly that is nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce compulsory tests at S1 and S2—not as diagnostic tests, but similar to standard grades and highers. The Secretary of State used that analogy. Standard grades lead to highers, and highers are required for higher education and university. Are we to assume that the Secretary of State's new examinations will be a prerequisite for entry into standard grades?
  If the Government go ahead with that further fundamental change, we shall be entering a new rigid and regimented world. It is a pity that the Government did not consult parents as I am sure that they would have given a short, sharp answer. The overwhelming majority of
  472
  responses to the consultation were against the introduction of a voucher scheme, mirroring the opposition to the Secretary of State's previous test ideas. All local authorities, including the four bribed into participating in the pilot, oppose the scheme. Scotland does not want Government-imposed schemes, but because of the union with England they are again being imposed on us.
  One Minister, in his evidence to the Select Committee, had the audacity to say:
  "At the end of the day, it is up to us to manage our own affairs and to keep Scottish education up there at the very top."
  The Government do not want Scotland to manage its own affairs—and if that Minister has his way, Scottish education's opportunity to stay at the top will be diminished because of fragmentation and the failure of the schemes that the Secretary of State is trying to impose.
  My hon. Friends and I—joined, I presume, by other Opposition Members—intend to keep Scottish education to the forefront. Those of us who care about Scottish education are forced to apply time and energy to resisting the Westminster Government's attempts to undermine Scotland's education system. We are forced on to the defensive by alien ideas. The imposition of the Government's insidious scheme is yet another example of why it is so vital that decisions affecting Scotland are made not just in Scotland but by the Scottish people.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Conservative Members are in a quandary: while trying to praise their Government's achievements—if their record over the past 17 years can be called such—they keep producing criticisms. The country needs to be forcefully reminded that, for the past 17 years, Conservative Ministers have been responsible for running Scottish education. Most of the faults and problems that exist in the system, if not all, can be traced directly back to Tory Ministers. It is irrelevant to talk about a Labour Government of 17, 18 or 20 years ago, and it shows the paucity of Ministers' ideas and their need to cover up their own record.
  Vouchers are part of the Government's agenda of dogma. There is consensus not only in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom on the benefits of high-quality education nursery education and of supporting its expansion. Instead of building on that consensus and achieving unity of purpose, the Government seek to maintain their dogmatic programme and attitudes to education in general and to nursery education in particular.
  The roots go back to a Conservative party conference at which a weak Prime Minister tried to sustain his party's support by making all sorts of off-the-cuff pledges—which he handed to Ministers to implement. Almost immediately after the Prime Minister's commitment at a Conservative party conference to provide "over time"—his usual qualification—pre-school places for all four-year-olds, the Secretary of State for Education clearly expressed her doubts about the practicality of a voucher system. She quickly had to come into line, to fulfil the Prime Minister's commitment to a political gathering—which shows the Conservatives' attitude to education and most other issues.
  The Government's next step was to issue, in August 1995, a consultation document on a voucher scheme in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland announced

  473
  that he would be inviting the new unitary authorities and existing island councils to apply to participate in a pilot voucher scheme in advance of national coverage, and that £3 million of new money would be available for that purpose. Compare the availability of that new money with the Government's priorities, particularly in Scotland. They could find £3 million for a nursery voucher initiative and for the assisted places scheme, yet when it comes to mainstream education provided by local authorities, it is always the same story—there is not enough money.
  Like other hon. Members, I can give more than one example of that in my constituency. Thanks to a Labour Government and Labour-controlled council, the Trinity school in the Cambuslang area of my constituency opened 19 years ago. Unfortunately, that school, together with many others, has been caught by the time scale of a Conservative Government, and still does not have its own playing field. It has a roll of more than 1,200 pupils, but no facilities are available locally. Pupils have to be bussed all over the place to get to sports and playing field facilities. That is an indictment of Conservative Scotland and Conservative education policies in Scotland.
  People may laugh, especially those who have absolutely no knowledge of Scotland, its problems and culture, but they would do well to remember that the Conservative party is the biggest danger to the Union, not the Scottish National party. They should pay attention to these debates.
  In addition to the pilot scheme and the consultation document, the Government put forward various speeches and other documents in support of their policy initiative, and we awaited the results of the consultation process. Although they may not like it, the fact, according to the Scottish local government information unit and the Education Institute of Scotland, is that more than 80 per cent. of responses to the consultation were against the introduction of the scheme, the main criticism being that such a scheme would drain resources from local authority provision, would introduce the notion of the marketplace into education—that is the real hidden agenda—and be socially divisive, as only relatively affluent parents would be able to top up the cost of their provision.
  In the Government's furtherance of their divisive path in Scotland, on 12 December 1995 local authorities were invited to submit proposals for a pilot voucher scheme, and the Scottish Office issued a paper. The Secretary of State announced on 4 March 1996 that the pilot scheme would go ahead in a small number of Scottish unitary authorities.
  At one stage, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State responsible for education clearly stated that the unitary authority of South Lanarkshire had expressed an interest in participating in the scheme. That was clearly untrue, so I raised the matter with the Ministers and received clarification. When South Lanarkshire council received the letter from the Scottish Office, it wrote back—quite properly—to ask for more details about the practicalities. If that council had totally dismissed the letter, it would be described as irresponsible and not fully representing its area, but because it asked for more information, it was accused of supporting Tory policies by wanting to participate in the scheme. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify South Lanarkshire's record on that.
  474
  The Government's determination completely to ignore their own consultation has not been properly explained. Not one Conservative Member has justified their ignoring the consultation, except in terms of, "We know better than everybody else." That sums up their attitude. That is the arrogance of a governor-general who thinks that he is in charge of a colony in the 1930s and 1940s, rather than dealing with the nation and country of Scotland.
  The main issues regarding vouchers are hard, if not impossible, to tackle in seeking to amend the skimpy proposals in the Bill, but they are worth pursuing. The Government's determination to go ahead with the proposals despite the rejection by 80 per cent. of those who responded to the consultative document augurs badly for the way in which the scheme, if passed by the House, will start in Scotland and how it will continue. There are a number of holes in the Bill. It is a rag-bag Bill clearly born of dogma.
  I have not heard from Ministers any proposals for a clear curricular framework and a guarantee of quality provision. There are no practical details concerning the operation of the scheme—for example, eligibility, identification of parents, flexibility of the voucher, standards of buildings, staff and training of the people involved in providing the service. We have heard nothing from Ministers about their ideas on that.
  There are practically no details about the administration of the scheme. There are no details of the role and accountability of the private company to be involved. The introduction of a private company into an area where local authorities have played a major role in the provision of nursery education marks a substantial departure, with major implications for the provision of education.
  I am not against change or major departures, but surely in Scotland, where there is a large measure of social cohesion, major change—not minor change—especially in the provision of education, should come about only as a result of consensus, which exists in Scotland, to move forward, because the social and, potentially, educational divisiveness of the scheme will allow better-off families to top up the voucher value, and that option is not open to most families. The Government can say what they like, but that option will not be open to the vast majority of parents in Scotland.
  As I mentioned earlier, the Government's resources for the scheme—£3 million, plus the amount that they give to the assisted places scheme—clearly marks out their priorities for education in Scotland. In a key phrase, the Secretary of State, in a moment of honesty, said that the existence of the vouchers will spark off providers in the market. He said quite clearly that the market will deal with the fact that vouchers are available.
  Opposition Members are accused of dogma, old-fashioned communism, being left-wing, extreme left-wing and the rest, but here we have the Government's dogmatic approach: the market will provide. There was not a word about the standards that the market will provide, about safety or the standards of the education of the most important people in Scotland.
  First and foremost, what the Secretary of State did not say—this is behind the Government's dogma—is that the market will provide profits for private individuals and private companies. That is the real thrust of what the Government are doing. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that it is all about choice, but for whom?

  475
  It is certainly not choice for the vast majority my constituents, or those of most other Scottish Members, or, I dare say, the Minister himself.
  I mentioned the Government's hidden agenda. If they can get a wedge of vouchers for nursery education, the next step—as many hon. Members have said today—will be vouchers for primary and secondary education. It is a rush to the market. That is where the Government are going. The only consolation is that the Conservative Government have less than a year to run, and no matter what happens, there will be consensus on the Opposition Benches to ensure that these people are removed before they can do much more damage to Scotland.
  The rush to the market does not take into account the impact on those who will be affected. Ministers made no mention, until questioned by Opposition Members, of special needs and vulnerable people. Only when Ministers were put on the spot did we start to get responses from them. It just demonstrates their attitude when they do not feel it important enough to make those points. They have to be questioned and scrutinised by Opposition Members before we can flush them out.
  I shall say a few words about the Secretary of State's announcement on testing for S1 and S2. I do not want to pay him too many compliments. Indeed, I am thinking of some insults. It is indicative of his attitude and the way in which he treats the House and the elected representatives on the Opposition Benches that he made his statement without following the proper procedures, without giving the spokespersons from other Opposition parties a chance to examine it and to prepare a response. He hoped to avoid scrutiny. He had little chance of that, but the fact that he tried to treat the House and Opposition Members in that manner says more about him than it does about anyone else.
  The proposals for testing show a distinct lack of preparedness in the Government's approach. The Secretary of State was caught off balance. He said that there would be no compulsion—that parents would not be forced to put their children through the S1 and S2 tests. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman had his fingers burnt last time—by the parents in Scotland, not the politicians. The parents rejected his previous proposals for testing when he was Minister of State. Now, he is saying that there will be no compulsion. If he is setting that precedent, there is a chance that the parents will organise mass withdrawals from the tests.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) rightly said that the position is ludicrous—is it a voluntary compulsory scheme or a compulsory voluntary scheme? If it is not a statutory scheme, parents may decide en masse not to allow their children to take part in the tests. The whole scheme will then fall down; it will be a debacle. It is a haphazard approach to providing education in Scotland.
  As many hon. Members have said, it is the thin end of the wedge. We are being tricked again. If the Government can achieve testing for Sl, knowing this Government, the next step will be a requirement that children have to pass the S1 test before they can progress to S2, which they will then need to pass before they can progress to the standard grades. I do not like it, but I understand when
  476
  Conservative Members who are not Ministers claim that they believe in testing as a principle and say that it is good and healthy. Frankly, I do not trust them.
  Mrs. Ewing: I noted that the Minister firmly shook his head in response to some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Should he not now make it quite clear that there is not a progression process through S1, S2 and S3? Should not the Minister firmly state that children will not, on an annual basis, be rejected or accepted for a particular course?
  Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) sought to enter our debate so late in the evening. I earlier gave the assurance that she sought.
  Mr. McAvoy: I know that sometimes there can be an element of rough and tumble in the House—I am not one to give much quarter to the SNP as a political party—but there are ways of dealing with interventions and political rumbustiousness. The sort of personal remark that the Minister made does not do him or the House any favours.
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister has said that the S1 and S2 exams will not be necessary qualifications to move on to standard grades and higher. However, in rushing this Bill, and not providing any background information, he has failed to mention the enormous repercussions of the examinations for the new syllabuses in terms of books, teacher training, production of questions, staff time and preparation. We have not heard a word about that from the Minister. Surely we deserve some explanation.
  Mr. McAvoy: My hon. Friend—for the purposes of this debate, at least—is right. It is an example of the Government's approach. They have introduced a skimpy Bill with skimpy details. Then, under pressure, we get assurances such as that from the Secretary of State, who said that there would be no compulsion. It is a shambles.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) is right about the lack of detail. The Minister, in his less than pleasant response to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), confirmed that there would be no compulsion. The problem is—I am choosing my words carefully—that his record does not inspire any confidence to believe him. I am not referring to him in a personal sense, but as a Conservative Minister dealing with policies in Scotland.
  I remember the qualifying examination—the qualye, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) called it. I remember standing in the room while the results were read out. It was a case of separating the sheep from the goats. Every child in the room knew that those who went to the junior secondary school would be the hewers of wood and drawers of water. Those children lucky enough to have passed the exam would go to senior secondary school and have an academic future.
  I remember the tears and the tension; children were in a terrible state, and afraid to go home and tell their parents that they had failed. That qualifying examination set in concrete a child's place in society. That is socially

  477
  divisive and wrong. Now there is to be a return to a qualifying examination, and it will be socially divisive. Our only consolation is that the Government have less than a year to run.
  My final word is about school placing requests. Something must be done about that issue. Children in the Toryglen part of my constituency have to walk pass Holyrood secondary school to go to a school a mile and a half away—a school that, to put it bluntly, does not have such a good record as Holyrood. For many years, the children of Toryglen who go to St. Brigid's primary school have to go on to a secondary school well outwith the area. That is wrong. I want to put on the record the work of the late Councillor Hugh McKenna, who opposed that policy. I am glad to say that his work is now coming to fruition, and that there is some guarantee of access to Holyrood for the children from St. Brigid's.
  I echo what has been said by many, if not all, Opposition Members tonight. I believe in a United Kingdom. However, the Government are wholly unrepresentative of the people of Scotland. They know that, but they do not take account of it. If only they used a little ingenuity and imagination, they could carry the people with them and get their support. I do not say this lightly, but when politicians do not know or do not care about the effects of their policies on the people of Scotland, that is dangerous to democracy and to the United Kingdom. The Government stand indicted on both counts.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Earlier today, the Minister and I were in the same Committee Room discussing the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I said then and I say now that the Government have got it wrong. They do not listen to the people in the areas that their decisions will affect. There is no democracy in the Government.
  I have sat here for some time. The debate has been dominated by the domini—the teachers. Almost everyone who has spoken has been a teacher, except my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). I am not knocking school teachers, but I remember the days when I did knock them. I detested them. When I was a primary school kid I could not wait to get out of school at 4 o'clock. I seemed to get the belt every day. I became respectful of my mother and father. I loved them because I had someone to go home and share my problems with.
  In defence of Scottish education, I was proud to serve for many years on one of the finest councils in Britain—Strathclyde regional council. I was never on the education committee, but I was involved in social work and I knew of the invaluable work that teachers and staff were doing to deliver an excellent education service in Strathclyde. I knew, however, that the difficulties that we were facing were caused by this Tory Government's continual harassment and the continual cuts that, year on year, constantly homed in on the education that our young people rightly needed and rightly deserved. Sixteen years on, what is happening?
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Seventeen years.
  Mr. Graham: The Minister rightly corrects me; it is 17 years. That is an even worse indictment. Seventeen
  478
  years on, what has happened to local councils in Scotland? They have been forced into cutting further into education provision. Only this week, I have had representations from local folk who are desperate to see their young kids in nursery provision and the local authority cannot provide it because the Government have cut savagely.
  Today's statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland was one of the most horrifying that any Government could have made in the House. It was a reversion to the secondary one and secondary two. It would be a disaster if anything happened to return Scotland to those days. I was born in 1943 and I remember the qualifying examinations. Perhaps the Minister will listen because that is what the Government are driving back to. That is exactly what is going on. That is the road that the Government are trying to take us down.
  I know two young men who, if the Government had their way, would have been born to fail. I shall give their ages: one is 25 and the other is 18. From early on, both suffered asthmatic conditions, which killed them in relation to going to school. They could not get to school, they lost half their schooling, they had to receive special education and they had pre-five help. If that raft had not been there, those young kids would have been born to fail.
  Those kids went through their whole education like that. During the first years of primary life, they lost half their schooling because of a health problem that seriously held back their education. If the Government had their way, those kids would have been born to fail because of their health.
  I am glad that the education system and the courage of school teachers and Strathclyde education officials ensured that those kids were not born to fail and that they received an education. They did not, however, have to qualify in the S1 and the S2. I will go further.
  By the way, those schools were state schools. In the league tables that the Government gave them, they came bottom, but one of those young men has a BA Hons. in computing and business. He has suffered badly with his health. He was born to fail under the Government's approach to education, but he now has his BA Hons. and is doing all right. At 18, the other young lad is probably going this year to university, but, under this Government, he would have been born to fail.
  The nursery voucher of £1,100 would not give any young person decent nursery provision. In Strathclyde, the estimated cost is £3,000 plus and the Minister is prepared to say that he has given us a good deal. The only person to whom he has given a good deal is the one with plenty of money, who can top the £1,100 and send his kids to nursery school.
  The kids that I have talked about were born to fail. Their mothers and fathers would never have the money to ensure that their kids have a good education. The Government deeply want the born-to-fail approach. They are not going to give such young people an education boost.
  The £1,100 voucher is nonsense. Why does the Minister not recognise that he has a duty and responsibility not only to parents, but, more important, to children? Give every kid a place. Why give them a £1,100 voucher? Give them a place in a nursery school.
  Today, I was delighted to have a cup of tea and a sandwich, so I will declare an interest, with the Scottish Pre-School Play Association. What a tremendous and

  479
  incredible organisation and what do the Government do? They kick it in the teeth. They have denied it the appropriate money to survive. Because of its funding, it has not been able to continue improving and improving.
  Minister, you are laughing.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, as I recall, that he is addressing me and not the Minister?
  Mr. Graham: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is one of the problems that we have in the House after not speaking for so long. We forget the rules, but I will still try to say what I passionately believe. The Minister has failed education in Scotland. He is failing our young folk and therefore he is not giving them the hope that we want. He is not giving them that aspiration.
  What is education for? Can the Minister tell me that? Why do we educate young folk and spend money? Why do we bother? Does the Minister want to send them back to work in the mines when they are five years of age and in the mills on bread and butter? Many of us ask, "What are the Government's education policies about?" I know what my education policies are about. They are to ensure a better life for all of us, and that young folk have a good healthy life, retire in comfort and, I hope, achieve their lifelong ambitions. For all of us, that is not easy. A Government can, however, open the door at the early stage of education. They can ensure that education institutions are correct. They can try, but this Government do not try.
  Mrs. Ewing: My hon. Friend is speaking with great passion on education and I endorse much of what he has said. Given that both he and I, although I am slightly younger than him, agree that one of the most fundamental aspects of our education system is that we should have a professional qualified staff, has the Minister said whether there will be additionally trained staff to supply the education under the voucher scheme, which we all think is ridiculous?
  Mr. Graham: I am sure that the Minister will attempt to answer that, but, today, we had a profound statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland, which sounded like a bag of wind because there was no substance behind it to deliver what we are rightly demanding: education provisions and resources for our kids to see their education through.
  The two young men about whom I spoke are my sons, so I know what I am saying. Both my kids came through state provision. Both were educated in Linwood. Both went to a nursery school, a local primary school and Linwood high school. I am delighted about the state education that our young folk have received and I am overwhelmed at the tremendous generosity of school teachers, who work hard to ensure that not just my two sons, but other kids receive an education.
  Many young folk in Linwood have done very well. I remember the devastation that the league table caused to young and older teachers who worked in an area with tremendous unemployment. The Minister is condemning kids to fail because their mothers and fathers have been
  480
  unemployed since the old Chrysler car factory shut. They are still unemployed after 10 years. Their kids do not have separate rooms and the parents do not have the money to pay for extras for their kids' education—they look to the state to bear the burden because they are living off the state. Many are living on invalidity benefit and are seriously ill but some still have young families.
  One of the major problems facing the Tory party in Scotland is its lack of councillors. The Government have undermined local government so much that their own folk no longer want to serve on local government. The Government therefore no longer have the talented old Tories that I remember. By the way, I do not condemn all Tories. Indeed, I remember some very good ones. I remember Len Turpie who was an excellent councillor. He could stand up and argue for quality in education. I remember Guys like old Councillor Farquharson who is dead now. He was a damn good man who also fought to the end. These folk would be turning in their grave if they saw the Government's lack of commitment to education in Scotland. I am not condemning all Tories but I am condemning the Government and the Minister for not standing up for young folk.
  I remember when Tory councillors made healthy contributions but I also saw their sadness during the Thatcher years when the Government were for ever making cuts, when their cherished aims and ambitions to see kids in their area educated were failing, when the clubs and youth clubs were shutting and when pre-five education provision was not being supported. They asked me whether there was any way I could get the funding in Eastwood because I looked after part of the Eastwood scene under urban aid. I remember good councillors like old Robbie Robson and others asking me for money for this or that scheme because they needed the resources.
  The solution is not just to throw money at the problem. We must ensure proper provision. We need to see a change of heart and direction on the part of the Government. Today was an opportunity for the Government to discuss the way forward with all those concerned in Scotland. Clearly, the Government lack the support and background information that they used to get from the old Tories, the ones who were concerned about and worked in local government. That is all behind them. The Government sit and make judgments in an ivory tower and distrust everyone. It is astounding that there is only one Scottish Tory Member in the Chamber, and that is the Minister.
  Mrs. Ewing: And the other one is sleeping.
  Mr. Graham: If I shout loud enough, perhaps other Scottish Tories Members will come and listen to my pearls and gems of wisdom. If I shout loud enough, perhaps old Len Turpie will come to their defence and give them his pearls of wisdom. Jenny Browning might appear; perhaps the great Mr. Farquharson or the old Stan Dean will come and bail them out of the terrible hole they are in. However, it is all our kids who are in a hole because of the Government's lack of commitment.
  I mentioned the Scottish Pre-School Play Association. Perhaps the Minister could listen to what it has said and consider its funding. That would be a step in the right direction—we could even be on a winner there.
  I have to mention school boards. When I was a councillor I attended my school council faithfully—the Minister can check my record. I attended as many

  481
  meetings as I could as a regional councillor for nine years. I also attended my community council meetings faithfully for nine years, not out of a sense of responsibility but because I wanted to. I may not have had the greatest of educations. I certainly do not have any degrees—the only degrees I have are the cold ones—but I was an engineer and served my apprenticeship. I worked hard to get my engineering qualification. When I became a councillor, I took an interest in education and my community.
  At that time, school councils were well attended. They drew people from a wider area and those people made a genuine commitment and contribution, although perhaps that did not happen everywhere in Scotland. Lo and behold, however, the Minister's grand plan is that every school should have a school board. Parent-teacher associations struggled, went up and down and in and out of the game, but school councils remained a stabilising force. If the PTAs were not too strong, people could at least contribute to the school councils, thus keeping those councils alive.
  Since the advent of school boards, it would be useful and interesting to have some facts and figures about attendance, their make-up and composition. I have never seen any statistics giving an indication whether school boards are really working across Scotland. Hon. Members should not get me wrong; I know many members of school boards who attend assiduously and do their best. They tell me, "Tommy, it's a great struggle. There aren't many of us which makes it very difficult." Some hanker for the old school councils. We do not want to turn back the clock but the old system could have been improved instead of the Government's scheme being introduced. The Government thought that they were improving things by providing more devolution but, as the troops were thin on the ground, they felt that they could not improve the system. I hope that school boards are a success, but I believe that there should always be the umbrella of a school council.
  I feel that the Government are not listening. They are not getting support from their people on the ground. They do not have many people on the ground—that is what I have been saying all night.
  As I have already stressed, many school teachers have been playing their part in highlighting the problems in Scottish education. Many people are dedicated to ensuring good education in Scotland. I see that in some politicians, officials, certainly in the teaching profession and also in people outside the profession. However, I am worried about the Government's totally undemocratic domination of Scottish education over the past 16 years. They say that they will increase democracy but it becomes a closed book. They say that they will listen to people but they then reject everything folk tell them. They have directed education and the curriculum but not to the good.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) mentioned the three Rs. I believe that children should be able to do arithmetic and should know the alphabet but, 17 years on, the Government should look at the kids around them. What is happening is mind boggling. Some kids' parents have the wherewithal to provide computers and equipment at home. When my two sons talk to me about the Internet and websites, I have to hang my head in shame. I have not been able to keep up, but nor have the Government kept up with the changes. They have not kept up with the advantages that we could be gaining through the computer network. I am delighted
  482
  that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has grasped its importance and is pushing ahead. He hopes that the Labour Government will deliver the Internet to every school in the country.
  This Government have been in office for 17 years—the Minister himself corrected me and told me that it was 17 years and is very proud of that fact—but how many young folk can now operate computers? I have mentioned kids whose parents have the wherewithal to provide such things, but I have met staff who have asked youngsters whether they can operate a computer. No, they cannot. They never learnt how. I am talking about 17, 18, 19 and 20-year-olds. It is horrifying.
  How can we have any faith in the Government or in a voucher scheme that is set at such a low level—£1,100? How can we have any faith in a Government who not only turn the clock back but return us to the dark ages of S1 and S2? I tell the Minister: I wish that hon. Members could turn the clock back to 1979, and that we could have had a continuation of a Labour Government. Perhaps the folk in this country who we look after would then have seen the benefits of high technology—of the highways and byways of the computer world.
  The Minister may laugh, but I assure him that the folk in my constituency have suffered too long at the hands of this Government—with raging unemployment, factory after factory closing, job opportunities being missed and squandered, education opportunities being missed, and with young folk who were promised an education or training place being denied them.
  Who said, "Every kid who leaves school will be guaranteed an education or training place"? The Prime Minister said it. What happened to that commitment? It went in the bin. That was the Government's education and training offer. We cannot trust anything they say because they will not deliver a healthy, educated young man and woman in Scotland to take on the world.
  I remember the days when a Scotsman and a Scotswoman, well educated, could go to any part of the world and be given a job. Those people have contributed to America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They helped to sail the ships of the nation and to build shipyards and engineering factories from the UK to Russia to America. That is the opportunity that the Government have denied—the opportunity for a good education and a sound, solid and secure future. Those opportunities are driven by a quality education, not by a bum Government.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I am, perhaps, old-fashioned—in terms of both major parties—in believing still that education in the modern world is not about drumming a series of rote-learning techniques into kids in what are called the basics of English language and mathematics, but increasingly, or it should be, about learning how to learn, about learning skills that will allow people to learn new things as they go through life. We seem to be turning our backs on that, and I must say that my party is only marginally better than the Conservative party in those matters.
  We must now think in those terms, because no one now has a guaranteed job for the rest of their lives. In the past, if people had a certain qualification, they became a bank clerk, for example, and would remain a bank clerk,

  483
  although they might move up in the bank. That is no longer true. People can now start working in a bank and be made redundant four or five years later because the skills learnt in those first four or five years have been taken over by a computer or a machine. What we need from our education system is adaptability, learning skills and the ability to change and to adapt as we go through life. I fear that we are turning our backs on that.
  I apologise to the House, because I heard only the two Front-Bench speeches as I had to go to chair a Standing Committee. I am astonished that, in those speeches on education in Scotland in the modern world, when an information revolution is taking place that will transform not only our television sets and computers and what we do in business—it should also be transforming our education system—the word "computer" never crossed anyone's lips until my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) spoke.
  Computers were not mentioned, yet computers, the skills that children will learn and the amount of information they will have at their fingertips will be part and parcel of education throughout the world. If it does not happen here and we do not put computers on our kids' desks, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has promised, we will be overtaken in the coming technological revolution by every country from east to west. That is already starting to happen.
  I want to deal with the Secretary of State's comments, starting with the tests that he claims to be introducing in the first and second years of secondary education. I must say, first, that, in relation to the set of statistics that he used on percentages in tests, I have never heard anything so phoney in my life. He is essentially implying that no child in Tayside has been tested on their mathematics, language or writing skills. What nonsense. What he means is that they were not set a test, sat down and told, "Here is the test that you must do." Every teacher constantly carries out a series of tests to understand what are each child's abilities. If there is a problem, it is too often because class sizes are too large to permit teachers always to cope with every child, but they all assess their children all the time.
  One of the problems with tests is that teachers become entirely reliant on them and say, "We are working to it, and we will finish with it. That will be my judgment, and the parents', the school's and the state's judgment of the child's ability at that point." That does not judge how the child will do.
  A very bright child might pass the examination comfortably because that is the easiest thing in the world for him, but in fact he might be struggling at school, and for many different reasons. He may have a drug problem, an emotional problem or problems at home, and he might not have done as well in the test as he could. The test does not show that. The test shows only the fact that he managed to pass it and that he has the right number of marks to put him way up the scale. That result goes back to his parents, and they say, "He is doing quite well, isn't he?" But at the meeting with the parents, the teacher says, "Your child is very bright, but he is not doing as well as he ought to be."
  484
  Conversely, the poorest child, who works very hard, struggles and does not get the top marks—perhaps he manages only just to get through the test—puts in much more effort to pass the test than does a brighter child.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am grateful to hear of the hon. Gentleman's experience from his days of teaching, and I accept everything that he has just said, but is he saying that national testing and parents' evenings and teachers adding to what they know about the child are mutually exclusive?
  Mr. Maxton: I accept what the Minister said. They should not be mutually exclusive, but there is always a danger with tests that the teacher will work to the test. They work towards the test, train the child to the test, and the test ultimately becomes the only thing that matters. Because it is a national test, parents will pay much greater regard to the results of it than they do to the teacher's comments at a parents' meeting. Much time and effort will go into the tests; teachers might be less able to hold parents' meetings. That is a danger. In a good and well-organised school, that will not happen, but the danger exists.
  I should like to deal with why the Secretary of State said he wanted tests and why we have these new national tests. The only real reason he gave was that it is a way of identifying children who are struggling and have difficulties. I tell him from experience that identifying the child who is struggling and having difficulties is no great problem, because it always happens. Often, it will happen before the child even gets to school. The parents will be aware that the child is not developing as fast as he ought to, or perhaps the problem will be picked up by a social worker or a psychologist. Certainly the problem will be picked up in primary 1 or primary 2. Somebody will know that the child is not doing as well as he or she ought.
  Identification is not the problem. What matters is what we do about it, and whether we ensure that there are resources such as special needs teachers to give the child special care and attention outwith the rest of the class, although the child none the less remains part of the class. When dealing with such children, there is a double role. We must ensure not only that they keep up as well as they can, but that they remain part of their peer group. They must not be divorced from it.
  Often, what is required is extra help within the classroom. Of course some children must be educated separately, and they are easy to identify. We are worried not about those children but about the children who remain in the mainstream of education but have difficulty there. They must be given special help.
  It is absurd for the Government to announce tests to identify children with special needs while they are cutting local government resources so that enough extra teachers cannot be employed. Sometimes, the extra staff may not be teachers; they may be supervisors, or even parents. I do not care which they are. Parents go in to school to help with listening to reading, for example. When schools and education authorities have to cut resources, it is nonsense to say that we need tests to identify people with difficulties. It does not work.
  I have seen what happens, and I know the problems that can arise from lack of resources, rather than from lack of identification. The Minister and the Secretary of State

  485
  have got it wrong if they believe that identification is the problem. We need to spend more money, not less, on resources for such children.
  The same is true at nursery school level, which is where the voucher system is wrong. The Government did their testing and trials in East Renfrewshire. As that is a new local authority area, I presume that the tests were done in the old district of Eastwood. Those of us who know that district know that it is a wealthy middle-class area where parents would be delighted to receive £1,100 to spend on sending their children to the nursery schools that will already exist there.
  The money is a top-up. It does not pay all the costs, but the parents in Eastwood can afford to pay for nursery education. If they did not get the £1,100, they would probably pay the whole cost anyway. They would not care, because they have the money. It is absurd to say that a trial held in East Renfrewshire shows that the scheme works.
  It is not the children of middle-class parents, such as all of us here, who demand and need nursery education. Yes, those children should have it. It should be available for them, and I want them to have it. I wanted my children to have nursery education and I want other children to have it too. But it is not they who absolutely need it, as children from poor and deprived areas need it.
  As an educationist I was brought up with the phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde has used frequently tonight—"Born to Fail". That was the title of a seminal work in education that showed that children from deprived backgrounds would always have more difficulty coping when they started primary school because they did not have basic language skills.
  People may say that that is nonsense, but the standard book with which kids started in primary 1 in those days—I agree that things are not quite the same now—would be one of the "Janet and John" series. The language and concepts in that series of reading books were middle class, and they were often beyond the experience of some of the kids who tried to read them. The idea of going out into the countryside for a picnic with mummy and daddy in the car was difficult for many kids to understand.
  As Peter Townsend pointed out in "Born to Fail", by the time many kids started in primary school, they were already well behind their peers who came from a different background. It is those kids who needed, and still need, the nursery school to give them the start they often do not get in their own homes and surroundings. Nursery education is good for all kids, but for kids from those areas it is essential, not only at four but from three to four, so that they can start primary school on level terms with other kids. If the Minister does not understand that, he is simply playing with the idea. The £1,100 will not cover the cost of nursery education for such kids, and it is unreal to imagine that it will.
  The Secretary of State made great play of the standard of nursery education, and of what would be provided. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) jumped up, as ever, to say that his constituents were delighted to have £1,100 to spend on nursery education but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) pointed out, in some areas there will not necessarily be any nursery schools for parents to choose.
  486
  Once parents have been handed the vouchers and have the £1,100, they will demand nursery schools, so people will set them up. That is the market working, but the standard of accommodation, and the level of training and teaching, will not be those which, rightly, the Secretary of State and the Minister would like.
  What will happen? Either no nursery schools will be set up in the poor areas, so people will have a useless piece of paper in their hands which is theoretically worth £1,100 but does not mean anything, or the standards in those areas will drop. A blind eye will be turned so long as there is at least something for kids in rural and other areas. Something may be there, but standards will have dropped.
  The Minister may reply that that is what the two extra education inspectors are for. I do not know what the inspection cycle for primary and secondary schools is, but my kids went through the state system for a period which, between when the first started and the third finished, lasted close on 20 years. In those 20 years, the primary school that my kids went to has been inspected once, and so has the secondary school.
  So far as I can see, the cycle of inspections of schools lasts about 10 years. Every 10 years or so—
  Mr. Robertson rose—
  Mr. Maxton: If the Minister wants to contradict me, I shall be happy to be contradicted on that point.
  Mr. Robertson: I realise that the hon. Gentleman was chairing a Standing Committee when I explained the cycle of inspection of nursery providers. Every provider in the pilot areas will be inspected in the pilot year. When we go national, providers will be inspected as soon as possible, and certainly within 24 months.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Then what?
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is quite right—then what? What will be the cycle after that to ensure that standards are maintained? What will happen when, for example, two trained nursery teachers start up and run a school, and one—assuming that she is female—becomes pregnant and leaves and they cannot find anybody else so a parent is appointed to stand in? The school will have received its initial inspection, and the next one may not be for God knows how long. It may be 10 years before the school is inspected again. It is fine to say that there will be an initial inspection within 24 months, but that is only part of the story. What happens thereafter?
  How many nursery schools are the Government expecting the two inspectors to cover? Presumably, the figure is in the hundreds. If they are to do their job properly, those two inspectors will inspect perhaps one or two schools a week, if that. We are talking about only 40 weeks of the year, because inspections will be conducted in term time, so it will be years before each school is inspected again to ensure that standards are being maintained.
  Will schools report to the Scottish Office about staff changes so that, when staff have to be replaced or simply change jobs—which they do—it is possible to ensure that their replacements have the right qualifications?

  487
  Will there be any system to ensure such practice, or are we simply to accept that some schools had trained teachers to start with but will no longer have them?
  The voucher scheme is a mess—the Government do not know how to run it. They do not have an education policy. The Secretary of State's speech was more about attacking the Labour party than about proposing his own education policy. We need proper nursery education for all our children. It is best provided by local authorities. For a start, they have the resources. Schools are increasingly not full, have been closed or are about to close. Facilities are available for other purposes. In many areas, private schools offering poor accommodation will be set up and good schools will be closed and pulled down, and resources will be wasted.
  As the Secretary of State tried to claim, every child has a right to nursery education. It will not be provided and it will not work under a voucher scheme. The Bill is a mess and I am glad that the Opposition will be voting for the reasoned amendment.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I cannot bring his considerable expertise and knowledge to the subject, but I hope that, as someone who has gone through the system and is also a parent with young children, I can contribute.
  We have not yet appreciated the fact that the Bill is an example of the Government's failure in many areas of education policy. Part of the Bill corrects the placement requests as a result of the failure of previous legislation. Another part deals with school boards as a result of the failure of what was implemented before. The introduction of nursery vouchers is the result of a failure over 17 years to provide nursery education for all who want it. I therefore consider the Bill to be to a certain extent a failure.
  We all make mistakes, but the failures that I have described were all pointed out when the Government introduced the legislation. They were told that there would be problems with placement requests and school boards. I served on the Committee that considered the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 and I remember that we sat night in, night out—we had an all-night sitting—and day in, day out to get the Bill on to the statute book. Nobody wanted it, but it went through.
  The Minister used to keep asking us how many schools we thought would opt out. We used to say a handful. My goodness, we were wrong. Not even a handful of schools has opted out. The Minister used to say that school boards would be successful. We said that there might be some trouble finding members for them. My goodness, we did not realise how right we were. People are being co-opted on to them. As hon. Members know from the schools in their constituencies, when the time to appoint members of school boards comes around, headmasters try to force people to stand. We certainly got it right then and the Bill is another example of the failure of the Government's education policy.
  I want to talk about something that is not in the Bill—the Secretary of State's announcement about testing. I probably have as much experience as anyone of sitting
  488
  tests. I sat the "qualy" and the 11-plus. I sat the ordinary as the lowers had just finished and I sat the highers. I went to university for seven years and I sat at least 10 examinations every year for seven years, sometimes five or six a week. When I left, I sat a primary examination and then a final fellowship, so I have some experience of what is involved in testing and I want to make a number of points about it.
  My strongest point relates to the absolute divisions and failures involved in all examinations. There cannot be an examination without people failing it and that has a devastating effect on them and their families. Others have spoken about the 11-plus and I want to recount my experience as there are fewer of us around who have sat the 11-plus. I remember to this day when the examination results were announced and suddenly our class was split down the middle. Half went off to the high school and the other half were consigned to failure. Children were weeping in the classroom as we were separated off. Our society was divided as half my school friends were considered to be failures.
  We had the same experience when my younger brother failed his 11-plus. I remember it to this day. It was like a death in the family and it has been experienced by people everywhere. I should also say that it was a pretty useless test because my brother who failed the 11-plus is now a professor of aeronautical engineering.
  Not only are examinations of limited value, but the social division and the devastation that they produce are overwhelming. We should consider what we are doing to children. The purpose of education is not to fail people, but to prepare them to grasp further information later in life so that they can develop their full potential. When we introduce testing, we are introducing the possibility of failure.
  I do not under stand the point of testing. Of course one can make people pass their examinations and schools can do very well. My school did quite well in the "qualy". For an entire year all we did was prepare ourselves for the examination. We sat examination paper after examination paper, year in, year out. As a result, when I went to high school, having come from the school with the best test results, I was deficient in geography and history—aspects of education that I have never recovered to this day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) reminds me every time we talk about history.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Not to mention music and art.
  Mr. Galbraith: I play the violin very badly and I am not very good at the mouth organ either.
  I hope that the Minister understands my point about the downside of testing. Teachers teach for the tests and pupils take them and at the end of the day they may produce someone who has some knowledge and does well in tests, but I have yet to see the proof that such people are better educated.
  I remain bitterly opposed to tests at S1 and S2. I cannot see the point of further examinations and further opportunities for failure. Children have enough problems when they have to sit examinations. At university, we sat exams year after year. I remember the stress, the strain and the failures. Let us not burden our children with that. They have enough to do growing up. Let us not have that

  489
  and let us not have the precursor of a qualifying examination such as the old 11-plus that the Government may be considering.
  Let me move on to other aspects of failure. I shall deal briefly with the provision relating to placing requests. We all know that it has resulted from the Secretary of State's problems in Balfron. The same problems occur in my constituency, where every school is full and receives numerous placing requests. I receive numerous complaints about it because the schools are bursting at the seams.
  One thing that particularly annoys parents who move next to a school in April or May is that they cannot get their child into that school. The child is then put on a bus and driven past the school to another school two or three miles away. What sort of preposterous education policy allows that to happen? The Government have been told about that, as I have written to Ministers about the matter on several occasions. They always replied that there were no problems and that the policy was wonderful—the usual jargon. But there is a problem, and I am glad that—at long last—the Government have recognised that placing requests present problems and are beginning to address them. Every school in my constituency has placing requests. They are excellent schools, and it is a continuing problem for them.
  I wish to refer to school boards. We spent night after night in debates on the legislation on school boards, and there was no great enthusiasm for them. We all knew that the boards were being set up to allow schools to opt out, and had no inherent function. We predicted at the time that there would be problems filling the boards. In my area, which is highly middle-class, one would think that there would be huge competition for places on boards. But we must still co-opt individuals on to them. The boards are supposed to provide democracy, but it is nothing of the sort if one is being co-opted or forced by the head teacher on to a board because nobody else will do it. That is the reality, even in the schools in my area. That is another failure on the part of the Government.
  I wish to deal with nursery provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart was incorrect when he suggested that nursery education is of benefit only to children from lower-class backgrounds, as it is extremely beneficial to all children. It is not just a case of their knowledge increasing, but it is also beneficial to young children who may be less well integrated.
  Mr. Maxton: I did not want to give that impression, and I apologise if I did. The fact is that the need for nursery education of children from poor backgrounds is that much greater if they are to cope with primary school.
  Mr. Galbraith: I apologise to my hon. Friend, and I understand the point that he was trying to make. The need for nursery education among poorer children is greater. Although it is much less important for middle-class children to attend nursery school, they should do so as they benefit greatly from it—for example, they can develop their social integration. Nursery education is very important and my understanding—I have not read all the literature on the subject—is that children who go through nursery education and pre-school playgroups do extremely well in primary school. We must ensure that all children have access to nursery education.
  490
  The problem with the Government's nursery vouchers method is that it is unnecessarily bureaucratic. There are many areas where nursery provision is first class, but the Government are providing a bureaucratic system that will be difficult to work, will not increase the provision and will give hand-outs to those who have already used the private sector. I do not see why people should have to pay, as we have a nursery education system at the moment. There is no need to make it any more complicated.
  Finally, I shall refer to the Scottish Qualifications Authority and its representation. I have read the part of the Bill that deals with the matter and, although I understand the need for the complexity of the representation, we could have simplified the method. Is there an absolute necessity to balance the numbers? It is the first time that I have seen such an arrangement, and I wonder whether it is necessary.
  More importantly, what will be the composition of the authority? The people whom we choose to serve on it will be selected according to what we decide education is for. That is a debate that we have yet to have. Occasionally it surfaces, but we have never quite reached a decision. Once we have decided what education is all about, we can decide who should serve on the authority.
  The Government seem to think of education as a way of taking a child from his early years on into a screwdriver job in a factory—probably a factory brought in by Locate in Scotland. I fear that the new authority will be stuffed with "industrialists". Industrialists have an important role to play, but the idea that they have a special insight into education and its purpose is false. Indeed, I would say that they are not necessarily the best people to decide what education is all about. They have a very narrow view of what society requires. The education of some of the industrialists whom I have met leaves something to be desired.
  I do not want the authority to be packed with local industrialists who want to produce automatons that will fit into their system, churning out people who will take up the screwdriver jobs to which I have referred. There is more to education than that.
  Education is about developing people's potential and enabling them to use the skills that they have been taught, so that they can make use of their knowledge throughout their lives. Of course people need the basic building blocks; I am not a great one for claiming that they can find out everything for themselves. People need to be able to read and count, but once they have these building blocks they need also to know how to use them. Our education system fails to teach that, even though Plowden tried to square up to the problem.
  Throwing facts and figures at people only gets them so far, in life and in education. There comes a time when people can no longer learn by rote: they have to understand. In science and mathematics there comes a time when learning by rote is of no value whatever—in dynamics, sliding planes and forces of velocity, for instance. Students need to understand the principles behind them so as to be able to progress.
  In his day Plowden attempted to face these facts, but that achievement will be lost if the new body is to be made up, once again, of the sort of industrialists on whom this Government are so keen. All that they will want to do is to generate wealth.

  491
  I hope for a debate on the nature and purpose of education, and I hope that a liberal view will emerge at the end of it. Education is about realising potential and using it. That is the only way to a full life. It is of course necessary to have some wealth to make these choices, but people need first to have the knowledge with which to make informed choices. That is what is lost when people are trained, not educated.
  The Bill does nothing about any of those problems. It is essentially a mark of the Government's failure in education policy. It acknowledges the failures of school boards and placement requests; above all it acknowledges, after 17 years, the Government's failure to provide nursery education and to start youngsters off down the most important avenue of their lives. I am therefore delighted with the Opposition's reasoned amendment, and I urge the House to support it.
  9.19 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) in these debates. He has given a considerable amount of thought to the Bill and much of what he says is from the point of view of one who, perhaps more than any other hon. Member, has benefited from the Scottish education system. Through his children, he continues to respect and admire the Scottish education system.
  Hon. Members may be surprised to realise that this evening we are discussing a major plank of the Scottish Office's legislative programme for this year. In the closing weeks of the Session we are discussing a major piece of legislation—it is being rushed through. Nothing is more important in forming Scotland's future than the nature of our education system. The Labour party accepts some provisions of the Bill and we shall debate them constructively in Committee. Other aspects of the Bill strike at the heart of the Scottish education system and at the principles that have underpinned it for centuries.
  Tonight the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) —in perhaps the worst speech of his career—talked about his secret agenda. He discussed what should happen to Scottish education under his leadership at the Scottish Office. Without warning through the usual channels, we have learned that the Government will introduce new proposals for compulsory testing at S1 and S2. The fact that we are getting this information so late in the day is a measure of the Government's lack of respect for the House and the nature of the debate. These are major issues and we should have had the opportunity to discuss them. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), has said that this is the Second Reading. He seems to have forgotten that there has been full discussion in another place and a Special Standing Committee in another place. A controversial aspect has suddenly been added to the Bill. I shall refer to testing at a later point.
  Much in the Bill could have achieved consensus. In fact, I have no hesitation in saying that we shall be constructive about many aspects of it. I refer to the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Arising from the work
  492
  of Professor Howie and the structure of highers in Scotland, we need to review post-16 education and the nature of the qualifications. When the Secretary of State introduced the provisions of the Bill relating to the Scottish Qualifications Authority he did not refer to the "Higher Still" project that is going on at the same time. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss many of these critical issues relating to the "Higher Still" project in Committee.
  We are anxious about some issues, including the representation on the Scottish Qualifications Authority—an issue that has been raised by a number of hon. Members today. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) talked about the prospect of another quango staffed from the bunker of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have a theory that the Secretary of State for Scotland runs the Government of Scotland from the executive departure lounge at Edinburgh airport as there is a surprising recurrence of the names of those who frequent that lounge among those who appear in quangos. However, that is not why I am concerned about the membership of the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
  Broad-based expertise must be made available to the authority. We have seen through the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council how that expertise can be— [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seems to think that I am going on about quangos. I am not—I am trying to make a substantive point about the nature of representation on the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Broad-based expertise must be made available to the authority. The Minister said by way of intervention that there will be extensive consultation. Every time Ministers refer to "consultation", I hold my breath. They consulted about the introduction of nursery vouchers and when they did not like what the consultation revealed—almost unanimous opposition to the nursery voucher scheme—they changed the rules of the consultation process. I worry when the Secretary of State says that he will do anything by consultation.
  We wish to explore another anxiety more fully in Committee. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) referred to the status of vocational qualifications within the examination board. We must ensure that the vocational element of the Scottish Qualifications Authority is not downgraded. I was a little concerned by the remarks of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who suggested—unwittingly, I hope—that the vocational element was a lesser aspect of the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
  A number of hon. Members—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) —laid great stress on the need to ensure that Scotland has a valid skills base for the future. We can ensure that by enhancing vocational qualifications. All party leaders in Scotland have signed a joint declaration in relation to enterprise education and manufacturing industry—aspects which are critical to Scotland's industrial future. In examining the nature of post-16 qualifications in our schools, it is important to take into account those vocational qualifications.
  I take on board—as I hope that the House will—the significant point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the confusion that industrialists sometimes experience. A plethora of qualifications are

  493
  available. It is a minefield. I have been a personnel director and I know how confusing it is to be confronted with qualifications alien to one's own, which may be rather dated. Several hon. Members have referred to that problem.
  We wish to debate other aspects of the Bill more fully in Committee, not least the subject of school boards. Several hon. Members referred in detail to the workings of school boards in their constituencies. Everyone will accept that some school boards operate magnificently and some are an absolute disaster, comprising Philadelphia lawyers who see the opportunity to exercise a little power in another domain. We wish to build on the positive aspects of school boards. The Labour party proposes to extend the concept to school commissions. We will take into account the views not just of those who wish to serve on school boards but of those who currently make a marvellous contribution to school life through parent-teacher associations and those who operate in the wider community. A school is about more than the education of its pupils. I hope that we shall be able to discuss that issue in more detail in Committee.
  When we came to the House this afternoon, we assumed that the meat of the Bill would be the nursery voucher proposal, but then we were suddenly confronted with the issue of compulsory testing. My hon. Friends may regard it as heretical, but I enjoy listening to the Secretary of State for Scotland as he employs a little showmanship in his delivery. However, he made a critical error in deciding to upstage the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, and to take over his brief by opening the debate. It was glaringly obvious that the Secretary of State had not thought through some of his proposals, such as compulsory—voluntary, perhaps statutory—testing, and we witnessed a unique spectacle this evening when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South rose to rescue his boss from the deep hole that he had dug for himself. We are left asking some serious questions about exactly what the Government are up to.
  It is obvious from tonight's debate that hon. Members are fast coming to the conclusion that we are going back to the days of the 11-plus when children could be destroyed by the results of tests of their unformed intellectual ability when they had just made the critical transition from primary school to secondary school. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) mentioned the fact that many of those who have spoken today were teachers. I am not a teacher: I am a much more dangerous beast than that—I am a parent, and parents know the trauma that children go through, especially at this time of year, when they have to make the critical change from primary school to secondary school. Every educationist can confirm that the transition from primary to secondary has a significant effect on the performance of young people. Instead of bludgeoning us with outdated diatribes and ideologies, the Government should make a contribution to analysing how best we can advance the performance of children in S1 and S2. The Government should not put another pressure on those children.
  The Secretary of State talked about the right of parents to choose. He got himself into an almighty fankle about whether parents could choose whether their children were tested, but he gave the game away when he said that the test would be a qualification. All the Under-Secretary's dancing about will not draw attention away from the fact
  494
  that the Secretary of State said that the test will be a qualification. We are left with the inevitable conclusion that children must pass the S1 test to move on to S2. Even if the Under-Secretary backs down on that, we have seen tonight that selection will return to Scottish schools over the heads of Her Majesty's inspectorate, parents and educationists.
  We have seen a doctrinaire approach to education in Scotland today from a Secretary of State who should have learned his lesson the last time he was hounded out of Scotland for introducing tests that parents opposed. The Secretary of State talked about doctrinaire egalitarianism. I believe in egalitarianism. The Scottish education system, from John Knox onwards, has believed in egalitarianism. I believe in equality of opportunity for every child. [Interruption.] Yes, I may be part of the monstrous regiment. In the Scottish education system, we believe in equality of opportunity. We are all Jock Tamson's bairns. Regardless of the assisted places scheme and the attempts by the Government to anglicise the Scottish education system, to a man and woman in Scotland we are committed to equality of opportunity. We are committed to ensuring that the marketplace should not return to education.
  I am not surprised by the doctrinaire approach of the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I am worried. In the document that he published in the 1980s, "Save Our Schools", he made it plain that he favours vouchers not only for nursery education, but for primary and secondary education. I am not the only hon. Member who noticed that when the Secretary of State was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton today to state categorically that there will be no introduction of vouchers for primary and secondary education, he ducked the issue with a smirk on his face. The Opposition will not tolerate the introduction of vouchers for primary and secondary education.
  The danger of the voucher system for the provision of nursery education is that it will make children, at their most vulnerable point, a political football in the run-up to a general election. There is no way in which nursery vouchers can be implemented in Scotland before a general election if we keep to the timetable that the Government claim to have set up. In other words, they are running hell for leather so that they can say in their manifesto that they have done something about the provision of early-years education. We have already heard the Secretary of State say that Scottish parents have been brainwashed. He must also think that their heads button up the back. Parents recognise that a voucher for £1,100 does not ensure a place in a nursery school.
  In Scotland, we have benefited from a co-operative approach that takes into account the public, private and voluntary sectors. In another part of the House this evening, those who represent the voluntary sector have told hon. Members about the extent to which they have been misled. They are anxious to ensure the best possible start for children in their early years, but the voluntary sector has been put in an awkward position because it cannot provide the quality of education opportunity on which the Government are trying to pass the buck. When we debated the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee in Stirling, the Secretary of State said that we could have nursery schools in church halls. There speaks a man who I doubt has ever been inside a nursery school or to a play group. One must take into account the key factor that little

  495
  children need special safety facilities. They must be able to turn on a tap that will not scald them and be heated by radiators that will not damage them. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) drew attention to the need for outdoor play areas, which are an important part of a child's development.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill also made an important point, which was taken up by other hon. Members, about special needs. Nothing is more important in the early years than identifying the need for special education. The Minister has consistently ducked the issue. He tried to get off the hook by saying that local authorities do not feel that they can handle special needs during the pilot period. Special needs is bigger than a doctrinaire pilot being administered by a Government in the closing days of their life.
  There is considerable anxiety about nursery vouchers among members of the Scottish Independent Nurseries Association. The association is concerned about quality assurance and is establishing its own scheme to ensure the highest possible standards. Even if Ministers are not prepared to accept this, SINA knows that the scheme offers great scope for fraud and numerous opportunities for cowboy operators. How do the Government imagine that the 60,000 extra places will be filled, other than with people who are unskilled, untrained and not properly assessed to provide nursery education? I ask the Minister to heed the words of Mrs. Fotheringham of SINA:
  "The voucher system will not particularly help private providers to step up new investment or new accommodation. It does not provide extra income to do something different or provide extra premises. There are still not enough places."
  The whole issue hinges on there not being enough places.
  The Government have been extremely lax in not giving answers about the cost of administration and its nature. The House is asked to believe that the administration cost per nursery voucher will be £22, when 10 different stages will be involved. I think that somebody has run away with the abacus as the scheme will clearly cost considerably more. Where did Capita Management Services, which is to provide the services, come from? The structure already exists within local authorities to administer the scheme. The authorities who expressed to the Scottish Office their interest in the pilot but then withdrew did so because they discovered that the nuts and bolts of the legislation had not been thought through.
  The Secretary of State failed to answer the point that I raised earlier, relating to the nursery run by Mrs. Valerie White in Shawlands—which reflects that the Government did not think through what will happen to nursery providers on the boundaries of pilot areas. How come a number of nursery vouchers were delivered to the wrong postcode area? If that is a measure of the efficiency that we can expect from Capita, my hopes are not particularly high.
  The right hon.Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made an interesting speech and spoke impressively about the need to encourage young people to respect the environment and to become knowledgable about it. Perhaps he should have a discussion with the Secretary of State as one area badly affected by the cuts forced on local authorities by the Government is the environmental part of the curriculum for five to 14-year-olds.
  496
  Both the right hon. Member for Dumfries and the hon. Member for Ayr talked about schools being part of the community. The hon. Member for Ayr talked about schools being used outside school hours to benefit the community. In Edinburgh, Glasgow and my constituency, until the Government cut education funding, schools were used for that purpose. We are seeing from the Government a narrow, doctrinaire approach which fails to take into account the fact that we are talking about children. Those who are concerned about children are appalled at the missed opportunities in the Bill, which is a blatant attempt to paper over cracks. The problems that will be created by nursery vouchers will haunt the Government for the rest of their days and will certainly not be tolerated by an incoming Labour Government.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): We have had a wide-ranging and useful debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part. I shall try, if allowed, to respond to as many points as possible.
  We have discussed many areas of education policy where the Government have brought about, and are bringing about, real choice and lasting improvements. That has been in the face, as we have heard throughout the debate, of doubt, protest and resistance from the shower opposite.
  Let us take placing requests as one example; since their introduction in 1982, which they opposed, more than 280,000 placing requests have been made throughout Scotland, 90 per cent. of which have been a success story—a success which the opposition opposed at the time.
  Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to use such language as "the shower opposite"? Can that possibly be within even an expanded definition of being in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): My observation is that the term is generic, but preferably, the Minister should not use it.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My, Opposition Members are touchy about their educational record. They really are touchy about what they have proposed in the past. I am sure that we will have ample opportunity to examine all the points in detail in Committee.
  To help Opposition Members with their factual understanding, if nothing more, notes on clauses are available in the Library. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to study them, as they clarify the purpose of the drafting, and I am confident that, for those who have the interests of Scottish education at heart, they will underline the value of the proposals.
  The substance of our debate has been on vouchers and testing. We have, of course, already heard most of the Opposition's points on vouchers, both in the press and in the debate in another place. The Government answered them then. My right hon. Friend answered them at the beginning of the debate, but I am happy to answer them again now.

  497
  The education of our young children is a matter of immense importance. It inspires strong views, but much of what we have heard today sheds more heat than light. We are still unclear about the policy of the Labour party, because we have heard three answers to the same question. When asked: "What will happen to the voucher scheme?" the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who leads the party, says, "I am not abolishing it." The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) says that the Labour party is abolishing it, and the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) says that it will all be left to a Scottish Parliament. Never during today's debate have we been told what the Labour party proposes. To one question there are three answers.
  Opposition Members say that they want parents to have choice, but they want to organise education in such a way as to reduce—even eliminate—choice. They say that they want to see further investment in pre-school education, but are unable to say how much, or how they would finance it. They claim to be interested in quality, but have nothing to compare with our robust proposals for quality assurance. None of that will be lost on parents.
  We intend to stimulate growth in pre-school education in a way that sustains quality, broadens choice and supports a mixed-economy provision, with the public, private and voluntary sectors all playing a part.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the subject of finance, the Secretary of State said earlier that in the winding-up speech there would be an answer to the question about the cost of examining S1 and S2 from outside the school. I wonder whether the figures are available.
  Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend said nothing of the sort. He said that we would go out to consult on it, and that he would be more than happy if the hon. Gentleman wished to participate in the consultation.
  We are offering local authorities an opportunity to help to shape the pilot phase of the initiative, and we are consulting at every turn with the entire educational community. We intend that there should be choice for parents, because that is the best means of developing a responsive service. We will deliver quality education for children, because that is what they deserve.
  Mr. Welsh: Has the Minister consulted education authorities and personnel on the introduction of testing? When will S1 and S2 tests be introduced? When will the curriculum changes and the accompanying textbooks and other things be introduced? The system cannot cope with the present changes, let alone this new one. What consultation has there been, and what additional resources will there be to allow the professionals to cope with what the Government are imposing on them?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. We have said that we will fund it. We have said that we are taking the necessary powers in the Bill, while at the same time going out to consultation on the detail. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to pre-empt the entire consultation process. That is madness.
  The voucher initiative does not require new powers. It can be implemented using existing powers under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Part II of the Bill
  498
  introduces the more precisely tailored powers of grant, with associated provisions extending the statutory power of inspection and offering opportunities for administrative streamlining in due course.
  My right hon.Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked whether we could convert from kilometres to miles the walking distances for schools. They are two miles and three miles. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to work that out by dividing the kilometres by eight and then multiplying by five. He tells me that he could do so because he was tested at Arbroath high. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries also asked whether we would consider bringing in a rural affairs element in the five-to-14 curriculum. I know that his education authority is currently working on that, and we would be delighted to give it any help that it wants.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked whether the existence of vouchers for pre-school education would interfere with the ability of families on family credit to utilise the child care disregard. That issue was raised in the Select Committee's evidence gathering in Glasgow. We are still giving it some thought. We are confident that, because the voucher value can in no way be treated as parental income, the ability of families to utilise the child care disregard will not be affected. However, I shall write to the hon. Lady shortly setting out the position in full, if she feels that that would be of assistance.
  The hon. Lady,together with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), spoke passionately and genuinely about pupils with special educational needs, and asked whether they would be disadvantaged. Obviously, the answer is no. We are committed to proper and full provision for children with special educational needs. Local authorities are responsible for provision—
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Mr. Robertson: I am responding to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point.
  Local authorities are responsible for provision for recording children from the age of two, and there are adequate existing powers in relation to others. All those powers will be retained for children in the pre-school sector. On the whole, the local authorities involved in the pilot schemes saw no particular issues relating to SEN children. However, we shall examine the position during the pilot scheme and its evaluation. I must make it clear that local authorities will retain the funds they currently spend on special educational needs.
  The hon. Member for Maryhill was right to say that pre-school education is vital in spotting special needs. She should be supporting the voucher initiative, because through it more children than ever before will receive pre-school education, so their needs will be identified and assessed, where otherwise they might not have been.
  Several hon. Members raised the whole question of the evaluation of the pilot. As I explained earlier, my Department has appointed a highly respected team from Stirling university to carry out a further operational review of the pilot.
  That review's remit is wide. It will look at the experience of parents and providers. It will examine the way in which the vouchers are used and their effects. It

  499
  will look at the patterns of provision that emerge and the growth in places that is achieved. The review will link in with local arrangements for monitoring throughout the pilot year.
  I shall also appoint a broadly based committee to advise the appointed researchers. It will include COSLA, the Scottish Pre-School Play Association, the Scottish Independent Nurseries Association and all other relevant organisations, as well as distinguished independent academics. We are serious about learning from the pilot and about tackling any problems as we go along. We are demonstrating that in what we do.
  The hon. Member for Maryhill also raised the issue of insisting on teaching qualifications in the providing centres. Again, during the pilot, we shall consider staff training, the possible need to develop new and additional forms of training, and the skills needed to deliver the curriculum for pre-fives.
  Mrs. Fyfe: As the Minister admits that the Government have not begun even to think about that yet, would it not have been better to delay the Bill's implementation until they did have answers to that serious point?
  Mr. Robertson: I am surprised at the hon. Lady saying that, because she used to be a great fan and advocate of what was going on in former Strathclyde region, and community nurseries' experience there and recent research conducted in that context point clearly to keeping an open mind on educational qualifications. She cannot shout Strathclyde region from the rooftops when it suits her and ignore its advice and experience when it does not.
  In a thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) asked about the frequency of inspections of local authority nursery schools and classes. Local authority nursery schools and classes will be inspected in accordance with sampling arrangements that Her Majesty's inspectors use for schools across the board. All Her Majesty's inspectors, not just the extra ones that we have recruited specifically for nurseries, will be competent, and will be used to inspect local authority nursery schools and classes. All new nursery schools and classes will have to complete a profile of education provision as soon as staff are appointed. Her Majesty's inspectors will consider those in setting their inspection priorities and in assessing the need for reinspection.
  Mr. Maxton: In my experience, many of the inspectors are ex-secondary school teachers or ex-college of education lecturers. Few of them will have had any experience of nursery education. I am not sure that they are the right people to make true judgments about the quality of nursery education.
  Mr. Robertson: That is a terrible slur on the professionalism of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. Many of them did not come from the rarefied atmosphere of one of Scotland's finest independent schools, but were brought up, like myself, on the hard side of life in the state sector.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) asked about the core grant for the Scottish Pre-School Play Association. I join him in paying tribute to
  playgroups'
  500
  excellent work throughout Scotland. Playgroups will be a major player in the pre-school initiative, which will be a valuable source of places, especially in rural areas where the provider market is not yet fully developed.
  We are seeking to deal with the issue the hon. Gentleman raised by putting resources towards funding development officers in support of the initiative. Their primary role will be to support providers in the voluntary and private sectors to achieve the standards necessary for a successful participation in the pre-five initiative. The development officers will be attached to Her Majesty's inspectors, but will work in the field and will cost some £400,000. It is a considerable investment to support the voluntary and private sectors, and will help the SPPA. It should significantly ease the pressure on the SPPA's core grant.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised some issues outwith the voucher initiative, about the Scottish Qualifications Authority. He asked whether it would simplify the public's perception of qualifications and the myriad things that are going on. Bringing together the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council will provide a means of co-ordinating educational pathways in Scotland. Certification of school, work-related and work-based awards will be handled by a single body and, as a result, there will less confusion about the range of provision on offer.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the SVEC's fees being a burden on employers, but in the interests of competitiveness, all employers must invest in the education and training of their staff to optimise efficiency, productivity and output. In the past year, the SVEC was able to reduce its fees by becoming more efficient and it has held those fees level. I expect that the new body will be able to maintain the service being given by the SVEC.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the SEB cutting corners to save money in relation to pre-testing of questions. The SEB's reputation for quality is excellent. That is known and valued throughout the Scottish education system. The SEB's commitment to quality cannot be and is not in doubt, and I am confident that it will ensure that that quality is maintained. We will ensure that the SQA will build on the reputations of both bodies in a variety of areas, but especially in relation to quality, and the Bill makes specific mention of this.
  Also in relation to the SQA, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) asked about whether special educational needs provision was adequate. If he is listening, I can tell him that the Bill makes provision for the SQA to take over the functions of SEB and SVEC, including the procedures for special needs candidates. The "Higher Still" initiative shows that improvements in standards and quality are not incompatible with special educational needs. The access level of "Higher Still" qualifications has been widely welcomed by those interested in special educational needs. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the underfunding of the SQA. We expect it to be self-financing, so that question does not arise.
  We have also heard much criticism, especially from the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), about our proposals for national testing, but what she has not admitted is that the atrocious level of testing in Scottish secondary schools has to be improved. When I challenged

  501
  the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in the Scottish Grand Committee to say whether he condoned the low levels of testing, he said nothing. I now ask the hon. Lady whether she condones or condemns the appalling levels of testing at S1 and S2.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am interested in the Minister's diversion. He has introduced a proposal for compulsory testing at S1 and S2 in secondary schools. This is not about levels of testing that do or do not exist; it is about compulsory testing being introduced as a qualification, as the Secretary of State said. The Minister would do better to explain exactly what the Government are up to.
  Mr. Robertson: I will ask the hon. Lady again: does she approve of a 6 per cent. level for maths, a 7 per cent. level for reading and a 5 per cent. level for writing? Is she happy with that? I shall keep talking while she gets the answer from her colleague.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he will explain why the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), the former Secretary of State for Scotland, backed down from that position. I am happy to stand by the education record of Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland because they have saved education from the depredations of the Minister and his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Robertson: So the hon. Lady is now saying that she is happy to defend Tayside region, which achieved 0 per cent. in reading, 0 per cent. in writing and 0 per cent. in mathematics, and Central region, which achieved 7 per cent. in reading, 1 per cent. in mathematics and 1 per cent. in writing. Does the hon. Lady think that that is an acceptable level of testing for Scottish parents for the very basics of education? I ask her for a third time—is she defending what is or is not happening in the vital first two years of Scotland's secondary schools?
  Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps you could guide me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether this is parliamentary language, but was that not gibberish? Given that this system of testing was introduced by the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, why on earth is the Minister getting himself into such a fankle?
  Mr. Robertson: Here we have it. At 3.30 this afternoon, the Opposition were against it, but word got out to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—"Do you realise what the Scottish element of the party has just said—that we are against improving standards in Scotland and against testing? Get the policy changed before the wind-up at 9.30 pm."
  Education authorities had the time to improve their performance, but made no tangible progress. The reality is that they will do nothing unless they are compelled to do so. The time has come to take powers to ensure that those authorities can no longer stand in the way of the full implementation of the system of national testing, and the five-to-14 programme of which it is an integral part, which has already proved of immense benefit to teachers, parents and pupils.
  The future prosperity of Scotland relies on the performance of our education and training system. The Bill reaffirms our continuing commitment to the training
  502
  system and takes forward proposals to enable our present system, with its high and improving standards, to meet the challenges that lie ahead. Our aim is nothing short of the improvement of Scottish education, improvement in the quality of provision offered to the Scottish people, and an improvement in the standards of education they achieve.
  Our aim is an increase in diversity within the system and the ability to take advantage of that by promoting freedom of choice. This Bill is part of our drive to achieve those objectives, and we are confident that the voucher system provides the best means of ensuring the expansion of preschool education. We are confident that our proposals for national testing will raise standards, to keep Scottish education up there with the best.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 276.

  Division No. 133]

  [21.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Battle, John

  Denham, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dewar, Donald

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dixon, Don

  Bell, Stuart

  Dobson, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dowd, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Berry, Roger

  Eastham, Ken

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Boateng, Paul

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bradley, Keith

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Byers, Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fraser, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gapes, Mike

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, John

  Cann, Jamie

  George, Bruce

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chidgey, David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Church, Judith

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coffey, Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Gunnell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hanson, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Henderson, Doug

  Corston, Jean

  Heppell, John

  503

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Olner, Bill

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Home Robertson, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pendry, Tom

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

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hutton, John

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Ingram, Adam

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jamieson, David

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

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

  Rowlands, Ted

  Khabra, Piara S

  Salmond, Alex

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Clare

  Livingstone, Ken

  Simpson, Alan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Snape, Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McKelvey, William

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McLeish, Henry

  Stevenson, George

  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

  Mandelson, Peter

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Touhig, Don

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Martlew, Eric

  Turner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Vaz, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michael, Alun

  Wallace, James

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walley, Joan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Milburn, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Miller, Andrew

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wise, Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Murphy, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Peter Hain.

  O'Hara, Edward

  504

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evennett, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Faber, David

  Amess, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, Eric

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baldry, Tony

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  French, Douglas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gale, Roger

  Beresford, Sr Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Booth, Hartley

  Gillan, Mrs 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

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butler, Peter

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  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, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sr John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Bob

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  505

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sackville, Tom

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lidington, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  Madel, Sir David

  Sproat, Iain

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mills, Iain

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Ward, John

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  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

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wilshire, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mr. Michael Mates and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Question accordingly negatived
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 40.

  Division No. 134]

  [22.17 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evennett, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Faber, David

  Amess, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gallie, Phil

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Booth, Hartley

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burns, Simon

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Buttertill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jack, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  507

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sackville, Tom

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Sims, Roger

  Lidington, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sproat, Iain

  Madel, Sir David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan

  Marland, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Marlow, Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Walden, George

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waller, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Ward, John

  Page, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Paice, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  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

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wilshire, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  NOES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Dalyell, Tam

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

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

  Canavan, Dennis

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  508

  Godsiff, Roger

  Rendel, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Simpson, Alan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Stevenson, George

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Wallace, James

  Maddock, Diana

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Michie, Mrs. Ray Argyll Bute

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Mr. Alex Salmond and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

  Pike. Peter L

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made and question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee—[Mr George Robertson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 268.

  Division No. 135]

  [22.29 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Allen, Graham

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corston, Jean

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Barnes, Harry

  Dafis, Cynog

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Battle, John

  Darting, Alistair

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davidson, Ian

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Denham, John

  Benton, Joe

  Dewar, Donald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dixon, Don

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boateng, Paul

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eastham, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Byers, Stephen

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Faulds, Andrew

  Callaghan, Jim

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fraser, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cann, Jamie

  Galbraith, Sam

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Galloway, George

  Chidgey, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Garrett, John

  Church, Judith

  George, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Coffey, Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  509

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hanson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pearson, Ian

  Henderson, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Heppell, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pope, Greg

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Ingram, Adam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (CotryNW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooney, Terry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rowlands, Ted

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

  Salmond, Alex

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Ecdes)

  Lewis,Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Simpson, Alan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAllion, John

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

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McCartney, Ian

  Snape, Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Soley, Clive

  McFall, John

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  McLeish, Henty

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  MacShane, Denis

  Stevenson, George

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Straw, Jack

  Maddock, Diana

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martlew, Eric

  Timms, Stephen

  Maxton, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Tipping, Paddy

  Meale, Alan

  Touhig, Don

  Meale, Alan

  Trickett, Jon

  Michael, Alun

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tyler, Paul

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Vaz, Keith

  Milburn, Alan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Miller, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mudie, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  510

  Winnick, David

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wise, Audrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Wray, Jimmy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evennett, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Faber, David

  Amess, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Amold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bates, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gale, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  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

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butler, Peter

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Heald, Oliver

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Coe, Sebastian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan, Alan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Elletson, Harold

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  511

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knox, Sir David

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Leigh, Edward

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lidington, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Luff, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spring, Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sproat, Iain

  MacKay, Andrew

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  Malone, Gerald

  Streeter, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  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, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Norris, Steve

  Waller, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Ward, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Watts, John

  Paice, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Willetts, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Richards, Rod

  Wood, Timothy

  Riddick, Graham

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Question accordingly negatived
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Bill stood committed to a Scottish Standing Committee, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

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

    (a) any sums required by the Secretary of State as payments of grants or other payments made in pursuance of section 13 of the Act;

    (b) any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to the Scottish Qualifications Authority under section 14 of the Act;

    (c) any sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling a guarantee under section 15 of the Act;

    (d) any sums required by the Secretary of State as payments of grants made in pursuance of section 23 of and Schedule 3 to the Act;

    (e) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act; and

    (f) any increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

    (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State in pursuance of sections 14 and 15 of the Act.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

    Question agreed to.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
    Ordered,
    That the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by the Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94F(1)(b) (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments)),
    That the Special Grant Report on Community Care Special Grant and Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1996–97 be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
    Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5179/96, relating to policies aimed at establishing fairer competition between the various modes of transport, and endorses the Government's approach to the policy of internalising the external costs of transport wherever possible.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Gun Control
    10.42 pm
    Dr. Robert Spink: I am honoured to present tonight a petition organised by the Evening Echo, the only daily local newspaper in south-east Essex. The petition was signed by 1,088 people, but I know that it represents the views of most of the public in so far as it seeks to tighten gun laws generally. In detail, the petition may be flawed: in spirit, it is praiseworthy, and has my full support. On this issue, the Evening Echo is to be congratulated on the great public service it has done.
    The terms of the petition are:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled, the Humble Petition of the residents of South East Essex and the surrounding area, showeth That we, the undersigned, call for urgent Government action to tighten the regulations on the carrying and licensing of guns. We urge that a total ban on guns being kept outside a licensed place of work or registered gun club, and a tightening of controls on the issuing of gun licences, with a yearly review of licence holders, be adopted.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the right hon. Michael Howard, MP, Home Secretary, to use his powers to tighten gun laws.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Social Services (Buckinghamshire)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
    10.43 pm
    Mr. George Walden: I am grateful for the opportunity for an Adjournment debate because I fear that social services in Buckinghamshire are coming under severe strain and that a similar pattern may repeat itself across the country. What is emerging is not just a financial but a structural problem.
    The Government are providing more money each year for social services and community care, but the demand created by the 1990 community care legislation in particular is ever-increasing. When that demand overtakes the supply of new money, local authorities have to ration services. We reach the crazy situation in which a steady increase in services and expenditure is perceived by the electorate as cuts. In Buckingham, for example, there is a day centre run by the Red Cross and funded by the social services department. The value of that kind of facility to elderly people forced to spend much of their time at home is clear, yet it is threatened with a reduced service to three days a week.
    I have met representatives of Mencap, who are concerned about the effect of rationing on the elderly disabled. Like all hon. Members, I have seen evidence of the strain placed on local social services by increased family breakdown and have been appalled by the expense and complexity of caring for a single delinquent child or young adult, to keep him or her ending up an even more expensive guest in one of Her Majesty's prisons.
    My hon. Friend the Minister will be familiar with the problem of explaining the paradox whereby we spend ever more and are accused of making cuts. I have the same difficulty explaining that paradox to my constituents—they are not very interested in the paradox. All they know is that the threat to their day centre, services and the mentally infirm are real.
    Politically, a chain reaction follows. Again, the process will be familiar to my hon. Friend the Minister. Members of Parliament are asked to intervene and come under pressure in the local press. We ask the county council what is going on. The council says that it has run out of money and needs to make, in this case, 9 per cent. cuts. I take up the problem with the Minister, who tells me that £57 million has been made available for community services in Buckinghamshire next year—10 per cent. more than in 1995–96. I find it hard to explain to constituents that their day centre will deliver a reduced service because the Government have given the council an increase three times the rate of inflation, so back I go to the council. Of course things turn out to be more complex than they seem.
    I will not go over the council's detailed finances. We have asked for and been given a breakdown of its expenditure, and we have had full and frank discussions. We have gone into matters raised in the Minister's reply to me—for which I am grateful—such as the need for efficiency savings. We have also looked at administration costs and why they appear to be rising. The reason seems to be investment in information technology in the pursuit of more efficiency. Above all, we have looked at rising demand.

    515
    I came away with the overriding impression that in the provision of social services and community care, we have embarked on an open-ended programme that will ultimately be unsustainable for any Government under any reasonable projection of the national income. Even if, for the sake of argument, Buckinghamshire county council could have managed things better, the consequent savings would have been a speck when seen against relentlessly growing demand. Friend as I am of efficiency savings, I am a friend also of logic. I fail to see how the council can be expected to produce money from such savings year by year until the trump of doom. There must come a point when the service in question is working efficiently and diminishing returns set in. It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that the American guru of downsizing in business has recently repented of his earlier enthusiasms.
    I have noted in that connection the speeches by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), which fail to promise more money for the national health service and pretend that new resources can materialise from administration cuts alone—a line echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). There are strange alliances in the House. I am all for cutting administration to the bone but I do not see how the future of the service can be guaranteed in the long run by offcuts from administration. Even if NHS administrative costs, for example, are halved that would yield less than £1 billion from a £34 billion budget—some of which, as a result, might be spent less efficiently. The point may be reached where the same is true of care in the community.
    The easiest way out for me is to blame the Government and to ask for more money. That would get me the reputation of a caring person, but it would prove the opposite. I would be guilty of gesture politics—which is to say, of cynicism. Asking for more money from a Government in debt to the tune of £25 billion would be more than cynical, it would be a charade.
    I would, of course, welcome more money for Buckinghamshire county council social services if there is any to spare in the Minister's budget. But the same goes for education, where some of our primary classes are too big, or for the NHS, where, despite improvements, there are still delays in operations. In all those areas, the Government are already spending more.
    The central question is: how are we to deal with infinite demand? Two simple facts that I read in the local government management board report on community care for 1995 illustrate the point: the number of admissions to residential and nursing homes has increased by nearly a quarter since 1993 94—a mere two years ago. Even more striking, the average net cost to the local authority of an intensive package of non-residential services now exceeds the average net cost of a residential home for old people. In other words, whether they are in or out of residential care, there is no escape from the cost of caring for the elderly.
    To put things even more simply, I do not understand where the system is going. I can see how things can continue for a while longer as they are, but eventually the strains will show, under whatever Government. I have noted with interest the warnings of the shadow social security spokesman, who will not spend more than is
    516
    already being spent. We are in a vicious circle. I suspect that there is a great deal of self-deception involved on all sides and much postponing of the day of reckoning. That day, I believe, will involve more targeting of expenditure on those in the greatest need.
    That brings me to the main question that I wish to put to the Minister, who will be relieved that, for once, I really will not ask him for more money. The Government have guided local authorities towards a policy of looking for a person-based approach to assess clients' needs. Buckinghamshire county council has been looking at the possibility of replacing an item-by-item flat-rate charge with a more streamlined approach—streamlined obviously being a euphemism for variable charges based, of course, on ability to pay.
    Despite new home care charges introduced in 1995, individuals with the financial means to contribute a reasonable amount towards their care continue to be charged the same amount as those who are among the least well-off in the community. That means that well-off people are getting subsidised services and that that subsidy is financed, at least in part, through the taxes paid by people in work who may be less well-off than themselves. Where is the equity in that?
    One inhibition to moving away from a flat-rate approach is the fear of legal challenge or recourse to the ombudsman. Would it not be of help to county councils such as Buckinghamshire if the Government recognised the facts about the costs of community care and introduced legislation to make ability to pay a criterion for the delivery of services. Unless the Government can promise that the spiral of spending will increase indefinitely—I doubt that they can—I see no other solution. Politically, I see very clearly that there would be a cost, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to imagine the political cost of headlines in the local newspapers, saying that day centres and services to the elderly disabled are under the axe.
    10.52 pm
    Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on raising the important subject of funding for social services in Buckinghamshire, and I am grateful to him for allowing me this opportunity to make a short contribution.
    Yesterday morning, I attended a meeting in Coleshill of adults with learning disabilities. It is no easy task to explain to people who have regularly attended day centres five days a week that, in future, depending on what assessment is made of their needs, they may be able to attend only three days a week, or even only one day. When I first examined the problem, I could not for the life of me understand why, if Buckinghamshire social services had, as my hon. Friend said, more money to spend on social services, services to individual clients would be cut in this way.
    When I looked at it, I began to appreciate the huge increase in expectations brought about by the community care legislation, which have led to the massive increase in demand to which my hon. Friend referred. It is an increase in demand right across social services. In particular, demand from the elderly to stay in their own homes, which we all want to encourage, has increased substantially. In addition, fortunately, adults with learning disabilities have a greater life expectancy today than they had previously. That is also creating extra demand on social services.

    517
    By and large, Buckinghamshire county council is a well-run and well-managed authority. Having examined the matter, I believe that it has approached it in the only sensible way—which has been to say that whereas in the past it was possible to provide for all the demand at day centres, as and when young people with learning disabilities left schools, that can no longer be so and there will have to be some sort of rationing based on need. In fact, the only basis for rationing is to say that the greatest resources will go to those people who have the greatest need. That is what is now being proposed.
    Difficult decisions will have to made, which will be hard to explain to parent carers—people who are often taken for granted by society; people who devote hours of their time to looking after their children. Sometimes, they get no recognition from society. They do not understand why these changes have to be made. As my hon. Friend said, we have to face the fact that, quite frankly, whatever resources are provided—and we would all like there to be more, although Buckinghamshire is already spending above its standard spending assessment on social services—will be inadequate to meet future demand. In fact, Buckinghamshire social services department has been commended by the Audit Commission for having adopted a rational approach to the matter.
    As we look at the finances and at the number of people and as we talk about demand, we must remember that we are also talking about individuals, many of whom desperately need help from social services. Of all the groups that need help, those who most need it are those with some sort of disability. Perhaps the mark of a civilised society is the resources that we devote to those people.
    Of course it is important—and Buckinghamshire social services attach great importance to this—that we meet the needs of children. In fact, the council has not been able to make any reductions in its budget for that because it is constrained by the law. It has had to make reductions in the help that it provides for old people and people with disabilities. I believe that it has approached the problem in a sensible way. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is important that we have a rational and intelligent debate about it. I congratulate him on raising the subject this evening.
    10.57 pm
    Mr. David Lidington: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on securing this debate. I am grateful to him for allowing me to make a few brief remarks.
    I wholly endorse the arguments of my hon. Friend and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). I, too, have been pressed by the very real dilemmas that are faced by Buckinghamshire county council in making difficult judgments about how to allocate an increased budget, year on year, in the face of even greater increases in demand from people who look to its social services department for support.
    I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in asking for particular weight to be given, by both central and local government decision makers, to the challenges faced by the parents of mentally handicapped children. Unlike, for example, the adult children of very elderly and frail people, the parents of a mentally handicapped child face a lifetime's responsibility
    518
    and commitment. We need to think carefully about how to ensure that our policies reflect the obligations that those people undertake on behalf of their children and of society as a whole. When we debate in an intelligent and rational manner such issues as changes to the charging regime or means testing, we need to take account of the fact that families face what might be termed a life sentence, not merely a commitment that will last only a small number of years.
    I should like to draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to two other points. I hope that he will reply, if not at the end of the debate, then possibly in writing thereafter. The first was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. Buckinghamshire county council has told local Members of Parliament that, by law, it is unable to apply the same rationing criteria to services for children that it can to other social services, so it argues that the matter has not yet been tested in a leading case before the courts. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister can provide further enlightenment on that issue.
    Secondly, I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to the possible implications of the impending split between Milton Keynes, which will become a unitary authority, and the residuary Buckinghamshire county council. Early indications are that the division of resources and SSAs will be weighted towards Milton Keynes in a way that is disproportionate to the populations of the two successor local authorities. If those early indications are followed through, the residuary Buckinghamshire county council might face great budgetary difficulties as a result of a large reduction in its SSA for 1997–98. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, with his social services responsibilities, will discuss that problem with his colleagues at the Department of the Environment.
    11 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): If my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) can bear it, may I be the third hon. Member to congratulate him on raising this subject and on his contribution? I do so with all sincerity because he has not asked me for any extra money, so it is a delight to answer the debate. He has, however, raised some important issues and points, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).
    The debate is about the quandary of considerably more resources going into a service, yet the service being managed in such a way in some parts of the country that services for people who need them have been reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham asks where the system is going. The answer is that it is going in the direction of a partnership between taxpayers, rate payers, families and individuals, supported by private and voluntary sectors. In the years ahead, how one creates the mix of that partnership will be fundamental.
    My hon. Friend rightly refers to the Labour party's commitment for no extra resources, which is a bold statement for the Labour party, but it needs to be heard and understood throughout the country. He has suggested that more people could contribute and he will, no doubt, have read with interest the consultation paper on partnership schemes, which goes some way towards that, so that people can plan ahead, contribute and, as a result, protect some of their assets for their families.

    519
    My hon. Friend talked about the ability-to-pay criterion. That is there; it is in the system. It is a question of how it is used. Once the assessment has been made of an individual's need, the assessment of that individual's ability to contribute is relevant. It is required, of course, in relation to residential care. In relation to domiciliary day care, it is discretionary, but it is there and it is a question of how it might be developed. He rightly says that it is good that, through our community care policies, more people have been able to stay at home. Following that, there was a but and the dot dots of the argument as to how that can be afforded in future, taking into account demographic changes and other factors.
    May I refer to my hon. Friends' points about disability needs? They rightly highlighted the need to consider especially carefully the needs of people with disabilities, whether they be physical, learning or mental health disabilities. Mentally handicapped children were referred to. Of course, a mentally handicapped child is not necessarily a child in the sense of being under age—he can be the child of someone who concludes that he is not going to outlive that child, which causes additional worries. What is planned for such children as they grow older and whether there are any cost implications are important matters.
    Not so long ago, Mencap and others lobbied Parliament to highlight the issue of charging. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has concentrated on the other side of the coin this evening. The lobby was genuinely concerned that charging might be unfair, but, because we have a discretionary system, every single local authority has the absolute discretion to exempt mentally handicapped people from any charge or to reduce the charge. That should be borne in mind.
    My hon. Friends queried whether the rationing of services to children was legal. It is a question not of legality but of looking after children's interests as best one can. Clearly, if a child is in need, the local authority has a duty to protect that child. Yes, there are requirements relating to taking a child into care. Beyond that, there are the same restraints on authorities looking after children as there on them looking after elderly people, and authorities have to manage their child care services within a budget just as they do any other services.
    Mention was made of the new unitary authority of Milton Keynes. We are watching the new authorities carefully to see how they establish themselves and how the transfer of responsibilities, resources and facilities is carried out. We have already seen the first wave of such authorities, such as Avon, Cleveland and others. The Department of Health, through its social services inspectorate, is working hard and even humble Ministers are attending conferences to try to ensure that the new generations—whether they be reduced generations such as in Buckinghamshire, or new generations taking on unitary authority status as in Milton Keynes—understand the social service needs of their areas.
    I deal now with one of the main points behind the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. He is right to say that personal social services is one of the largest elements of public spending. Such spending in England this year amounts to some £7.5 billion. That excludes the resources for Scotland,
    520
    Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, those spent by the Department of Social Security on preserved rights cases. That is up from £3.6 billion in 1990–91 and represents a real-terms increase of 68 per cent. For Buckinghamshire, total personal social services resources were up from £32 million to £74 million in that period which, in real terms, is an increase of not 68 per cent. but 87 per cent. Spending on community care in Buckinghamshire rose from £22 million to £58 million—my hon. Friend mentioned a figure of some £57 million or £58 million-which is a real-terms increase of 112 per cent.
    Buckinghamshire has also been fortunate in the two changes made in 1994–95—one to the special transitional grant distribution formula, which gave Buckinghamshire an extra £1.76 million, and one to the standard spending assessment, which gave it an additional £3.4 million, neither of which sums it would necessarily have planned to receive had the changes not been made. Buckinghamshire has been dealt with fairly, and there has been a substantial commitment to put the Government's, or taxpayer's, money where our policy is.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that there is an ancient British custom according to which all would be well if only the Government would give us more money. That is the cry that we so often hear, but we have not heard it tonight, which is good.
    We must remember that social services asked to have responsibility for community care, and most of them have responded well. Tributes have been paid in this debate to much of the work of Buckinghamshire social services. That was a 10-year implementation programme, and it needs to be managed effectively. The challenge is to manage the programme effectively, to obtain value for money, to identify priorities, to assess need and to listen to the views and preferences of local communities, individuals and carers.
    Buckinghamshire has reviewed its services and decided as a policy for the county to switch £1.2 million into children's services. That is its prerogative, and I have absolutely no quarrel with the decision if that is what was assessed as the best use of resources. If resources are going to be switched into something, they will of course have to be switched out of something, and Buckinghamshire has decided that adult and elderly services should be reduced to provide money for children's services.
    Buckinghamshire has also conducted a public consultation on priorities, which I certainly commend. It is always a good idea to consult the public on priorities, but we must remember that if we consult we will hear quite loudly from those who stand to lose out. Their voices will certainly be heard.
    The lessons that all social services authorities must learn are the lessons that we have heard from the Audit Commission about better management of resources, better use of the independent sector and better manpower planning. The Audit Commission said that, across the country, it could see £500 million being saved with better staffing policies, without any threat to front-line service. That is not a bad figure to be putting into the pot if one is looking for ways of managing a tight demand for services in a substantially increased budget—which must nevertheless be managed very carefully if we are not to lose services that are deemed locally to be essential.

    521
    Public information is important. I believe that the community care charters that started to come into force on 1 April this year will enable local people to see for themselves what each social services authority is setting out as the range and standard of service that they have a right to expect—anything from the time that people should have to wait for an assessment through to local and national rights, such as the statutory direction and right on choice of home. We need to ensure that that is better understood by the public, and the public need to understand the eligibility criteria to discover whether they should qualify for services.
    I believe that we do not want or need national standards. We want local priorities to set local standards, after consultation with local people, and then to publish those standards in local community care charters.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has dwelt particularly on the question of charging. We agreed that it is reasonable to make a charge to seek a contribution from a service user. Local authorities have absolute discretion whether to make charges for any non-residential adult personal social services. It is a matter
    522
    for each local authority to decide whether to make such charges, what level they should be set at and what exemptions or discounts there should be for various categories of people.
    The legislation of course requires that any charges levied must be reasonable and that if a person has difficulty meeting charges, he or she can make representations to have the charges reduced or waived. The charges must be reduced or waived if the authority considers it reasonable to do so. Once someone has been assessed as requiring a care service, that service should not be withdrawn because of an inability to pay for it.
    The question of contributions is important. It is central to the thrust of the comments made in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. If people make a fair contribution—remembering that the figure across the country is only 10 per cent., which could certainly be increased without causing hardship to people—that contribution can help to pay for more services.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the objectives and policies which form part of the information society initiative and which rely on the use of personal data; and if he has discussed these objectives and policies with the Data Protection Registrar. [29694]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information society initiative brings together a range of existing and new support programmes into a coherent and accessible whole, with the overall objective of helping UK business take maximum advantage of information and communication technologies. It includes in particular programmes to raise awareness of the potential business benefits of using new technologies, and highlights some of the implications of doing so, including data protection and security issues.

  No ISI programme relies on the use of personal data. Where personal data and received as part of the dissemination of ISI in areformation to interested parties, they are handled according to the relevant data protection regulations.

  Crown Post Offices (Ayrshire)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are employed at each of the Crown post offices in Ayrshire. [28964]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the Post Office that the number of staff employed at each Crown post office in Ayrshire as at May 1996 is as follows:

  Number

  Ayr

  15

  Kilmarnock

  18

  Irvine

  16

  Kilwinning

  8

  Saltcoats

  9

  EU Countries (Trade Deficit)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the countries in the European Community with which the United Kingdom currently has a trade deficit, indicating the amounts in each case. [30307]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on visible trade between the United Kingdom and other European Community countries is published by the Office for National Statistics in tables B13 (exports) and C13 (imports) of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
  304

  Carpet Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many square metres of carpet were imported in each year since 1979; and from which countries these imports originated. [30360]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Total UK imports of carpets are given in the table. A breakdown by country of origin or dispatch can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Furthermore, since the introduction of the single market at the start of 1993, comprehensive information on the country of origin for imports is not available. Due to a revision in the system of classification, figures prior to 1988 are not strictly comparable with more recent ones.

  UK Imports of carpets

  Year

  Million sq. m.

  1979

  30.7

  1980

  40.5

  1981

  50.2

  1982

  55.5

  1983

  66.2

  1984

  76.4

  1985

  86.2

  1986

  92.1

  1987

  101.4

  1988

  114.3

  1989

  125.7

  1990

  131.5

  1991

  121.6

  1992

  132.4

  1993

  94.3

  1994

  106.9

  1995

  108.3

  Carpets are classified to Group 659, "Floor coverings, etc" of the Standard International Trade Classification (Revisions 2 and 3).

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the output of the British carpet industry in each year since 1979; and what percentage was exported. [30362]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is given in the table.

  Output and exports of the British carpet industry

  Year

  Gross output £ million

  Exports £ million

  Exports as a percentage of gross output

  1979

  736

  162

  22.0

  1980

  659

  145

  22.0

  1981

  636

  121

  19.0

  1982

  629

  121

  19.2

  1983

  719

  132

  18.4

  1984

  782

  152

  19.4

  1985

  856

  176

  20.6

  1986

  943

  178

  18.9

  1987

  1,043

  191

  18.3

  1988

  1,226

  189

  15.4

  1989

  1,256

  206

  16.4

  1990

  1,266

  221

  17.5

  1991

  1,156

  206

  17.8

  1992

  1,103

  211

  19.1

  1993

  1,087

  217

  19.9

  1994

  n/a

  247

  n/a

  1995

  n/a

  259

  n/a

  Source

  Office for National Statistics Annual Census of Production and Business Monitors MQ10.
  305

  Devon and Cornwall (Funding Applications)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated which indicate the comparative success of Devon and Cornwall in securing funding by making funding applications (i) together and (ii) individually. [30402]

  Mr. Nelson
  Published statistics on regional selective assistance provide a basis for some inter-regional comparison. This and other funding programmes are monitored and evaluated continuously.

  British Business (Prospects)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the prospects for British business. [30352]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My right hon. Friend and other DTI Ministers regularly meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss a range of issues.

  Lingerie
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of(a) domestically manufactured and (b) imported lingerie for the most recent year for which figures are available. [30359]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested can be obtained from the Quarterly Market Report QR12 on womenswear, in the UK market series, which is available in the Library of the House. This report is published by Taylor Nelson based on data collected by the Office for National Statistics.

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; which agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30572]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  From time to time the Department of Trade and Industry makes use of private detective agencies or investigators for such matters as process serving, but no central record is kept of the use of such people.

  Lougborough Gas Research Centre
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of proposed job losses at the gas research centre Loughborough on current research programmes with his Department's funding. [31046]

  Mr. Page
  Current research and development programmes being funded by Government Departments will be completed within agreed contract terms and conditions and proposed manpower rationalisations will not affect this.
  306
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has sought assurances from British Gas that job losses at the gas research centre at Loughborough will not prejudice current research and development programmes to improve gas safety. [31048]

  Mr. Page
  The Government expect British Gas to maintain sufficient research and development to meet its obligations for ensuring gas safety. British Gas has made it clear that the new research arrangements will not affect safety standards and that no key areas of research have been affected.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of research and development funding by the Department of Trade and Industry to programmes at Loughborough gas research centre for each year since 1993. [31047]

  Mr. Page
  The total DTI funding paid for research and development projects conducted at British Gas's Loughborough research centre since 1993 is £1,236,034.

  Ultra-sonic Gas Meter
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value to date of export sales of the ultra-sonic domestic meter developed by British Gas. [31083]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is not separately identified in the UK trade classification. This is a matter for British Gas.

  British Energy
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 593, if he will publish the independent actuarial advice upon which his decision was made to set the level of British Energy's contributions to a segregated fund before (a) the date upon which advertising the sale of British Energy commences and (b) the date upon which the pathfinder prospectus is launched. [31190]

  Mr. Lang
  The advice, as stated in my answer of 17 May 1996,Official Report, column 593, will be placed in the Library of the House when available. Appropriate details on the segregated fund will also be provided in the British Energy prospectus.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 593, on what basis his Department made a decision on the correct level of contribution by British Energy to its segregated fund. [31191]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government based their decision on a number of factors, including British Energy's expected costs of decommissioning, the investment policy for the fund and the expected returns on the funds assets, and the tax rules that will apply.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much electricity was produced from wind turbines in the United Kingdom in(a) 1992, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [30801]
  307
  Mr. Page
  Electricity generated by wind schemes in the UK in each of the years 1990 to 1995 was approximately as follows:

  Year

  GWh

  1990

  1

  1991

  2

  1992

  26

  1993

  213

  1994

  337

  1995

  379

  Total

  958

  I expect the numbers to continue to rise year by year as more wind farms come into operation.

  Electricity Consumption
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the gross consumption of electricity in the United Kingdom in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [30761]

  Mr. Page
  Consumption of electricity in the United Kingdom was 291.45 TWh in 1992, 295.75 TWh in 1993 and, provisionally, 303.22 TWh in 1995. Electricity consumption grew by 3.9 per cent. in 1995, and by 1.3 per cent. per year on average over the last five years.

  Anglia Television
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations are currently being undertaken into possible insider dealing in Anglia Television shares; and when these investigations are expected to be completed. [30835]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not the practice of the Department to comment on individual cases.

  Offshore Installations (Pollution)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each of the last five years(a) the number of releases of oil or chemicals from offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf, (b) the substance released and the amount of oil or waste for each escape and (c) the name of the installation and the operator in each case. [31102]

  Mr. Page
  It is an offence under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 to discharge oil or any mixture containing oil into the sea from a pipeline or in the course of petroleum exploration and production in the United Kingdom continental shelf if that discharge is not the subject of an exemption granted in accordance with section 23 of that Act. In practice the operators of installations on the UKCS obtain exemptions to permit operational discharges. These exemptions are limited in accordance with international standards and require the operator of the installation to report any discharge made in accordance with the exemption. The amount of oil discharged in accordance with these exemptions is published in summary form in volume 2 of the annual energy report, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House. The number of notifications make it impracticable to give this information otherwise than in summary form.
  308
  Companies licensed to carry out petroleum exploration and production on the UKCS are required by the terms of their licence to report to the Secretary of State any escapes of petroleum from the licensed area. A summary of oil spills reported to the Department of Trade and Industry is also published in volume 2 of the annual energy report. Again, the number of spills make it impractical to give details of each discharge.

  The use of chemicals offshore is regulated by a notification scheme whereby licensees seek prior approval of the use of chemicals in exploration and production. Licensees are not required to report releases of chemicals from installations.

  South-West Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 545, what was the potential conflict of interest of Mr. Roger Harris that caused him to absent himself from the south-west industrial development board meeting; and on how many occasions potential conflicts of interest have prompted similar action by Mr. Harris. [28754]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: The potential conflict of interest arose because KPMG, of which Mr. Roger Harris is a senior partner in the Plymouth office, was acting as auditors and grant consultants to Pendennis Shipyard Ltd. Mr. Harris has absented himself for similar reasons from discussions by the board on other occasions.

  South-West Regional Office
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what remuneration was granted to Mr. Kenneth Holmes for his external services between the dates of appointment and termination of contact; what were the terms of this contact; for what reason the contract ended; who has since assumed responsibility for this role; and what checks have been made into their financial background and interests. [28736]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: A total of £238,868 was paid to Dellcourts Limited, a company owned and controlled by Mr. Holmes, in respect of his services between 5 February 1991 and 15 April 1995. By the end of this period, the relevant contract had run its full term and was being renewed on a monthly basis.

  The external advisers currently assisting the Government office for the south-west on applications from companies for financial assistance are:

  Mr. Rodney Pool of Riverdale Ltd.

  Mr. Terry Scarrott

  Mr. William R. Mountford

  Checks on all three have been undertaken on the Insolvency Service and other departmental databases; they have also been asked to supply—for inclusion on a register—details of their financial and other interests in companies.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial interests in companies are held by the officials in his Department's south-west regional office. [28737]
  309
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: The work of the Department's former south-west regional office is now performed by the Government office for the south-west which employs 230 officials. Like all public servants, they must not use information gained in their work to advance their financial interests or the financial interests of others, nor must they participate in the taking of any decision which could affect the value of those interests.

  Competition Policy
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the implications for the Government's competition policy of the judgment of Mr. Justice Knox in the chancery division of the High Court in the case of Mid Kent Holdings plc. delivered on 30 April; and if he will make a statement. [29614]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: I have carefully studied the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Knox on 30 April. In relation to the specific case before the court, he concluded that Mid Kent Holdings did not have a sufficient private right to obtain declarations that General Utilities was in breach of undertakings given to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 March 1991, and that in those circumstances he considered that it would be wrong for him to give a view as to whether there had been such a breach. Mr. Justice Knox also reaffirmed my discretion under section 93(A)2 to bring civil proceedings in respect of any failure, or apprehended failure, to fulfil an undertaking. I will ensure that future decisions take full account of Mr. Justice Knox's judgment in so far as it may be relevant.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if applications to his Department for financial assistance under the loan guarantee scheme are(a) considered and (b) offered by Department of Trade and Industry regional offices; if the value of the loan guarantee determines whether central or regional offices are responsible for the offering of this financial support; what other reasons require responsibilities to change between offices; and if he will make a statement. [30030]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: All applications for assistance under the small firms loan guarantee scheme, whatever their size, are considered centrally through the Department's loan guarantee section in Sheffield.

  The scheme is a joint venture between the DTI and the lenders involved. It is the lender's responsibility to undertake the commercial assessment of a business proposal, and decide whether it is prepared to lend. Only if all normal bank lending criteria are met, other than the lack of security, should the scheme be considered. It is the lender who applies for, and receives, the guarantee.

  It is the DTI's responsibility to consider whether the application meets scheme criteria. If so, the guarantee is issued.
  310
  Simplified arrangements allow certain lenders and their borrowers quicker access to the scheme where the loan amount does not exceed £30,000.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the newly recognised Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will enjoy the same agreements on trade that were in place for the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; what are the present arrangements for the duties on trade with Yugoslavia; if EURI certificates are applicable; whether former trading and duty arrangements between the European Union and Yugoslavia are being recognised by the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [30256]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 22 May 1996]: The 1982 trade and co-operation agreement between the EC and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was abrogated in 1991 following the break-up of the country. In February 1992 the trade benefits of the TCA were re-introduced for Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina only. Trade sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were lifted in November 1995, but the preferences of the 1982 TCA were not extended to it. In accordance with the regional approach agreed by EU Foreign Ministers in October 1995, the EU will conclude new individual agreements covering trade with all of the successor states of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including FRY, as and when the political conditions have been met.

  Many industrial products and a range of agricultural products can be imported duty free from Croatia, Solvenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia, using EURI certificates, some within ceilings and quotas. Council regulations 3355, 3356 and 3357/94, as amended by Council regulation 3032/95, set out the arrangements applicable. These countries are also beneficiaries of the EU's agricultural generalised system of preference scheme, which grants preferential access to developing countries for many agricultural products. These trading arrangements are non-reciprocal. Duties on imports from FRY are levied at the most favoured nation rate. As FRY does not have preferential trading arrangements, EUR 1 certificates are not applicable.

  British Energy (Research Paper)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the BZW research paper, "The Cash Generator". [30454]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 May 1996]: The BZW research paper on British Energy, "The Cash Generator" was produced by BZW Research, an affiliate of Barclays de Zoete Wedd Securities Ltd., as part of its internal research activity and was not produced on behalf of the Government. The Financial Services Act 1986 restricts the widespread distribution of this type of analysts' research. It is available to clients of BZW Research and other persons falling within FSA exemptions. Consequently, it is for BZW and its legal advisers to determine whether it would be appropriate for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.
  311

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Procedure Committee
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to bring forward proposals to implement the recommendations of the first report of the Procedure Committee of Session 1995–96, HC 386, regarding the taking of the oath and other related matters after an election; and if he will make a statement. [30983]

  Mr. Newton
  I am considering the Committee's report, to which I hope to respond shortly.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women, in her Department on 1 April. [30558]

  Mr. Sproat
  As at 1 April 1996 there were 181 men and 168 women employed by the Department of National Heritage. The following table lists the number of officials in the principal grades—grades 1 to 7—and the number of staff in administrative grades—SEO and below—showing the percentage of women in each case.

  Grade

  Total number of staff

  Total number of women

  Percentage of staff that are women

  G1A

  1

  0

  0

  G3

  4

  1

  25

  G4

  1

  0

  0

  G5

  16

  4

  25

  G6

  8

  2

  25

  G7

  48

  15

  31

  SEO1

  26

  11

  42

  HEO(D)

  4

  2

  50

  HEO1

  69

  29

  42

  EO1

  61

  32

  52

  AO1

  81

  49

  60

  AA1

  31

  23

  74

  1 Includes equivalent grades.

  Listed Buildings (Exports)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the number of listed(a) non-conformist chapels, (b) other ecclesiastical buildings and (c) other structures which have been taken down exported and re-built in (i) Japan and (ii) other countries, since 1986. [30686]

  Mr. Sproat
  This information is not available.

  Chipperfield Report
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the proposals made by the 312
  Chipperfield report on the Royal Fine Art Commission have been accepted; and when she intends to implement them. [31023]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's response has been placed in the Library with the Chipperfield report. Recommendations concerning the post of secretary have been implemented and the post of deputy secretary, finance, has been dropped as suggested in the report. My right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expects to give advice to local planning authorities later in the year about consulting the RFAC on major developments. The standard term of appointment for commissioners has been reduced from seven years to five and new appointments made in 1994, 1995 and 1996 reflect the diversity recommended in the report. Various less specific recommendations have been taken into account in the working practices of the commission.

  Millennium Commission
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the representation of each part of the United Kingdom in the membership of the Millennium Commission. [31244]

  Mr. Sproat
  Members of the Millennium Commission are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. They are not appointed to represent specific areas of the United Kingdom. The commissioners have a broad range of experience and travel widely before making any decisions concerning the allocation of national lottery funds.

  Telifis na Gaeilge
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures are proposed in order that people in Northern Ireland will have access to Telifis na Gaeilge when it commences broadcasting; and if she will make a statement. [29974]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: Telifis na Gaelige will be received by many residents in Northern Ireland who are already able to receive Radio Telifis Eireann broadcasts.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30062]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The Department of National Heritage is responsible for very few regulations and does not have a stand-alone deregulation unit as such. Three civil servants in the strategy and systems division at grades 5, 7 and EO deal with deregulation matters as part of their remit to cover inter-departmental issues. Members of other divisions with specific areas of responsibility, particularly tourism, also handle deregulation as it affects their areas, liaising with the central staff as necessary. Thus it is not possible to identify a budgetary allocation as being dedicated to this activity.

  None of the staff in the central unit has private sector experience, or has been seconded from business.
  313

PRIME MINISTER

  Kyle of Lochalsh
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the Kyle of Lochalsh. [29808]

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June. [30041]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June. [30043]

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June. [29801]

  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.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consult other Heads of Government about extending the implementation force involvement in former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [31154]

  The Prime Minister
  Under the terms of the Bosnia peace agreement, and the United Nations Security Council resolution 1031, IFOR's mandate expires in December. We expect implementation force IFOR to have successfully completed its military mission by that time. When IFOR leaves, we expect the leaders elected in the forthcoming Bosnian elections to take on responsibility for Bosnia's future. We remain in constant contact with other Governments on this and other Bosnia-related subjects.

  Hong Kong (Beef Ban)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations took place between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor of Hong Kong before the decision was taken by the Hong Kong authorities to ban the entry of British beef into the colony. [31118]

  The Prime Minister
  Hong Kong has autonomy in all trade matters. The Hong Kong Government's suspension of the import of British beef was imposed after the European Union's decision to prohibit the export of British beef. In announcing the suspension, the Hong Kong Government made clear that they had taken this decision to restore confidence in the beef market in Hong Kong, and that they did not consider it necessary to restrict the import of British beef on health grounds.

  Conservative Party (Donations)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to the chairman of the Conservative 314
  party about the conclusions of the Touche Ross report to the Conservative party of July 1993 in respect of donations to that party of fraudulently obtained money. [31262]

  The Prime Minister
  This does not fall within my responsibilities as Prime Minister.

  Dr. Trifkovic and Mr. Zametica
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings his Ministers have had with(a) Dr. Svdja Trifkovic and (b) Jovan Zametica; and what was discussed. [31144]

  The Prime Minister
  None. Mr. Zametica was present when Rajko Kasagic, former Prime Minister of the Republika Srpska, called on my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development during a visit to London on 29 April.

  Northern Ireland (Talks)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the advantages for the success of the all-party talks of Sinn Fein taking part in them. [31153]

  The Prime Minister
  The talks will hold out the best prospects for a settlement if they are as inclusive as possible, but only on condition that all those participating are committed to exclusively peaceful methods. We and the Irish Government have expressed the hope that all parties with an electoral mandate will take part in the talks, including Sinn Fein; but we have agreed that they must be limited to parties establishing their commitment to peaceful methods, and that participation by Sinn Fein requires unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names and occupations of the current members of and the terms of reference of(a) the Review Body on Senior Salaries, (b) the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, (c) the Review on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration, (d) the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay and (e) the School Teachers' Review Body. [30316]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 15 May, Official Report, column 457, and to the terms of reference contained in the 1996 reports of the review bodies, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Personal details such as occupations, when published, may be obtained from the standard works of reference.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Crown Court Trials
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Crown court trials there were in the west midlands in each year since 1990. [30652]
  315
  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of Crown Court trials held in the West Midlands since 1990.

  The figures are as follows:

  Year

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Wolverhampton

  1990

  569

  142

  309

  1991

  618

  100

  336

  1992

  509

  137

  333

  1993

  534

  174

  279

  1994

  495

  246

  327

  1995

  600

  149

  407

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average cost of a Crown court trial in 1995. [30653]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor's Department incurs three main costs during Crown court trials; staff and accommodation costs to the Court Service, judicial salaries and the cost to the legal aid fund. No average cost per trial is available as cost data for the Crown court are collected on the basis of the cost per day. For the year 1995–96 these amounted to approximately £5,245 per day. This figure does not cover the cost of any of the other agencies involved in the trial process.

  Mortgage Possession Actions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many mortgage possession actions were entered and orders made for the possession of property in each county court in England and Wales in each year since 1991. [30706]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated May 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about mortgage possession actions and orders.
  I enclose a table which details the number of mortgage possession actions entered and orders for possession made in each county court in England and Wales since 1991. As the table is too long to be printed in the Official Report, arrangements will be made for a copy to be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many registered disabled people are employed by his Department; and what percentage this is of the total. [30764]

  Mr. Streeter
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters and associated offices, the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, the information is as follows.
  316

  Number

  Percentage

  Able-bodied

  9,796

  82.82

  Registered disabled

  185

  1.57

  Self-classified disabled

  227

  1.92

  Not known

  1,620

  13.69

  Company Debts
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases legal aid has been allowed for company debts because these debts have subsequently been ascribed to an individual. [30809]

  Mr. Streeter
  Cases where legal aid is granted following an assignment from a company are not separately recorded. The Civil Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1996, which came into force on 1 June, permit an application to be refused where a cause of action is transferred to another party with a view to allowing the action to be commenced or continued with the benefit of a legal aid certificate.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance he gives to the Legal Aid Board to help it to distinguish between genuine and bogus applicants; and what action is taken against those assessed to be abusing the legal aid system. [31025]

  Mr. Streeter
  Section 5(6) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 precludes the Lord Chancellor from giving guidance to the Legal Aid Board in relation to the consideration or disposal of applications for legal aid in particular cases. Applicants suspected of intentionally failing to comply with the regulations or of knowingly making any false statement or false representation are liable to prosecution under section 39 of the Legal Aid Act 1988.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the current number of children aged over 16 and under 19 years for whom child benefit(a) is and (b) is not payable who are taking (i) non-advanced courses and (ii) advanced courses, broken down as far as possible by the type of course. [30241]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Data are not available on the nature of the education being undertaken by children for whom child benefit is in payment. However, child benefit is payable beyond age 16 only where the child is undergoing full-time non-advanced education. Benefit is not payable for children undergoing advanced education, defined as courses above A-level or equivalent.
  317

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the annual administrative cost of the compensation recovery unit in each year since it was established. [30390]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, asking what was the administrative cost of the Compensation Recovery Unit in each year since it was established.

  The information is provided in the table below.

  Period

  Operating costs (£ million)

  1 August 1989–31 March 1990

  0.13

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  1.7

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  1.9

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  2.1

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  2.7

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  2.8

  1 April 1995–31 March 1996

  3.1

  Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  University of Loughborough
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has(a) made to and (b) received from the university of Loughborough in the last year on matters relating to potential research into child support issues. [30684]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The centre for research in social policy at the university of Loughborough has been commissioned to evaluate a Benefits Agency/Employment Service scheme for lone parents which touches on child support matters.

  CRSP was also invited to tender for research into the departures pilot scheme but was unsuccessful.

  A possible survey of absent parents was under negotiation with CRSP, but further commissioning work has been postponed until after the departures scheme has been introduced and has had time to deal with a significant number of cases.

  Motability Finance Ltd.
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will maintain his policy that the banks currently involved in Motability Finance Ltd. are not granted sole lessor status. [29926]
  318
  Mr. Burt
  The Department regards competition as a healthy measure in ensuring value for money. Competition must, however, bring long-term benefits to Motability's disabled customers.

  End-of-year Returns
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 370–71, when he expects to publish the end-of-year returns for 1995–96. [30730]

  Mr. Heald
  Information will be available from May 1997.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to implement the recommendations contained in the report on the review of the prescription for chronic bronchitis and emphysema in underground coal workers, prescribed disease D12, by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. [31029]

  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to respond to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report, "Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema," Cm. 3240. [31242]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 21 May,Official Report, column 185.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 27, on expenditure on goods and services, when the figures for 1995–96 will be available. [31237]

  Mr. Burt
  The figures for the Department's expenditure on goods and services in 1995–96 will be available in July 1996.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 28, how many (a) unconditional on-demand bonds, (b) performance bonds, (c) parent company guarantees, (d) advance payment bonds and (e) retention bonds were required by his Department in the last five years. [31232]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that the guidance sent to Benefits Agency staff members formerly published by HMSO will be available to organisations and members of the public. [31074]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Guidance sent to Benefits Agency staff members formerly published by HMSO can still be obtained from that source.

  Discussions are in progress between the Benefits Agency and HMSO to determine appropriate arrangements for the future.
  319

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) had social security benefits withdrawn and (b) were ruled ineligible for such benefits due to the changes in social security regulations for asylum seekers, in March and April. [31182]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the format requested. In March, the Benefits Agency was notified by the Home Office of 702 negative decisions on asylum status involving social security benefit claims. In April, 810 notifications were received.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Data Protection Registrar concerning registration of personal data held by the Security Service which are not subject to section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984. [29699]

  Mr. Howard
  I have had no such discussions with the Data Protection Registrar. The Security Service has confirmed to the Data Protection Registrar, however, that exemption of personal data held by the service from the registration provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security as provided for by section 27 of the Act.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of people who were electronically tagged in England and Wales in 1995; and what was the total cost involved. [29998]

  Mr. Sackville
  Eighteen offenders were sentenced to electronically monitored curfew orders in 1995 as part of the trials being conducted in Manchester, Reading and Norfolk. A further 47 offenders have been similarly sentenced so far in 1996. As explained to the hon. Member on 26 October 1995,Official Report, column 761, the total cost of the first nine months of the trials to April 1996, including non-recurring start-up costs such as research and development, training, capital and equipment, was £1.6 million. The results of the trials are being evaluated by the Home Office research and statistics directorate.

  Maidstone Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parole applications were turned down on the basis that rehabilitation courses had not been completed at Her Majesty's prison Maidstone per month since April 1993. [30211]

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many secure centres for juvenile offenders have been built since 1986; and if he will list their locations in England and Wales. [30203]
  320
  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about secure centres for juveniles which have been built since 1986.
  Four local authority secure units have been built since 1986. They are Sutton Place Safe Centre in Hull; St. John's Community Home School, Erdington, Birmingham; St. John's Centre, Tiffield, Northampton; and Vinney Green Secure Unit, Mangotsfield, Bristol.

  Temporary Releases
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many temporary release failures there have been in each month since 1 December 1995. [30680]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many temporary release failures there have been in each month since 1 December 1995.

  The requested information is as follows:

  December 1995: 48

  January 1996: 45

  February 1996: 43

  March 1996: 40

  April 1996: 29

  To 18 May 1996: 17

  Prison Population
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of prisoners likely to be held in United Kingdom prisons in October. [30473]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what is his estimate of the number of prisoners likely to be held in United Kingdom prisons in October.
  The latest projection produced in April is that the prison population in England and Wales could be around 56,700 on 31 October 1996. The population was projected from current trends but past experience has shown the likelihood of departures from the trend. Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland is available from the Secretaries of State for those Departments.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of people seeking
  321
  political asylum and being held in custody as of 14 May, the length of time each person has been held in detention and their nationality. [30512]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information is for those held in detention as at 30 April and is given in the tables.

  Table 1: Number of people recorded as detained on 30 April 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by length of detention

  Length

  Total number detained

  0–1 Month1

  181

  1–2 Months

  143

  2–6 Months

  280

  6–12 Months

  106

  12 Months+

  15

  Total

  725

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  Table 2: Number of people recorded as detained on 30 April 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality

  Nationality

  Total number detained

  Nigeria

  114

  India

  93

  Algeria

  67

  Gambia

  44

  Ghana

  38

  Sri Lanka

  37

  Turkey

  33

  Zaire

  32

  Pakistan

  23

  Bangladesh

  22

  China Peoples Republic of

  22

  Romania

  21

  Czechoslovakia

  12

  Angola

  11

  Lithuania

  8

  Afghanistan

  7

  Albania

  7

  Iran

  7

  Kenya

  7

  Ivory Coast

  6

  Niger

  6

  Poland

  6

  Russia

  6

  Somalia

  6

  Tanzania

  6

  Ecuador

  5

  Sierra Leone

  5

  Colombia

  4

  Cyprus

  4

  Jamaica

  4

  Yugoslavia

  4

  Bulgaria

  3

  Ethiopia

  3

  Lebanon

  3

  Liberia

  3

  Peru

  3

  Uganda

  3

  South Africa

  3

  Cameroon

  2

  Georgia

  2

  Iraq

  2

  Montenegro

  2

  Palestine

  2

  322

  Table 2: Number of people recorded as detained on 30 April 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality

  Nationality

  Total number detained

  Sudan

  2

  Togo

  2

  Zimbabwe

  2

  Nationality doubtful

  6

  Others

  15

  Total

  725

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the protest by asylum seekers in Rochester prison on 17 May. [31197]

  Miss Widdecombe
  At approximately 20:30 hours on 16 May, 69 overseas nationals detained at Rochester refused to return to their cells at the end of the normal association period. The reason for the protest is not known at this time and is currently subject to an internal Prison Service investigation. However, it is thought that it may be linked to possible reductions in association time.

  The protest was passive, but the detainees refused to participate in negotiations with staff. At 01:00 hours on 17 May, a direct order was given to the detainees to return to their cells, but they refused to comply. Prison Service control and restraint teams were deployed to clear the wing. Some detainees offered passive resistance by rolling themselves into a ball. The wing was cleared by 01:30 hours with no serious injuries to staff or detainees.

  Following clearance of the wing, 10 detainees barricaded themselves into a cell, but this was quickly overcome with no resistance.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women in his Department on 1 April. [30545]

  Mr. Howard
  Figures for the number of male and female permanent non-industrial staff and the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and percentages of women employed at those grades in the main Home Office on 1 April were as follows. A breakdown by administrative grades is not available for that date; figures shown refer to the staffing position on 24 May. Figures for the Prison Service are as from 1 April.
  323

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  Area

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  Total

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  Total

  Home Office main (includes immigration and nationality directorate)

  4,515

  37

  4,552

  3,627

  668

  4,295

  United Kingdom passport agency

  539

  36

  575

  815

  217

  1,032

  Forensic science service

  362

  3

  365

  311

  121

  432

  Fire service college

  65

  0

  65

  60

  7

  67

  Prison service

  29,369

  307

  29,676

  6,582

  1,083

  7,665

  Total

  34,850

  383

  35,233

  11,395

  2,096

  13,491

  Home Office staff by grade equivalents

  Grade level equivalents

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  Total

  Percentage female

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  1

  00

  Grade 2

  6

  0

  6

  00

  Grade 3

  20

  5

  25

  20

  Grade 4

  8

  0

  8

  00

  Grade 5

  57

  12

  69

  17.39

  Grade 6

  75

  8

  83

  09.64

  Grade 7

  337

  123

  460

  26.74

  Senior executive officer

  458

  157

  615

  25.53

  Higher executive officer

  980

  555

  1,535

  36.16

  Executive officer

  2,094

  1,743

  3,837

  45.43

  Administrative officer

  824

  1,830

  2,654

  68.95

  Administrative assistant

  685

  1,393

  2,078

  67.03

  Total1

  5,556

  5,826

  11,382

  51.19

  1Includes 11 full-time male employees with obsolete grades or non-mandate grades.

  Home Office administrative staff (excluding grade equivalents)

  Grade

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  Total

  Percentage female

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  1

  00

  Grade 2

  6

  0

  6

  00

  Grade 3

  12

  6

  18

  33.33

  Grade 4

  2

  0

  2

  00

  Grade 5

  57

  13

  70

  18.57

  Grade 6

  62

  7

  69

  10.14

  Grade 7

  267

  131

  398

  32.91

  Senior executive officer

  194

  102

  296

  34.46

  Higher executive officer

  482

  391

  873

  44.78

  Executive officer

  662

  836

  1,498

  55.81

  Administrative officer

  779

  1,594

  2,373

  67.17

  Administrative assistant

  786

  1,567

  2,353

  66.59

  Total

  3,310

  4,647

  7,957

  58.40

  Prison service staff: administrative staff shown by grade equivalent.

  Prison officer grades shown separately

  Grade level equivalents

  (a) male

  (b) female

  Total

  Percentage female

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 3

  8

  0

  8

  0

  Grade 4

  9

  2

  11

  18.18

  Grade 5

  52

  10

  62

  16.12

  Grade 6

  117

  16

  133

  12.03

  Grade 7

  243

  24

  267

  8.98

  Senior executive officer

  448

  111

  559

  19.85

  Higher executive officer

  366

  231

  597

  38.69

  Executive officer

  1,471

  1,051

  2,522

  41.67

  Administrative officer

  560

  1,932

  2,492

  77.52

  Administrative assistant

  1,681

  1,350

  3,031

  44.53

  Total

  4,956

  4,727

  9,683

  48.81

  Prison grades

  Governor 11

  48

  2

  50

  4.00

  Governor 21

  69

  7

  76

  9.21

  Governor 31

  119

  16

  135

  11.85

  Governor 41

  297

  42

  339

  12.39

  Governor 51

  411

  28

  439

  6.37

  324

  Prison service staff: administrative staff shown by grade equivalent.

  Prison officer grades shown separately

  Grade level equivalents

  (a) male

  (b) female

  Total

  Percentage female

  Governor 5 (accelerated promotion scheme)1

  35

  23

  58

  39.65

  Principal officer1

  1,261

  41

  1,302

  3.14

  Principal officer (accelerated promotion scheme)1

  11

  8

  19

  42.10

  Senior officer1

  3,365

  183

  3,548

  5.16

  Prison officer1

  17,564

  2,165

  19,729

  10.97

  Prison auxiliary1

  1,540

  423

  1,963

  21.55

  Total1

  24,720

  2,938

  27,658

  10.62

  Grand total

  29,676

  7,665

  37,341

  20.52

  1 Specific prison service grades. Grades 1–5 were abolished on 1 April 1996 on the establishment of the senior civil service. The relevant figures in the above tables refer to the grades to which the staff concerned previously belonged.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary for the Home Department (1) how many people were detained in Birmingham prison, under Immigration Act powers in(a) March and (b) April; and what were the nationalities of those detained; [31183]

  (2) how many of those people detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers were deported during the months of March and April. [31184]

  Miss Widdecombe
  At the end of March, 63 prisoners in Birmingham prison were recorded as being held under Immigration Act powers. At the end of April, 48 Prisoners were held; a breakdown by nationality is given in the table. Provisional information shows that 37 persons were discharged and deported from Birmingham prison during March and April.

  Population of Immigration Act detainees1 in HM prison Birmingham on 30 April 1996; by nationality

  Nationality

  Number

  Algeria

  8

  Bangladesh

  2

  India

  27

  Nigeria

  2

  Pakistan

  2

  South Africa

  2

  Others

  5

  Total

  48

  1 Provisional figures.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who had applied at some stage for asylum were deported from Birmingham prison in January, February, March and April. [31186]
  325
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of asylum detainees at Her Majesty's prison Birmingham who were deported, by month.

  Month

  1Number deported

  January

  4

  February

  2

  March

  1

  April

  1

  1Left by means of a deportation order, enforced or supervised departure.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who had applied at some stage for asylum were detained in Birmingham prison during April; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [31293]

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

  Population of asylum detainees at HM Prison Birmingham on 30 April by nationality.

  Nationality

  Number

  Algerian

  7

  Indian

  15

  Pakistani

  2

  Others

  4

  Total

  28

  Prison Building Programme
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons are currently being built in England and Wales; and where each prison will be sited. [30533]

  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 A.J. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of new prisons being built in England and Wales and where each will be sited.
  The Home Secretary announced in September 1993 that six new prisons would be built, using private sector finance. Lowdham Grange was added to the programme in March 1996.
  The first three privately-funded prisons will open in 1997–98 at Bridgend in south Wales; Fazakerley in Merseyside; and Lowdham Grange in Nottinghamshire. Planning permission for further prisons is currently being pursued in Manchester.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the date for which the Criminal Cases Review Commission will receive applications. [30586]
  326
  Mr. Kirkhope
  Members are currently being recruited for the commission and we expect them to be appointed during September. The commission will begin taking cases after a short transition period; the precise date will be announced nearer the time.

  Metropolitan Police (Civil Damages Awards)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil damages awards have been made against, and what was the total cost of such awards to, the Metropolitan police in each of the past five years; and if he will list the details by police division. [30672]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on court awards is not held on a divisional basis. The following is the other information requested:

  Court awards

  Year

  Number

  Total cost £000s

  1991

  9

  21

  1992

  11

  203

  1993

  6

  53

  1994

  11

  84

  1995

  22

  267

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the privately run prisons in England and Wales. [30536]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about privately-run prisons in England and Wales.
  There are at present four contractually-managed prisons. They are: the Wolds prison, which is managed by Group 4; Blakenhurst prison, which is managed by United Kingdom Detention Services; Doncaster prison, which is managed by Premier Prison Services; and Buckley Hall prison which is managed by Group 4.

  Ex-prisoners (Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what services he operates to enable prisoners, when released, to be rehabilitated into society, with special reference to arrangements for both long-term and short-term prisoners to find accommodation once their prison sentence has ended. [30663]

  Mr. Sackville
  Depending on their circumstances, accommodation is available to ex-prisoners in approved probation/bail hostels or in housing supported by area probation services. There are 2,349 places in approved probation/bail hostels and over 5,500 housing places supported by probation services.

  The general arrangements for the post-release supervision of offenders are set out in chapter 7 of "National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community 1995" and the "National Framework for

  327
  the Throughcare of Offenders in Custody to the Completion of Supervision in the Community", copies of which are in the Library.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners received education and for how much time each week in(a) 1979 and (b) 1995 in (i) Wales and (ii) the regions of England. [30708]

  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. Win Griffiths, dated 4 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the percentage of prisoners who received education and for how much time each week in (a) 1979 and (b) 1995 in (i) Wales and (ii) the regions of England.
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Prisoners receiving education and training may attend for only a short time, it is therefore difficult to provide information on numbers of students and easier to provide information on student hours.
  In 1979, when the average daily prison population was 42,220, 4.6 million student hours were spent on education and training classes by inmates. In 1995, when the average daily population (excluding those held in police cells) was 50,962, 9.4 million student hours were spent on education and training classes.
  All prisoners are appraised for education and their attendance is decided as part of local sentence planning. The governor will then order the appropriate amount of education to cover the planned needs of the population within the constraints of his budget.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many registered disabled people are employed by his Department; and what percentage this is of the total figures. [30767]

  Mr. Howard
  The total number of registered disabled staff in the Home Office and its agencies, and the percentage this represents of the total number of staff, are as shown. Figures refer to the staffing position on 23 May.

  Number of registered disabled staff: 229

  Percentage of registered disabled staff: 0.4

  The nature of many of the posts within the Prison Service limits the scope for employing people with disabilities. Excluding Prison Service staff, the total number of registered disabled staff in the Home Office and its agencies, and the percentage this represented of the total number of staff on 23 May were as follows:

  Number of registered disabled staff: 174

  Percentage of registered disabled staff: 1.5

  Note: The total number of staff in the Home Office and its agencies, including the Prison Service, was 51,782 on 23 May. Excluding the Prison Service the total was 11,322.

  Homeless People (Electoral Registration)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue new guidelines to electoral registration officers as to the inclusion of 328
  homeless people on the electoral register following the decision in the case of Kevin Lippiatt v. the Electoral Registration Officer, Penrith district council. [31212]

  Mr. Sackville
  We aim to issue guidance in time for this year's electoral registration canvass.

  Prison Service (Private Sector Involvement)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage greater private sector involvement in the Prison Service. [31062]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 4 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about private sector involvement in the Prison Service.
  Over the past five years the Prison Service has successfully involved the private sector in initiatives to improve the services it provides and to achieve greater value for money. Currently, four prisons (Wolds, Blakenhurst, Doncaster and Buckley Hall) are managed by the private sector, and seven out of the eight prison escort areas have now been contracted-out. There has been substantial private-sector involvement to provide purposeful work and training for prisoners. Functions such as prison education have been contracted-out where it has been determined that this leads to greater efficiency and economy.
  The Home Secretary announced in September 1993 that six new prisons would be built, using private sector finance, and Lowdham Grange was added to the programme in March 1995. The first three privately-funded prisons will open in 1997–8 at Bridgend in south Wales, Fazakerley in Merseyside, and Lowdham Grange in Nottinghamshire. Planning permission for further prisons is currently being sought in Manchester and Telford.

  Prison Sanitation
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners had 24 hour access to sanitation on(a) 12 April, (b) 12 May and (c) currently. [31064]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 4 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the percentage of prisoners who had 24 hour access to sanitation on (a) 12 April, (b) 12 May and (c) currently.
  The Prison Service achieved its performance target of ensuring that all prisoners had access to sanitation at all times on 12 April 1996 and full access has been maintained since then. This has been achieved despite a record rise in the prison population and despite the Service's need to reduce costs.

  Deportations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people deported under Immigration Act powers from the United Kingdom for March and April. [31185]
  329
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The number of persons removed under the deportation process, including voluntary departures after deportation action had been initiated, was 146 in March 1996. In addition, 231 illegal entrants were removed or departed voluntarily. Complete data for April are not yet available.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many dogs have been destroyed as a result of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; [31078]

  (2) how many dogs are currently in police kennels awaiting the implementation of destruction orders; what is the average period of detention; and what is the longest current period of detention for a dog. [31077]

  Mr. Sackville
  Some 770 destruction orders were made between 1992 and 1994, although some of these orders will have been the subject of appeals. Figures for 1995 are likely to be available in the autumn.

  There are currently 13 dogs held in police kennels in England and Wales awaiting the implementation of a destruction order under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The average period of detention for these dogs is two years and four months, and the longest period of detention for a dog is currently four years and five months.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in respect of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and what proposals he has to amend the legislation. [31076]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has received representations from various individuals and organisations which also submitted views to the recent House of Lords Select Committee on the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [Lords]. Details are contained in its report, published on 26 February, HL paper No.48. The Government were unable to accept the recommendation contained in the report that the Act should be amended.

  Representations have also been made to the Home Affairs Committee which is currently inquiring into the operation of the Act. While the Government will, of
  330
  course, consider carefully any recommendations which the Committee may make, there are currently no plans to amend the Act.

  Wild Animals and Birds
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support he gives to organisations which provide sanctuary, treatment and rehabilitation in the wild for wild animals and birds; and if he will make a statement. [30793]

  Mr. Sackville
  I am not aware of any grant aid to any such organisations in recent years.

  Tinsley House Immigration Detention Centre
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the capital cost of Tinsley house immigration detention centre; and what are the terms of repayment under the private finance initiative; [31210]

  (2) what are the terms of the contract concluded by Wackenhut for the operation of Tinsley house immigration detention centre. [31213]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Tinsley house was not fully funded through the private finance initiative; the cost of the building works was borne by the private sector but the running of the facility is the subject of a separate contract. It would not be right to divulge the capital cost of the building, or the terms of the operating contract, as this information is commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual savings from the operation of the contract by Wackenhut at Tinsley house immigration detention centre. [31211]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Tinsley house is a new facility providing 150 additional detention places. The extra places will enable us to reduce the use of more expensive, less suitable, alternative accommodation and to effect the removal of more people with no entitlement to remain in this country. It is not possible to quantify the overall resultant savings to the public purse but I am satisfied that the contract with Wackenhut to run Tinsley house provides very good value for money.
  331

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service Trade Unions
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the civil service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed. [29928]

  Mr. Freeman
  I last met representatives of the civil service unions on 29 January where many issues relating to the civil service were discussed.

  Council of Europe (Meetings)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995 have been attended by Ministers or officials of the Office of Public Service; and if he will make a statement. [29366]

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been 212 meetings of or organised by the Council of Europe since January 1995 attended by members of staff of the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. No Ministers or officials in the Office of Public Service have attended these meetings.

  Government Car Service
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the make, age and purchase price of each vehicle in the Government car service ministerial fleet; [30387]

  (2) what was the total cost of maintaining and operating the Government car service ministerial fleet, for the years 1992–93 to 1995–96. [30386]

  Mr. Freeman
  As these are purely operational matters I have asked the chief executive of the Security Facilities Executive to write directly to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. C. King to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 30 May 1996:

  I have been asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply direct to your two Parliamentary Questions relating to the Government Car Service (GCS). As Chief Executive of the Security Facilities Executive Agency, I have operational responsibility for the GCS.
  The Government Car Service currently purchases motor vehicles from the Ford, Jaguar, Rover and Vauxhall motor companies. I regret that, for security and commercial reasons, details of individual vehicles cannot be made public.
  The estimated costs of maintaining and operating the Government Car Service for the years 1992–93 to 1995–96 are as follows:

  1992/93: £7.0 million

  1993/94: £7.3 million

  1994/95: £7.6 million

  1995/96: £7.4 million

  These costs cover the whole of the Government Car Service, including the Ministerial vehicles.

  Civil Service College (Devolution Course)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a copy of the 332
  now withdrawn Civil Service College leaflet advertising courses on devolution this summer; and if he will make a statement. [30693]

  Mr. Freeman
  The promotion and scheduling of courses and seminars at the Civil Service College is an operational matter. I have asked the chief executive of the Civil Service College to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from S. H. F. Hickey to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 28 May 1996:

  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your Question on the Civil Service College's proposed seminar on devolution.
  I am arranging for a copy of the full information pack on College seminars and programmes for the Senior Civil Service to be made available for the Library. It includes a proposed single half-day briefing seminar on the work of the non-party Constitution Unit. In order to avoid any risk of misinterpretation, this seminar has been postponed.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) for what reasons HMSO has ceased publication of the social fund guide; [31061]

  (2) if he will list the publications which HMSO has ceased to publish in the last year; for what reasons HMSO has ceased publishing these documents; and what steps will be taken to ensure that copies of these remain available to the public. [31060]

  Mr. Freeman
  As these questions concern purely operational matters, I have asked the chief executive of HMSO to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mike Lynn to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 29 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your two Parliamentary Questions (numbers 183 and 185) to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  The Social Fund Guide is a loose-leaf publication in two volumes, which was last published in May 1995. Amendments are published from time to time, and there have been five so far for the current edition. Both the main volumes and the amendments are prepared and printed by Benefits Agency Publishing Ltd, who provide copies for internal use within the Benefits Agency, and sell copies to HMSO for resale to customers. Amendments numbers 4 and 5 were printed some months ago, but there was a delay in taking copies for resale because of on-going discussions about alternative publishing methods, such as on-demand printing. I have now asked my people to take these amendments into stock immediately so that continuity of service can be provided to purchasers.
  You also ask what publications HMSO has ceased to publish in the last year. The Government departments who commission the vast majority of our non-parliamentary publishing output are free to use other publishers (or to publish in-house) if they choose. The only regular publication that we are aware of ceasing to publish during the last year is The Commonwealth Yearbook, which is now published by Hanson Cooke.

  Performance Bands
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official

  333
  Report, column 16, how many (a) unconditional on-demand bonds, (b) performance bonds, (c) parent company guarantees, (d) advance payment bonds and (e) retention bonds were required by his Department in the last five years. [31233]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Office of Public Service and its agencies, HMSO and the Central Office of Information have obtained six performance bonds and six parent company guarantees in the last five years. No unconditional on-demand bonds, advance payment bonds and retention bonds were required by the Department in the last five years.

  China
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he had on human rights issues with those Chinese leaders whom he met during his recent visit to China; which political opponents of the Government he met; and if he will make a statement. [31156]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The two main objectives for my visit to China were to develop commercial opportunities for British business in China and to take forward co-operation over Hong Kong. During my visit, I focused on these two objectives, which were achieved. I did not raise human rights issues. The Chinese are in no doubt about our long-held and serious concerns in that area.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to meet(a) Mr. Li Ka Shing, (b) Mr. David Choy, (c) Mr. Rong Yiren, (d) Mr. Stanley Ho, (e) Mr. T. T. Tsui and (f) Mr. C. H. Tung during his forthcoming visit to Hong Kong. [30598]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  During my visit to Hong Kong on 24 to 25 May, I met a broad range of businessmen, politicians and general opinion-formers.

  Ministry of Defence permanent UK based civilian staff at 1 April 1996

  Grades within the Open Structure and Occupational Groups—1April 1996

  Male

  Per cent.

  Female

  Per cent.

  Total

  Former Grade 1 (including 1A)

  3

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  3

  Former Grade 2 (including UIPP (Higher))

  8

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  8

  Former Grade 3 (including UIPP (Lower))

  43

  95.6

  2

  4.4

  45

  Former Grade 4

  24

  96.0

  1

  4.0

  25

  Former Grade 5

  240

  93.4

  17

  6.6

  257

  Former Grade 6

  708

  97.4

  19

  2.6

  727

  Former Grade 7

  2,598

  94.5

  151

  5.5

  2,749

  Senior Executive Officer

  1,119

  82.2

  242

  17.8

  1,361

  Administration Fast Stream (HEO(D))

  10

  55.6

  8

  44.4

  18

  Administration Fast Stream (AT/HEO(D))

  5

  83.3

  1

  16.7

  6

  Higher Executive Officer

  2,046

  66.1

  1,047

  33.9

  3,093

  Administration Fast Stream (AT)

  8

  88.9

  1

  11.1

  9

  Executive Officer

  2,888

  48.9

  3,019

  51.1

  5,907

  Administrative Officer

  3,846

  27.7

  10,017

  72.3

  13,863

  Administrative Assistant

  1,363

  21.6

  4,954

  78.4

  6,317

  Senior Economic Assistant

  1

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  1

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  0

  0.0

  1

  100.0

  1

  Assistant Statistician

  5

  71.4

  2

  28.6

  7

  Senior Information Officer

  30

  75.0

  10

  25.0

  40

  Information Officer

  39

  69.6

  17

  30.4

  56

  Assistant Information Officer

  2

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  2

  Senior Librarian

  9

  50.0

  9

  50.0

  18

  334

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel, Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the payment per week currently made to the three British service personnel who have been convicted and sentenced for the manslaughter of a Danish tour guide in Cyprus. [30199]

  Mr. Soames
  No payments have been made by my Department to the three men since they were discharged from the Army on 22 April. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has now assumed welfare responsibility for these individuals.

  Wessex Helicopter (Royal Family)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the Wessex helicopter used by the royal family. [30242]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Wessex HCC4s used to provide the VVIP helicopter service for the royal family and senior Government Ministers have been in service since 1969 and are becoming more difficult and costly to maintain. We are examining options for a replacement service but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women in his Department on 1 April. [30552]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The number and percentages of male and female staff employed by the Ministry of Defence and its agencies are detailed in the following table.
  335

  Ministry of Defence permanent UK based civilian staff at 1 April 1996

  Grades within the Open Structure and Occupational Groups—1April 1996

  Male

  Per cent.

  Female

  Per cent.

  Total

  Librarian

  19

  40.4

  28

  59.6

  47

  Assistant Librarian

  11

  22.4

  38

  77.6

  49

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade D

  5

  83.3

  1

  16.7

  6

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade E

  5

  83.3

  1

  16.7

  6

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade F

  5

  62.5

  3

  37.5

  8

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade G

  1

  16.7

  5

  83.3

  6

  Museum Conservation Group Grade F

  2

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  2

  Senior Mapping and Charting Officer

  88

  77.9

  25

  22.1

  113

  Higher Mapping and Charting Officer

  200

  82.6

  42

  17.4

  242

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  364

  70.8

  150

  29.2

  514

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 1

  98

  59.0

  68

  41.0

  166

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 2

  23

  41.8

  32

  58.2

  55

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  2,270

  99.0

  23

  1.0

  2,293

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  3,641

  98.5

  54

  1.5

  3,695

  Professional and Technology Officer

  4,213

  98.0

  88

  2.0

  4,301

  Professional and Technology Officer IV (obs)

  2

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  2

  Technical Grade 1

  277

  73.9

  98

  26.1

  375

  Technical Grade 2

  11

  42.3

  15

  57.7

  26

  Graduate Trainee

  104

  91.2

  10

  8.8

  114

  Trainee Incorporated Engineer

  12

  85.7

  2

  14.3

  14

  Senior Graphics Officer

  10

  90.9

  1

  9.1

  11

  Higher Graphics Officer

  45

  95.7

  2

  4.3

  47

  Graphics Technical Grade

  1

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  1

  Graphics Officer

  161

  83.0

  33

  17.0

  194

  Senior Research Officer (R)

  44

  86.3

  7

  13.7

  51

  Research Officer (R)

  10

  83.3

  2

  16.7

  12

  Chief Typing Manager

  0

  0.0

  10

  100.0

  10

  Typing Manager

  0

  0.0

  117

  100.0

  117

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0

  0.0

  88

  100.0

  88

  Personal Secretary

  3

  0.4

  784

  99.6

  787

  Typist

  6

  0.2

  2,895

  99.8

  2,901

  Trainee Typist

  0

  0.0

  1

  100.0

  1

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1,373

  89.3

  164

  10.7

  1,537

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1,177

  84.0

  224

  16.0

  1,401

  Scientific Officer

  829

  78.7

  224

  21.3

  1,053

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  162

  69.8

  70

  30.2

  232

  Senior Instructional Officer

  65

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  65

  Higher Instructional Officer

  351

  98.6

  5

  1.4

  356

  Instructional Officer I

  1,132

  99.0

  11

  1.0

  1,143

  Instructional Officer II

  134

  96.4

  5

  3.6

  139

  Catering Manager 3

  2

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  2

  Chef 1/Chief Cook 1

  16

  94.1

  1

  5.9

  17

  Chef 2/Chief Cook 2

  18

  85.7

  3

  14.3

  21

  Museum Technical Grade 2

  3

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  3

  Museum Technician Grade 3

  1

  50.0

  1

  50.0

  2

  Museum Support Grade 1

  1

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  1

  Museum Support Grade 2

  2

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  2

  Museum Support Grade 3

  21

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  21

  Museum Support Grade 4

  3

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  3

  Museum Support Grade 5

  6

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  6

  Senior Photographic Officer

  6

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  6

  Higher photographic Officer

  34

  97.1

  1

  2.9

  35

  Photographic Officer

  124

  92.5

  10

  7.5

  134

  Process & General Supervisory Group Grade A

  10

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  10

  Process & General Supervisory Group Grade B

  33

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  33

  Process & General Supervisory Group Grade C

  115

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  115

  Process & General Supervisory Group Grade D

  301

  94.7

  17

  5.3

  318

  Process & General Supervisory Group Grade E

  127

  94.1

  8

  5.9

  135

  Senior Psychologist

  9

  40.9

  13

  59.1

  22

  Higher Psychologist

  2

  25.0

  6

  75.0

  8

  Psychologist (Graduate Trainee)

  1

  33.3

  2

  66.7

  3

  Stores Officer Grade A

  13

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  13

  Stores Officer Grade B

  124

  99.2

  1

  0.8

  125

  Stores Officer Grade C

  309

  96.9

  10

  3.1

  319

  Stores Officer Grade D

  590

  91.9

  52

  8.1

  642

  Support Manager 1

  3

  60.0

  2

  40.0

  5

  Support Manager 2

  16

  47.1

  18

  52.9

  34

  Support Manager 3

  60

  38.5

  96

  61.5

  156

  336 337

  Ministry of Defence permanent UK based civilian staff at 1 April 1996

  Grades within the Open Structure and Occupational Groups—1 April 1996

  Male

  Per cent.

  Female

  Per cent.

  Total

  Support Grade Band 1

  259

  27.8

  674

  72.2

  933

  Support Grade Band 2

  407

  48.9

  426

  51.1

  833

  Senior Telecommunications Technical Officer

  41

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  41

  Higher Telecommunications Technical Officer

  105

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  105

  Telecommunications Technical Officer

  271

  99.3

  2

  0.7

  273

  Assistant Telecommunications Technical Officer

  356

  95.7

  16

  4.3

  372

  Trainee Telecommunications Technical Officer

  27

  93.1

  2

  6.9

  29

  Communications Officer I

  18

  94.7

  1

  5.3

  19

  Communications Officer II

  37

  80.4

  9

  19.6

  46

  Communications Officer III

  75

  74.3

  26

  25.7

  101

  Communications Officer IV

  217

  69.8

  94

  30.2

  311

  Total staff in Open Structure and Occupational Groups

  35,612

  57.5

  26,335

  42.5

  61,947

  Total staff in Departmental non-industrial grades (1)

  14,553

  88.5

  1,897

  11.5

  16,450

  Industrial staff

  27,355

  82.3

  5,877

  17.7

  32,232

  Total non-industrial and industrial staff

  77,520

  69.4

  34,109

  30.6

  111,629

  Source:

  DASA (Civilian and tri-service).

  Notes

  (1) Departmental grades refer to those grades which are specific to the MoD.

  British Forces Overseas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries in which British military forces are based; and what is the number of service personnel at each such base. [30513]

  Mr. Soames
  The deployment of United Kingdom forces at April 1996 is shown in figure 3 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The number of UK service personnel at permanent overseas stations is as follows:

  Number

  Ascension Islands

  156

  Brunei

  948

  Cyprus

  3,874

  Diego Garcia

  40

  Falkland Islands1

  Germany

  23,500

  Gibraltar

  587

  Hong Kong

  1,920

  1 It is not our practice to publish the size of the Falklands garrison.

  In addition some 10,500 service personnel are serving in the former Yugoslavia.

  Defence Sales Office
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the net Government funding given to the Defence sales office for each of the last five years. [30591]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The net cost of the Defence Export Services Organisation for the last five years was as follows:

  1991–92: £11.05 million

  1992–93: £11.89 million

  1993–94: £16.02 million

  1994–95: £10.94 million

  1995–96: £17.08 million

  338

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planned collocation of the Army Technical Support Agency. [31476]

  Mr. Soames
  I am very grateful to those hon. Members, local authorities, other organisations and individuals who have responded to the consultative document issued on 8 December 1995.

  Our objective remains to bring together more of the staff of the agency, currently dispersed over six principal sites. This will enable them to make better use of new logistic systems and processes in support of customers in the Army and the other two services.

  Our analysis of the options for the site of a collocated ATSA takes into account a number of considerations. The site must provide best value for money in terms of the balance between transition costs and longer-terms savings; it must provide good business benefits, including ease of communication with ATSA's principal customers, located at Andover; it must be a reasonable location for the staff of the agency, taking into account the fact that a large number will have to relocate whatever the choice of site; and it must also take account of regional and other economic factors.

  These complex and potentially conflicting issues have been fully reflected in the responses to the consultative document. The additional information which has been provided has been taken into account in an independent analysis of the investment appraisal by my Department's senior economic adviser. Reassessment of some of the factors has shown that formal consideration needs to be given to Andover and Ludgershall as potential sites for ATSA. In addition, it now appears that there would be room for ATSA at Chilwell even when taking account of the requirements of the engineer resources organisation which is planned to move from Long Marston by 1998. This is a material change from the circumstances set out in the consultative document.
  339
  As a result, I have concluded that more work is required to take account of the points that have emerged during consultation and to consider formally Andover, Ludgershall and Chilwell. Although I am anxious to resolve the uncertainty felt by ATSA staff at all the current locations, our priority is to reach a conclusion in the best long-term interests of the agency, its customers and its staff. The results of this work will be subject to a further consultative process when it has been completed, and I hope to make a final decision of the location of a collocated ATSA by the end of the year.

  Sandhurst Cadets
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of schools sponsoring cadets at Sandhurst, indicating the figures for each regiment. [30988]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Army Individual Training Organisation. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Chris Elliott to Mr. Paul Murphy, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about schools sponsoring cadets at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Individual Training Organisation.
  Cadets at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst are not sponsored by their schools.
  A small proportion of the Cadets have come direct from school through the Entry Selection Process. However, the vast majority pass through university before going to Sandhurst.
  Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 54, if he will list the number of Sea King helicopters currently in service with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force by year of entry into service; how many Sea Kings have suffered cracks in the lift frame, by year of entry into service; how many have suffered cracking to the lift frame more than once; and if he will make a statement. [30812]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Aircraft delivered currently in service

  Aircraft delivered 1 or more cracks

  Aircraft with repeat cracks

  Year

  RN

  RAF

  Total1

  1969

  8

  —

  8

  1

  1970

  15

  —

  16

  3

  1971

  13

  —

  11

  5

  1972

  5

  —

  5

  2

  1973

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1974

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1975

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1976

  5

  —

  4

  —

  1977

  4

  3

  8

  1

  1978

  —

  11

  11

  8

  1979

  5

  1

  6

  1

  1980

  9

  1

  10

  3

  1981

  10

  —

  9

  4

  340

  Aircraft delivered currently in service

  Aircraft delivered 1 or more cracks

  Aircraft with repeat cracks

  Year

  RN

  RAF

  Total1

  1982

  8

  —

  6

  1

  1983

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  10

  —

  7

  1

  1985

  6

  3

  6

  —

  1986

  9

  —

  5

  —

  1987

  3

  —

  2

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1990

  6

  —

  1

  1

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Total

  119

  25

  116

  31

  1 Includes aircraft no longer in service.

  Although the problem of lift frame cracking has a transitory effect on aircraft availability, the repair load is manageable, and there is no question of its affecting the ability of the Sea King to continue in service until its planned out-of-service date. Furthermore, the aircraft design is tolerant of failures and this, combined with rigorous periodic in-service inspections, maintains the good airworthiness record of the Sea King structure. No aircraft accidents have been caused by Sea King lift frame or associated component failure.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy concerning market testing. [30822]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 6 February,Official Report, column 120. The policy has not changed.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected annual savings as a result of the market testing of health provision for British forces services; and if he will make a statement. [30985]

  Mr. Soames
  Market testing of health provision for British forces in Germany is expected to realise annual savings of £2 million in financial year 1998–99, £3.4 million in 1999–2000, and £4 million in 2000–01. Initial set-up costs, and some dual running to facilitate a seamless transition to the new service will result in increased costs of £2.3 million in 1996–97 and £2.9 million in 1997–98. Therefore, over the five-year period of the service level agreement with "The Health Alliance", net savings of some £4.2 million are expected to accrue to the Defence budget.

  These changes have been achieved with no detriment to the overall level of service which is provided to our forces and their families. Indeed, in many aspects an improved level of service has already been achieved.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) all of his Department's activities which have been contractorised or market tested, (b) the date of contractorisation and market testing and (c) the overall costs. [30986]
  341
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am writing to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Environmental assessment his Department carries out of RAF stations or bases before they are sold or disposed of; when such assessments started; which officials within his Department carry out such assessments; if such assessments measure nuclear contamination; and to whom the results of such assessments are made available. [31266]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is introducing a procedure for land quality assessment, the outcome of which is a land quality statement, which is to be applied to all sites earmarked for disposal. A prioritised programme is also being drawn up for other sites on the defence estate where such work is considered appropriate. Although the procedure has only recently been formally introduced, investigation of land quality using the present methodology commenced in 1993.

  Within the RAF, the majority of such assessments are undertaken by independent specialist consultants which are managed by the defence estate organisation. Specialist in-house resources such as the RAF's explosive ordnance disposal team and the defence radiological protection service are employed where a civilian contractor might not have the relevant expertise. Reports of their findings are made available to the specialist consultant appointed to carry out the land quality assessment work.

  The land quality assessment procedure is intended to cover all categories of contaminants, and where appropriate will include recommendations for and implementation of remedial action. The resulting land quality statement is made available, amongst others, to prospective purchasers. My Department complies fully with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations, 1992.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the implication for the environment of the Falkland islands of the grave of HMS Sheffield. [29925]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Sheffield sank in deep water, some 350 miles to the east of the Falkland islands. We are confident that there is no risk to the environment of the Falklands.

  Buses and Coaches
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of buses and coaches owned by, or used by, the services are now fitted with engine governors, restricting their top speed to 65 mph. [30665]

  Mr. Soames
  The joint service fleet of buses and coaches currently consists of 929 vehicles of mixed types, all of which have speed limiters fitted. Approximately 41 per cent. of the total fleet, which was acquired before 1988, has limiters set at 65mph. The remaining 59 per cent. is restricted to 60mph. Buses and coaches hired for 342
  service use have to comply with the speed limiter regulations in force in the country in which the vehicle is hired.

  RAF Sealand
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons he has extended the deadline for bids under the market testing programme at RAF Sealand; and if he will make a statement. [30823]

  Mr. Soames
  The time taken to answer bidders' formal questions, to provide up to date detailed Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981–TUPE—data and to amend the invitation to tender have all contributed to the extension. In order to allow bidders sufficient time to respond to ITT changes, the tender submission date has been delayed from 8 May 1996 to 12 June 1996.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many uniformed personnel are currently stationed at RAF Sealand, Deeside. [30821]

  Mr. Soames
  On 23 May 1996 there were 338 uniformed personnel stationed at RAF Sealand.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians are employed at RAF Sealand. [30820]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  On 1 April 1996 there were 1,305 MOD civilian staff employed at RAF Sealand.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current servicing contract for the RAF Nimrod fleet. [30963]

  Mr. Soames
  As a result of the "Competing for Quality" initiative a five-year contract was awarded to FR Aviation in March 1995. This contract provides those engineering services previously performed by the Nimrod major servicing unit at RAF Kinloss, including the maintenance of the Nimrod maritime and Nimrod reconnaissance fleets.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Nimrod aircraft are grounded and for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [30825]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 20 May 1996 no Nimrod aircraft were grounded.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Nimrod aircraft are currently in service; what are their principal purposes; and if he will make a statement. [30824]

  Mr. Soames
  There are 27 Nimrod aircraft currently in service. In addition three aircraft are in long-term storage and a fourth aircraft is undergoing major repair. The principal purpose of the Nimrod MR2 is maritime patrol; and that of the Nimrod R 1 reconnaissance.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Nimrod aircraft are serviced by companies engaged under market testing; and if he will make a statement. [30826]
  343
  Mr. Soames
  As a result of the "Competing for Quality" initiative a contract was awarded to FR Aviation in March 1995 for the provision of engineering service including the maintenance of the 31 aircraft in the Nimrod fleet.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of individuals from ethnic minorities serving in each regiment and corps in the Army giving the figures for each rank. [30987]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not currently available. However, in accordance with the joint action plan between the Army and the Commission for Racial Equality announced on 28 March 1996, the Army is currently undertaking a detailed survey of the ethnic composition of the Army. Classification will be in accordance with the CRE guidelines. It is intended that the results of this survey will be available by the end of the year and that the data will provide the means by which the Army will monitor the success of its equal opportunities policies. It should, at that time, be possible to derive figures about the distribution of ethnic minorities by both rank and capbadge through the Army.

  Consultants
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the private consultants employed by his Department in each of the last five years; what projects they were involved with; and what was the total cost in each year. [31024]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Individual budget holders in my Department have delegated powers to employ external consultants as they think fit within the limit of their resources and consistent with all requirements for propriety and value for money. The information required has not been held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The hon. Member will however wish to note that my officials are currently collecting data from all areas of the Department to establish the total expenditure on external consultancy. The exercise covering financial year 1995–96 is nearing completion. Once the information is to hand I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Army Commissions
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) state and (b) private school applications were made for Army commissions in the last available year. [30984]

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

  Retained Files
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reasons files with the classmark ES1/542–547 recorded at the Public Record Office concerning nuclear weapon hazards from an aircraft crash between 1951 and 1959 are currently retained by his Department; and if he will consider opening them under the open government initiative; [31264]
  344
  (2) for what reasons the file with the classmark ES1/548 recorded at the Public Record Office concerning the appointment of a weapon accident investigation team between 1958 and 1964 is currently retained by his Department; and if he will consider opening it under the open government initiative. [31265]

  Mr. Soames
  Arrangements are being made to review ES1/542–547 and ES1/548 to establish whether release into the public domain is now possible. I will write to the hon. Member on completion of the review process.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the basis for the sale of the married quarters estate is monthly based rent with five-yearly reviews; [31292]

  (2) if bids based on index-linked rents are being considered for the sale of the married quarters estate. [31274]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We set out in the preliminary information memorandum, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, proposals for setting the rent MOD will pay for those married quarters it leases from the purchaser of the married quarters estate. The final arrangements will be settled in discussion with potential purchasers of the estate. The proposed sale of the estate will have no impact upon the arrangements whereby the charges which service personnel pay for their accommodation are independently recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

  Nuclear Accident Response Organisation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the duties of the Nuclear Accident Response Organisation; when this organisation was established; how many are employed within the organisation; and how many civilians are employed by the organisation. [31268]

  Mr. Soames
  The aim of the Nuclear Accident Response Organisation is to ensure that in conjunction with the appropriate civil agencies, there would be an effective response to safeguard the general public and MOD personnel in the unlikely event of an emergency involving defence nuclear materials.

  The eight full-time staff in MOD headquarters, five of whom are civilians, give policy direction for the development and exercising of appropriate plans and procedures, but overall the NARO could draw on the skills of many hundreds of personnel across the armed forces and the MOD. Their precise number and specialisation would be dependent on the particular circumstances of an accident but it might include medical experts, health physicists, technical/design specialists, radiation monitoring experts, engineering teams, and associated logistic and other support staff. Contingency arrangements to deal with a range of accidents have existed for as long as the MOD has used nuclear material.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the procedures for informing foreign Governments if an accident involving British-controlled nuclear weapons had occurred on their soil or within their
  345
  borders; when these procedures were adopted; and under what circumstances foreign Governments have had to be warned of such accidents. [31263]

  Mr. Soames
  In ratifying the International Atomic Energy Agency convention of 26 September 1986 on early notification of a nuclear accident, the United Kingdom Government undertook to notify the IAEA and affected states in the event of an accident to military facilities or equipment which had or might have consequences that could be of radiological safety significance for another state. Separate bilateral arrangements have also been concluded as appropriate: the terms of these are classified. There has never been an accident involving a UK nuclear weapon which has required a foreign Government to be informed under these arrangements.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 52, how many (a) unconditional on-demand bonds, (b) performance bonds, (c) parent company guarantees, (d) advance payment bonds and (e) retention bonds were required by his Department in the last five years. [31228]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In line with central Treasury advice, this Department does not seek unconditional on-demand bonds. With regard to categories(b) to (e), our centrally held records show there to be almost 200 current guarantees and indemnities in place dated since 1 January 1991. Our records do not differentiate between the categories as requested. An indemnity or guarantee provided under category (c) could cover (b), (d) and/or (e). More specific information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Training
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 637, if he will make a statement on the (a) defence and (b) wider foreign policy aims underlying the decisions to provide military training assistance to (i) Indonesia, (ii) Guatemala and (iii) Sudan between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995; and what assistance is being provided to (i), (ii) and (iii) currently. [30319]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 22 May 1996]: The defence and wider foreign policy aims which underlie the provision of military training assistance include the promotion of peace and stability, the spread of democratic values and the strengthening of standards in the armed forces. Details of the assistance provided is confidential between Governments; however, no military training assistance is currently being provided to Sudan.

  Defence Radiological Protection Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the duties of the defence radiological protection service; how many people are employed in the service; when the service was set up; and if the service publishes an annual report. [31267]
  346
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 4 June 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your question about the Defence Radiological Protection Service (DRPS) which is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  DRPS employs 75 people and provides the Ministry of Defence with technical and advisory services on all aspects of ionising and non-ionising radiation protection. DRPS also provides advice on the transport and disposal of radioactive material, carries out environmental monitoring surveys and advises on the remediation of land or buildings contaminated with radioactive substances.
  DRPS was formed in 1982 from the Naval Radiological Protection Service which had been set up in 1965. It remained part of the Royal Naval Medical Service until 1 April 1996 when it became part of DERA.
  DRPS has published its own Annual Report since its formation and will produce its last independent report later this summer for the financial year 1995/96. In the future information on DRPS will be included in the DERA Annual Report.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of his Department's agencies what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30115]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These matters fall to the chief executives of my Department's agencies and I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. R. Drew to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing in Defence Agencies. As Chief Executive of one such agency (the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO), I am replying with respect to the market testing we have been conducting.
  Since the launch of ABRO on 1 April 1993 the Agency has completed one market test. This competition covered the complete range of services provided by one its major business units—ABRO Bovington (covering re-manufacture of armoured fighting vehicles, including the Challenger Main Battle Tank, and also equipment repair support to the Royal Armoured Corps Centre and other local affiliated military units). The market test was won by the in-house team and a Service Level Agreement has been in place since July 1994.
  The Agency is currently engaged on the market test of the equipment repair support service that it provides to Army Land Command. Recommendations on the results of this competition are due to be made to Ministers by 31 January 1997. ABRO will then have market tested activities amounting to 65% of its running costs.
  The final phase of the Agency's current Competing for Quality programme will be to evaluate and implement the strategy for ABRO Donnington. This can only begin once we have the full set of experiences from the market test currently in train. I have enclosed a copy of our Corporate Plan which will give you a fuller picture of our activities.
  347
  Letter from K. J. W. Goad to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I reply to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding Market Testing activity by this Agency.
  As Chief Executive I submit a nil return on behalf of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA).

  Letter from C. L. Elliott to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing in Agencies as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Individual Training Organisation (AITO).
  No market tests have been completed to date. However, the AITO is in the early stages of carrying out market testing at 6 of our training establishments.
  The outcome of this programme of tests will not be known for at least 18 months, and therefore I am unable to report any results at this stage.
  Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

  Letter from J. R. Prince to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing into services provided by this agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA).
  ATSA launched in October 1995 and, to date, no market testing has been carried out.

  Letter from A. H. Roache to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding what Market Testing has been carried out into the services provided by the DAC, and what were the results.
  An independent study into Competing for Quality by Shreeveport Limited concluded that Market Testing was not viable for the DAC and therefore the matter was taken no further.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA).
  A market testing review of the Agency was carried out shortly after its launch in July 1992. The study team concluded that the Agency as a whole should remain in the public sector. A reappraisal in February 1995 also considered that the bulk of the work of the Agency should be retained in-house though there was some opportunity for contracting out.
  Competing for Quality figures for the period between April 1995 and March 1996 are being compiled for the Agency's Efficiency Plan. It is anticipated that this information will be published in the 1996 Next Steps Review.

  Letter from T. R. Thurgate to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing of the Defence Bills Agency as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive.
  There are no plans to market test the work of the DBA. The task of the DBA was formerly carried out by the now disbanded Defence Accounts Agency. Under market testing rules, an in-house bid which represented substantial savings was submitted. Ministers accepted the bid and the DBA was formed.
  348
  Letter from R. N. Dixon to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing in the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency (DCTA) as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  As part of the procedure which resulted in the formation of the DCTA on 22 November 1994, full consideration was given to the "prior options". This included an exhaustive examination of whether the services of the Agency could be better provided through contractorisation or privatisation, in whole or in part. The conclusion then was that they could not. There has been no market testing of the services provided by the Agency in the period since it formation.
  It should be noted, however, that a very substantial proportion of DCTA expenditure is already being placed externally through the normal competitive process. Cash expenditure by DCTA in 1995/96 totalled £137M of which £124M (90%) represented money spent on the purchase of clothing, textiles and general stores, as well as externally-sourced R&D effort and support services. Contracts for these goods and services were placed in full compliance with government requirements for open competition between suppliers.

  Letter from C. Roberts to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Market Testing falls within the responsibilities of the Chief Executive of the Defence Dental Agency. I am responding on the Chief Executive's behalf during his absence on duty.
  The Defence Dental Agency was formed on 1 March 1996. This was in line with the recommendation of Defence Cost Study 15 that the three single Service dental branches should be brought together into a single tri-Service Directorate and considered for Agency status. Prior to the launch of the Agency a Competing for Quality feasibility study was completed by outside consultants. The Study concluded that neither market testing, privatisation nor contractorization of Defence primary dental services were feasible options, but made a number of recommendations on efficiency which are now being implemented.
  I hope that this is of help.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  Your recent question to Secretary of State for Defence asked for details on market testing carried out in his Department's agencies. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  I should begin by explaining that DERA was only formed on 1 April 1995 when the Defence Research Agency (DRA) joined with other Ministry of Defence research and evaluation organisations to form a single science and technology Agency. The figures for Market Testing initiatives, which I set out below, however refer mainly to the period from April 1991 when the DRA was a separate Agency. They are:

  Area

  Financial year

  Value of service reviewed

  Outcomes

  (£ million)

  a. DRA Experimental Flying

  1992–93

  26.2

  Contract award to in-house MOD team based at Boscombe Down.

  b. DRA

  1993–94

  45.0

  Market Test suspended in

  Site Services

  1994–95

  90.0

  May 1994 when competition at early sites in programme revealed that equivalent savings could be obtained organisationally by restructuring requirements.

  349

  Area

  Financial year

  Value of service reviewed (£ million)

  Outcomes

  c. DRA

  1994–95

  47.0

  Market Test suspended.

  Engineering Services

  Savings achieved by combination of prior options review of requirement and rationalisation.

  d. DRA

  1994–95

  3.1

  Financial Accounting

  Award made to in-house team after competition.

  e. IS Data Telecoms

  1994–95

  1.0

  Overtaken by rationalisation measures.

  Market Testing is only one part of a wider Competing for Quality Programme pursued by this Agency. For the period between April 1995 and March 1996 this programme has been incorporated into the DERA's Corporate Planning process. This has resulted in the proposal, currently under consideration, for the privatisation of the support services elements of DERA as announced by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 27 March 1996. It is anticipated that information on this efficiency programme will be published in the 1996 Next Steps Review.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from T. McG Brown to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency.
  Three Agency functions have been market tested so far. The Mill Hill catering and stewardship functions where the contract was awarded to Gardner Merchant Ltd. The mall sorting functions at St Giles Court and Mill Hill together with the MOD Van Service were subsumed into our Mail 2000 Initiative, part of the Defence Cost Studies programme, and hence remained in house.
  I hope this is helpful, please let me know if you require any further information.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing of services provided as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office.
  Contractorisation of Meteorological Office work has historically run at a high level. The attached table gives the details, in terms of staff costs, of what further gains we have so far achieved as a consequence of the Government's market testing initiative.
  Work continues to examine the scope for market testing in a number of other areas of the Office.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Activity

  Number of staff (before efficiencies)

  Annual value (£000) (staff costs)

  Efficiencies made (Percentage)

  Library and Archives

  17

  230

  25

  Corporate Communications

  25

  510

  11

  Personnel Administration Services

  19

  240

  22

  It Operations Centre

  22

  598

  32

  Supply and Services

  61

  851

  22

  350
  Letter from R. G. Smith to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing by Agencies as this matter, in respect of my Agency, falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA).
  The DSCA was only launched on 30 April 1996; I have not yet implemented any market testing programmes. However, we are undertaking scoping work in order to identify areas suitable for market testing in the future. In this respect, I regard support services as being particularly suitable for this sort of exercise. I therefore intend, if the possibility exists, to subject all support services to some form of competition including market testing where appropriate.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from M. G. R. Hodson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, about market testing, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive Agency.
  The only market test taking place in this agency is that of the MOD Freight Distribution Service. The Feasibility Study commenced in October 1994 and, following Trades Unions consultation, an Invitation to Tender was issued on 26 January 1996 to 4 commercial tenderers and a tri-Service in-house bid team. Tenders were due in by 30 May 1996. Results are currently planned to be announced in November 1996. Once this particular market test is completed, over 90% of DTMX business will have been market tested.

  Letter from Keith Ellender to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing in my agency as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.
  No market testing was carried out within the Disposal Sales Agency between October 1994, when we achieved agency status, and March 1995.
  CFQ figures for the period between April 1995 and March 1996 are being compiled for my agency's Efficiency Plan. It is anticipated that this information will be published in the 1996 Next Steps Review.

  Letter from G. H. Wilson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing as this matter falls within my area of responsibility of Chief Executive of the Duke of York's Royal Military School.
  No market testing was carried out prior to March 1995 into the services we provide.
  CFQ figures for the period between April 1995 and March 1996 are being compiled for our Agency's Efficiency Plan. It is anticipated that the information will be published in the 1996 Next Steps Review.

  Letter from J. P. Clarke to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question concerning the extent to which market testing had been carried out within Agencies of the Ministry of Defence. As the Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency, the issue raised falls within my area of responsibility and I have been asked to reply to you.
  The simple answer to your question is that no market testing has been carried out into the services provided by the Hydrographic Office. Given the paucity of this response it might be of some benefit if I were to expand a little on this statement.

  351
  The Hydrographic Office, during 1993 and 1994 conducted a number of internal studies into various activities to ascertain if market testing represented a feasible and realistic method of achieving value for money. In the event, the Hydrographic Office Board concluded that a formal Market Testing programme would not be conducted as it was not, for various reasons, considered to be an appropriate option. However, the various feasibility studies highlighted a number of areas and activities where it was felt further efficiency savings could be made. In light of this a formal Efficiency Programme was instigated with the aim of realising savings, commensurate with those which could have been expected from market testing. This programme was successful with savings targets being met in both financial years 1994/95 and 1995/96.
  I hope the above information has been helpful.

  Letter from N. J. Pearson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre Defence Agency. The Agency, which is only 2 months old, has not carried a market test of any of the services which it provides.

  Letter from A. W. Pollard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what market testing has been carried out into the services that Agencies provide. As Chief Executive, this falls within my area of responsibility for the Logistic Information Systems Agency (LISA).
  Although LISA was included in the Market Testing programme prior to its launch as an Agency in November 1994, the activity to be tested was subsumed by the Agency's CFQ Partnership initiative. This culminated in the award of a contract in December 1995 to EDS. Under the terms of this contract, all LISA non-core activity is being transferred to the Private Sector partner who will continue to provide these services on site under GOCO arrangements. The bulk of the transfer took place on 1 March 1996 with the remainder to follow by April 1997. It is anticipated that final CFQ figures for the year ending March 1996 will be published in this year's Next Steps Review.
  If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from B. E. Nimick to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Market testing, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Medical Supplies Agency.
  The Medical Supplies Agency was established "to ensure the cost effective and timely provision of medical, dental and veterinary material, blood and blood products, technical and logistic support and trained personnel to the UK Armed Forces worldwide". It was initially proposed that the provision of these services be subject to a market test. However, Defence Cost Study 15 recommended that this should be cancelled and that the wider system covering medical supply, provisioning points and other medical stores should undergo agency review.
  As a consequence of this review, this Agency came into being on 1 March 1996 and copies of the Framework Document and Corporate Plan have been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
  Our efficiency programme is estimated to achieve savings of £27m over the 10 year Long Term Costing period. Clearly it is too early in the life of the Agency to have completed market testing exercises for the services we provide, but our corporate plan identifies the strategies designed to deliver value for money and cost effective services. In brief these strategies are to:

  (a) Utilize the Private Sector for direct deliveries of medical material of end users and the setting up of dormant contracts, where appropriate, to enable a percentage of War Maintenance Reserve (WMR) to be held by trade. This
  352
  would drive down the need to hold stocks and limit the storage facilities to the minimum required for operational purposes.

  (b) Factor out the non-core functions to the most cost effective provider, whether Public or Private sector. This in turn will enable a further rationalisation of sites within the medical supply organisation. There are a number of areas where Service Level Agreements with other MOD authorities, who are also pursuing efficiency programmes, would be appropriate, for example, Anny Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA) and Director of Transport and Movement Executive (DTM(X)). Emphasis will be placed on customer satisfaction through both control of supply and distribution. With the resultant rise in customer confidence, it is expected that there will be a corresponding reduction in local stock holdings.

  (c) Develop partnership arrangements with authorities beyond MOD either in Industry or other elements of the Public Sector such as the Buying Agency and the National Health Service Supplies Authority (NHSSA). Discussions with a variety of existing and potential suppliers are being carried out.

  (d) Commission a review of policy concerning range and standardisation of material. Proposals for rationalising range and prescribing policy will be submitted to the Surgeon General for approval. This will achieve a reduction in programme costs.

  As these measures are carried out, the Medical Supply Organisation will reduce in size and will eventually have a core of service medical personnel, with the necessary clinical skills, working closely with a civilian team to provide a compact multi-disciplined team. This will be the source of purchasing, provisioning, clinical and technical support to advise the Surgeon General and provide him with advice with regard to the acquisition of material and related services and to support Operations more effectively through integrated Operational Supply Chains.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from P. R. Wildman to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing carried out by government agencies. This matter falls within my area of responsibility, as Chief Executive, as far as the Military Survey Defence Agency is concerned.
  No market testing has been completed by Military Survey to date. The three initiatives started in 1993 ceased to be candidates when they fell below revised financial thresholds. However, these initiatives have now been reviewed under Competing For Quality (CFQ) guidelines and a new CFQ programme is being developed. It is anticipated that further information will be published in the 1996 Next Steps Review and the 1996/7 Agency Annual Report.

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  The non-core activities of Ministry of Defence Police business were market tested as part of our prior options exercise, which resulted in the placement of contracts, at MDP Wethersfield, covering catering, estate management, grounds maintenance, accommodation services, cleaning and administration, effective from April 1993. The resultant savings are in excess of £300K per annum.
  353
  Letter from W. S. Graham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:

  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, that asked what market testing has been carried out into the services provided by the 'Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO)' and what were the results, as the matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the NARO.

  2.No market testing has been carried out in respect of services provided by the NARO.

  Letter from J. H. S. McAnally to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question, about agency Market Testing (MT) initiatives, in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA).
  The NRTA came into being on 1 April 1995. During the 1980s and prior to the formation of the Ministry of Defence Market Testing Organisation, the Royal Navy contracted out a number of shore establishment support activities, such as catering, cleaning and grounds maintenance.
  In March 1995, one small Market Test was successfully concluded at the Britannia Royal Naval College boat maintenance facility at Sandquay, Dartmouth. In addition, MT feasibility studies were conducted in late 1994, at two NRTA shore training establishments. Both of these studies concluded independently that further scope for possible savings from MT were likely to be limited and would involve multiple, management intensive, tests of small identifiable units, with the accompanying need for, and expense of, consultancy support for in-house team bidders. As a consequence, the NRTA is developing a Partnering Initiative as an alternative to the traditional MT approach, whilst still complying with Governmental Competing for Quality (CFQ) policy. The Partnering Initiative will, in addition to providing "standard" CFQ savings in services delivery, provide a third party income stream to help offset the overhead costs of the NRTA infrastructure.

  Letter from M. A. Rowe to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing where it relates to my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Pay & Personnel Agency.
  My Agency was launched on 1 February 1996 and no market testing of the services we provide has been carried out.

  Letter from S. B. Burdess to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996
  I am replying, on behalf of Air Vice-Marshal R. H. Kyle, who is currently on leave, to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing within his Department's Agencies as this matter falls within his responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Maintenance Group Defence Agency (RAF MGDA).
  Competing for Quality figures for the period between April 1995 and March 1996 are being compiled for our Agency's Efficiency Plan. It is anticipated that this information will be published in the 1996 Nest Steps Review.

  Letter from P. C. Ayee to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he would list for each of his Department's Agencies what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide, and what the results were. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment.
  My Agency is currently market testing a multi-activity package of its supporting activities, covering motor transport, provisioning, catering, information technology, communications and selected administrative services, and valued at £8m per annum in pay costs. Five external bids and one in-house bid have been received and are currently being evaluated. The successful bidder is expected to be announced in time for implementation of the results in January 1997.
  354
  Letter from J. A. G. May to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about market testing of services insofar as this bears on my responsibilities for the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency.
  Up to 31 March 1995, the following activities contributed to the Agency's response to the Defence Market Testing Initiative and the targets set by Departmental Plan 92:

  (a) Support Services at Royal Air Force Scampton. The Support Services at Royal Air Force Scampton were contractorized. The Station has since been closed.

  (b) The Joint Elementary Flying Training Squadron at Royal Air Force Topcliffe. The Joint Elementary Flying Training Squadron at Royal Air Force Topcliffe was contractorized. The Squadron, together with the Contractor, has since moved to Royal Air Force Barkston Heath.

  (c) Supply Services at Royal Air Force Locking. The market test of the Supply Services at Royal Air Force Locking was put into abeyance pending decisions on the future of the Station. It has since been decided to close the Station.

  Except for the outcome of the recent competition in respect of Support Services at Royal Air Force Valley, which we hope will be announced shortly, the Agency's Competing for Quality forward programme for the period from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 has yet to be finalized. It is expected that the outstanding conclusions will be published in the 1996 Next Steps Review.
  I am sending a copy of this letter to my Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief.

  Letter from I. S. Mitchelson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence relating to market testing within each of his Department's Agencies, insofar as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Service Children's Education.
  For the period up until March 1996 this Agency had not yet completed the market testing of any of its services. This Agency is, however, currently involved in a wider market test concerning Army Catering and Mess Services in Germany. The project is being led by the United Kingdom Support Command (Germany) and the market test includes catering and cleaning in Service Schools in Germany; contractual arrangements are planned to be effective from 1 October 1997.

  Letter from Brian Raine to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what market testing has been carried out into the services we provide and the results thereof as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Queen Victoria School.
  Since Queen Victoria School became an Agency on 1st April 1992 no market testing has been carried out into the services we provide. We currently have no plans to carry out market testing in the future.
  If you have any further questions about this please do not hesitate to contact me.

TREASURY

  Tax Complaints
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many cases investigated by the revenue adjudicator in each year since 1993 have been settled; and if he will make a statement; [29601]
  355
  (2) how many complaints in each year since May 1993, have been fully investigated by the revenue adjudicator; and if he will make a statement. [29605]

  Mr. Jack
  The following table shows the number of full investigations of complaints about the Inland Revenue which the adjudicator completed in the three years to 31 March 1996:

  Year

  Complaints taken up Complaints settled

  Complaints settled in the year

  1993–94

  308

  105

  1994–95

  504

  381

  1995–96

  470

  495

  On 31 March 1996, the adjudicator had 301 complaints under full investigation.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the levels of unemployment that would be optimal for successful economic convergence prior to entering the European monetary union. [30468]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The criteria against which member states will be assessed when determining whether they have successfully converged prior to entering the European monetary union are set out in article 109j of the treaty establishing the European Community. Levels of unemployment are not included among these criteria. But having an efficient and flexible labour market increases competitiveness and generates growth and employment.

  The United Kingdom labour market is one of the least regulated in the European Union with an impressive record on job creation, and we have more people in jobs and fewer out of work than any other major European country.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 567, what was the average cost of answering an (a) oral and (b) written parliamentary question for April of the current year; and if he will put the information and statistics on which this calculation is based in the Library. [30470]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information required to calculate the average cost of answering parliamentary questions for April 1996 is not yet available. The calculation is dependent upon the availability of data on movements in earnings, published annually in October. I am arranging for details of the basis of the April 1995 calculation to be placed in the Library.

  Debt Servicing Bill
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual reduction in the Government's debt servicing bill in the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 resulting from a fall in United Kingdom interest rates of 1.5 per cent. across all maturities of the yield curve. [30594]
  356
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The forecast reductions in net central Government interest payments resulting from a half of 1 per cent. fall in interest rates across the yield curve are as follows:(a) 1996–97 £0.3 billion, (b) 1997–98 £0.5 billion, (c) 1998–99 £0.6 billion, (d) 1999–2000 £0.7 billion, (e) 2000–2001 to £0.7 billion.

  These reductions are calculated using the 1995 Budget forecast for borrowing and assume that the half point fall is sustained throughout the forecast.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will earmark a major proportion of revenue raised from road traffic penalties to be used for increased preventive measures. [30676]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Revenue raised through either fines or taxes is paid into the Consolidated Fund. Priorities for public expenditure are settled through the public expenditure survey process.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women in his Department on 1 April. [30544]

  Mr. Jack
  The information for HM Treasury is given in the table. On 1 April 1996, all Treasury staff transferred from their old grades, into new, broad pay ranges. Staff who were in the old grades of administrative assistant and administrative officer are now in pay ranges A and B respectively.

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Female (per cent.)

  Pay range A

  26

  52

  78

  67

  Pay range B

  71

  174

  245

  71

  Pay range C

  75

  75

  150

  50

  Pay range D

  178

  93

  271

  34

  Pay range E

  187

  67

  254

  26

  Pay range F

  68

  13

  81

  16

  Pay range G

  15

  4

  19

  21

  Pay range H

  11

  0

  11

  —

  Total

  631

  478

  1,109

  43

  Housing Stock Sales (VAT)
  Mr. Donohoe
  Top ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of value added tax pertains to the sale of housing stock owned by a development corporation to a housing association. [30542]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Value added tax is not levied on the sale of housing, irrespective of who supplies it to whom. Generally, new housing is zero rated and other housing is exempt from VAT.

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use his Department has made of private detective
  357
  agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; what agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30560]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury has not used any private detective agencies or investigators during the years in question.

  Vehicles (Disabled Use)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what guidance is given to local VAT offices to enable them to decide which types of vehicles are eligible for class three zero rating for disabled use; [30967]

  (2) if he will list the rules of eligibility for class three vehicles to qualify for zero rating for disabled road use; and if he will make a statement; [30965]

  (3) what plans he has to classify all-terrain vehicles as being eligible for class three zero rating for the purposes of VAT when used on public roads by people with disabilities; [30964]

  (4) what measures would be required to classify all-terrain vehicles as eligible for class three zero rating; [30968]

  (5) if he will list those types of vehicle which currently qualify for zero rating for disabled purposes on public roads. [30966]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The legal definition of an invalid carriage, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person's Act 1970, is a vehicle constructed or adapted for the use of a disabled person. For VAT purposes class three invalid carriages, like classes one and two qualify for zero rating when supplied to a disabled person or to a charity which makes them available for use by a disabled person. The construction requirements for class three invalid carriages are set out in The Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988 which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  For VAT purposes all-terrain vehicles will qualify for zero rating if they are designed solely for use by disabled people when supplied to a disabled person or to a charity for making available to disabled people. Local VAT offices are issued with general guidance on what equipment is designed solely for use by a disabled person. The only types of vehicles for use on public roads qualifying for the zero rate are those class three invalid carriages which are permitted to use the roads.

  Investment Income Surcharge
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the probable yield of an investment income surcharge in the year 1997–98 at the equivalent rates to those abolished in 1984. [30995]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated full-year yield if introducing a 15 per cent. surcharge to investment income above £13,000, which is the 1983–84 level of revalorisation to 1996–97, would be about £1.1 billion at 1996–97 income levels. The yield for 1997–98 would depend on levels of incomes in that year.
  358

  Assets
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of(a) United Kingdom assets based overseas and (b) foreign-owned assets based in the United Kingdom. [30797]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The total value of identified United Kingdom overseas assets recorded at the end of 1995 was £1,613 billion. The total value of identified UK liabilities recorded at the end of 1995 was £1,597 billion.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many flexible anti-smuggling teams have been established; and what plans he has to establish more in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [31098]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The composition of flexible anti-smuggling teams varies from place to place and time to time according to Customs assessment of the resources needed to carry out controls. Consequently the number of teams is not meaningful.

  Approximately 2,250 officers are currently deployed on anti-smuggling duties. There are no plans to increase this number in 1996–97 or 1997–98.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many brigades have been established to tackle drug smuggling; and what plans he has to establish more in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [31097]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In anti-smuggling terms, brigades are not forces additional to normal anti-smuggling complement. They are forces assembled temporarily on a local basis, and deployed outside their normal operational area to address specific targets or to test risk. Consequently they are not formally established and the question of numbers of brigades does not arise.

  Small Business Compliance
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed pilot scheme to aid small business compliance. [29954]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: There is a wide range of work underway in the Chancellor's Departments, including a number of pilots, to reduce the compliance burdens of business in complying with their various tax obligations. For example, there are a number of pilots within the joint working programme between the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency—announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 19 September—including plans for joint seminars for small businesses, a national helpline for employers and a review of forms and leaflets. All are well on course.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30056]
  359
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: Within the Chancellor's Departments much of the work on particular deregulation issues is carried out by the policy teams with overall responsibility for those particular issues. Separate units do exist within the Treasury, Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue and the Office for National Statistics which have the responsibility of co-ordinating the deregulation effort of these departments, but in each case, deregulation represents only part of the workload of these units.

  Treasury
  In the Treasury, deregulation work is co-ordinated by the competition, deregulation and energy team, which has total annual budget of £231,048. The team has seven staff, comprising one grade 5, one (part time) grade 7, one HEO(D), one HEO, one assistant economist (half time equivalent, also has duties in another team), one AO and one personal secretary. Of these the grade 5, HEO, AO and personal secretary spend part of their time dealing with deregulation. All of these staff are career civil servants; none have been seconded from business.

  HM Customs and Excise
  In Customs and Excise, deregulation is co-ordinated by the business unit, which allocates £80,000 of its annual budget to work on this issue. Within the unit, one grade 7 and one HEO work full time, and one EO works half time on deregulation. All of these staff are career civil servants; none have been seconded from business.

  Office for National Statistics
  The survey control and deregulation unit of the Office for National Statistics has a total annual budget of £162,500. This unit has six staff, comprising one grade 7, two HEOs. one EO, and two AOs, all of whom spend part of their time dealing with deregulation. All of these staff are career civil servants; none have been seconded from business.

  Inland Revenue
  Inland Revenue's departmental deregulation unit has six staff, comprising one grade 5, a grade 6, two grade 7s, one SEO one personal secretary. This unit is a subdivision of a larger team, which has various other responsibilities, and there are no separate figures available covering the costs of deregulation work. All of these staff are career civil servants; none have been seconded from business.
  Many of the officials listed, in each of the four departmental deregulation units, will have experience of contacts with the private sector, whether in the course of their present duties, or gained in previous posts. Each of these departments have separate internal accounting systems, so the figures for expenditure by the various deregulation units are not available on the same basis.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the savings accruing to public funds from campaigns against tax fraud in each year since 1979; [30415]

  (2) how many staff have been employed full time by the Treasury in tackling tax fraud for each year since 1979; [30418]

  (3) how much was spent by his Department on publicity campaigns against tax fraud for each year since 1979. [30420]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: It is not possible to isolate resources relating to fraud cases from other tax investigation work, but I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 3 November 1995, Official Report,
  360
  column 503 about the resources used for tax investigations generally back to 1988–89. Accurate figures are not available as far back as 1979.

  The Inland Revenue seeks all appropriate opportunities to publicise its compliance activities. Publicity is sought for every successful Revenue prosecution and significant levels of press coverage have been achieved for its compliance work. In addition, contributions have been given to radio and television programmes, with occasional full-length feature programmes about the Revenue's work including its anti-evasion operations.

  Given the varied nature of all this publicity, it is not possible to estimate its actual impact on tax revenues.

  Premium Bonds
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will lower the limit on the minimum purchase of premium bonds to £10. [30249]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: No. The increase in the minimum purchase to £100 was made in July 1989. At the time of the change the average purchase of premium bonds was £150. It is now much higher, at £1,730.

  Employment Growth
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was for each year since 1991 the percentage change in employment growth on the previous year for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the European Union, (c) the United States of America and (d) Japan. [30161]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 22 May 1996]: The information requested is held in the 1995 edition of "Labour Force Statistics 1973–1993" in table 6.0—"Civilian Employment". More recent data are available for countries that compile labour force statistics on a monthly or quarterly basis in the "Quarterly Labour Force Statistics Number 1 1996". These books are published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and copies are available in the Library.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the estimated cost to the Treasury in 1997–98 of moving to payments on account of one twenty-fourth of companies' VAT liabilities in accordance with the requirements of the Value Added Tax (Payment on Account) (Amendment) Order 1996; [30223]

  (2) what is the estimated income to the Treasury in 1997–98 of removing the seven-day extension to the time for companies making VAT payments on account in accordance with the requirements of the Value Added Tax (Payment on Account) (Amendment) Order 1996. [30224]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 May 1996]: The effect on total VAT collected of the package of changes to the payments on account scheme is nil in 1997–98. There is however a cash flow gain to the Treasury of approximately £30 million from removing the seven-day extension to the time for companies making VAT payments on account. This is offset by a cash flow loss to the Treasury of approximately £65 million from

  361
  moving to payments on account of one twenty-fourth of companies' VAT liabilities. There is therefore a net cash flow loss of £35 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning the situation of the British hostages held in Kashmir. [30685]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  As the House is aware there have been reports that the hostages may be dead. We continue to work with the Indian Government to assess whether these reports are true, and to keep the families and constituency MPs fully informed. Until we have reason to do otherwise we shall continue to work for the hostages' safe release.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women in his Department on 1 April. [30546]

  Mr. David Davis
  The details requested are given in the tables. The figures are from the annual staff in post return as at 1 April 1996, including part-time staff.

  The corresponding figures as at 1 April 1995 for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing are given in table 6 on page 16 of the FCO departmental report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  FCO (Diplomatic wing)

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage female

  1/DS1

  10

  0

  10

  0

  2/DS2

  30

  2

  32

  6

  3/DS3

  108

  3

  111

  3

  4

  1

  0

  1

  0

  5/DS4

  283

  19

  302

  6

  6/DS5S

  82

  18

  100

  18

  7/DS5

  472

  99

  571

  17

  SEO/DS6

  320

  56

  376

  15

  HEO(D)/DS7D/8

  110

  51

  161

  32

  HEO/DS7M

  780

  169

  949

  18

  EO/DS9

  926

  624

  1,550

  40

  AO/DS10/EA

  537

  893

  1,430

  62

  AA/SGB2

  151

  109

  260

  42

  Total

  3,810

  2,043

  5,853

  35

  Overseas aid administration

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage female

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  8

  0

  8

  0

  362

  Overseas aid administration

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage female

  4

  0

  0

  0

  —

  5

  28

  7

  35

  20

  6

  39

  11

  50

  22

  7

  69

  22

  91

  24

  SEO

  33

  14

  47

  30

  HEO

  106

  52

  158

  3a3

  EO

  120

  81

  201

  40

  AO

  124

  214

  338

  63

  AA

  29

  51

  80

  64

  Total

  558

  452

  1,010

  45

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; what agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30562]

  Mr. David Davis
  Neither the FCO diplomatic wing nor the Overseas Development Administration has made any use of private detective agencies or investigators.

  Peru
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards securing agreement on options to deal with Peruvian indebtedness to the United Kingdom. [30534]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are ready to take part with other Paris Club creditors in a further rescheduling of Peru's official bilateral debts once agreement has been reached with the International Monetary Fund on a new economic reform programme. This is expected in the next month or so.

  It has recently been suggested that the British Government should use aid funds to cancel some of Peru's debts in return for the Peruvian Government using the local currency equivalent to fund development projects. We believe, however, that is more effective to fund these activities directly: our aid programme to Peru amounts to some £2.5 million a year. The Overseas Development Administration wrote off Peru's aid debts of some £5 million in 1994.

  CFE Conference
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the conventional forces in Europe review conference. [30509]

  Mr. David Davis
  The CFE review conference which ended in Vienna on 31 May was the first operational review of the CFE treaty. During the conference, agreements were reached which resolved the outstanding implementation problems of Russia's non-compliance with the treaty's flank limits and with its commitments to destroy equipment east of the Urals. States parties also agreed to begin immediately a process of discussion
  363
  aimed at promoting the objectives of the treaty and enhancing its viability and effectiveness in Europe's changing security environment.

  Overseas Visits (Royal Family)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 362, if he will give a breakdown of the costs incurred by his Department in respect of royal visits abroad in each year since 1990–91. [30034]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: It is not possible to provide a breakdown of expenditure for financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 without incurring disproportionate cost.

  For 1992–93, I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 16 June 1993, Official Report, column 64 and 24 June 1993, Official Report, column 239 to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). Those replies reflected total costs to the Department at that time amounting to £423,500. The full outturn figure for that year amounted to £455,695.

  For 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 the breakdown is as follows:

  Financial year 1993–94

  £

  The Duke of Edinburgh to the Caribbean, 9–26 March 1993

  20,900

  The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to Hungary, 4–7 May 1993

  64,000

  The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to Cyprus (CHOGM), 18–24 October 1993

  39,100

  The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to the Caribbean 18 February-10 March 1994

  115,500

  The Prince of Wales to France, 3–7 December 1992

  400

  The Prince of Wales to Germany, 14 April 1993

  300

  The Prince of Wales to Poland, 17–20 May 1993

  12,200

  The Prince of Wales to Turkey, 6–8 October 1993

  5,300

  The Prince of Wales to The Gulf, 7–12 November 1993

  27,000

  The Princess of Wales to Nepal, 2–6 March 1993

  16,400

  The Princess of Wales to Luxembourg, 17 September 1993

  2,700

  The Duke of York to Gibraltar, 1–3 October 1993

  4,400

  The Prince Edward to Madrid, 13–14 May 1993

  600

  The Prince Edward to Swaziland, 4–7 September 1993

  17,600

  The Prince Edward to West Africa, 26 October-4 November 1993

  6,800

  The Princess Royal to Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, 9–20 July 1993

  19,900

  The Princess Royal to Ethiopia, Eritrea and Vietnam, 22 February–6 March 1994

  29,400

  The Duke of Kent to Tanzania, 29 March–2 April 1993

  300

  The Duchess of Kent to Seychelles, 3–6 December 1993

  26,100

  The Duchess of Kent to Cote D'Ivoire, 6–8 February 1994

  400

  Princess Alexandra to Austria, 24–27 October 1993

  4,100

  Princess Alexandra to USA, 31 October-3 November 1993

  24,800

  Princess Alexandra to Copenhagen, 15–18 November 1994

  6,300

  The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to Canada, June/July 1992

  11,500

  The Queen to Germany, 1992

  15,800

  The Princess of Wales to Harare, 9–13 July 1993

  900

  364

  Financial year 1993–94

  £

  The Queen and Prince Philip to Brussels, 7 August 1993

  1,500

  The Prince and Princess of Wales to Brussels, 26 October 1993

  Visit of The Prince of Wales to USA, 12–14 February 1993

  300

  Airfares for the visit of Princess Alexandra to the Caribbean, 27 October-7 November 1992

  1,100

  Visit of The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to Canada, 13–24 August 1994

  13,400

  Visit of The Prince and Princess of Wales to Nigeria, 15–19 March 1990

  5,900

  The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to Zimbabwe, 10–15 October 1991

  3,100

  Miscellaneous (including a throwback payment from the previous financial year and minor sums of less than £100 for other visits, and general costs)

  -6,200

  Financial year 1994–95

  £

  The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to Russia, 17–21 October 1994

  116,300

  The Duke of Edinburgh to South Africa, 10–11 May 1994

  12,300

  The Duke of Gloucester to Belgium, 4 May 1994

  300

  Princess Alexandra to Copenhagen, 15–18 November 1994

  6,500

  The Prince of Wales to St. Petersburg, 16–19 May 1994

  24,100

  The Princess Royal to Ethiopia, Eritrea and Vietnam, 22–28 February 1994

  6,100

  The Duke of Edinburgh to the Caribbean, 18 February-10 March 1994

  1,300

  The Prince of Wales to France, 16 March 1994

  1,700

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan, 4–16 October 1994

  35,700

  The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to the Caribbean, 18 February-10 March 1994

  2,800

  The Prince of Wales to Budapest, 27–28 June 1994

  2,900

  The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to Canada, 13–23 August, 1994

  14,500

  Princess Alexandra to Hong Kong and India, 14–17 October 1994

  27,300

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to Crimea, 13–15 September 1994

  2,000

  The Prince of Wales to Berlin, 27 May 1994

  1,700

  The Prince of Wales to Prague, 3–5 June 1994

  2,200

  The Princess Royal to South Africa, 21 November-1 December 1994

  58,900

  The Princess of Wales to Brussels, 25 October 1993

  800

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to Lisbon, 21–24 November 1994

  5,000

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent to Hong Kong, 25 November-December

  25,700

  The Duke of Edinburgh to The Caribbean, 10–25 March 1993

  6,500

  The Prince of Wales to Australia and New Zealand, 23 January–11 February 1994

  5,700

  The Prince of Wales to Los Angles and Hong Kong, 31 October–10 November 1994

  53,300

  The Duke of York to France, 13–15 August 1994

  1,200

  The Duke of York to Belgium, 1–6 September 1994

  3,500

  The Duchess of Kent to the Ivory Coast, 6–8 February 1994

  4,000

  The Duchess of Kent to Germany, 4–5 May 1994

  1,500

  The Duke of Kent to Italy, 14–16 May 1994

  1,100

  The Duke of York to Argentina, 14–18 November 1994

  31,300

  The Duke of Edinburgh to Israel, 30–31 October 1994

  2,000

  State Visit to South Africa, 18–26 March 1995

  56,3000

  365

  Financial year 1994–95

  £

  The Princess Royal to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh 5–13 March 1995

  22,400

  The Princess Margaret to San Francisco, Los Angles 29–30 June 1995

  11,000

  The Prince of Wales to Egypt, Morocco, 11–18 March 1995

  4,100

  Duke of Kent to Dresden, 12–14 February 1995

  100

  Miscellaneous (including minor sums for other visits, official gifts on inward State Visits).

  6,200

  Financial Year 1995–96

  £

  Duke of Kent to Dresden, 12–14 February 1995

  800

  State Visit to South Africa, 18–26 March 1995

  29,600

  The Duke of Gloucester to Dunkirk, 28 May 1995

  600

  The Duchess of Kent to Hong Kong, 25–11 December 1994

  3,400

  The Princess Royal to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, 5–13 March 1995

  6,900

  State Visit to Russia, 17–21 October 1994

  800

  The Duchess of Kent to Brussels, 16 June 1995

  1,100

  The Prince of Wales to Egypt, 11–18 March 1995

  18,200

  Princess Margaret to San Francisco, 23–29 June 1995

  11,300

  Prince of Wales to Dublin, 31 May to 1 June 1995

  3,900

  Prince of Wales to Hamburg, 2–3 May 1995

  1,900

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent to Kiel, 19–21 June

  7,800

  The Queen to the Caribbean, February 1994

  22,900

  The Princess of Wales to Moscow (recce costs), 15–16 June 1995

  2,500

  The Princess of Wales to Japan (recce costs), 5–9 February 1995

  3,800

  The Prince Edward to Zimbabwe, 30 August to 2 September 1995

  13,100

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to Mexico, 20–23 November 1995

  25,100

  The Prince Edward to Luxembourg, 15–16 September 1995

  400

  The Prince of Wales to Paris, 31 August 1995

  400

  The Duke of Edinburgh to France, 8 May 1995

  1,200

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent to Oslo, 7–8 May 1995

  2,200

  The Duchess of Kent to The Hague, 1 June 1995

  1,000

  The Duke of Kent to Singapore, 10–12 September 1995

  11,500

  The Prince of Wales to Germany, 13–17 November 1995

  17,000

  The Princess Royal to New Zealand, 29 September to 5 October 1995

  500

  The Duke of York to Gibraltar, 13–14 July 1995

  700

  The Queen to New Zealand for CHOGM, 30 October to 11 November 1995

  68,500

  The Prince of Wales to Oman, 1–3 October 1995

  9,100

  The Princess of Wales to Argentina (recce costs), 23–26 November 1995

  7,400

  Princess Alexandra to Africa, 14–23 October 1995

  10,600

  The Princess Royal to Ireland, 19–20 January 1996

  700

  State Visit to The Czech Republic and Poland, 25–29 March 1996

  114,600

  The Princess Royal to The Gulf, November 1995

  11,500

  The Princess Royal to The Falklands, January 1996

  900

  The Prince of Wales, 6 November 1995

  400

  Miscellaneous (including minor sums for other visits, and general costs)

  2,800

  Russian Citizens (Visas)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for 366
  the issue of visas to Russian citizens to visit the United Kingdom did not proceed to the issue of a visa or a formal refusal, in each of the last five years. [30804]

  Mr. David Davis
  The following are the figures for visit visa applications by Russian nationals, withdrawn or lapsed, in the last five years:

  Moscow

  St. Petersburg

  Total

  1995

  2.307

  278

  2,585

  1994

  2,273

  245

  2,518

  1993

  890

  17

  907

  1992

  230

  0

  230

  1991

  154

  0

  154

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many decisions have been taken by the Council of Ministers since 1 January which were reached by(a) qualified majority and (b) unanimity. [31181]

  Mr. David Davis
  This information is not yet available. I shall write to the hon. Member when we have it.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, columns 56–57, how many (a) unconditional on-demand bonds, (b) performance bonds, (c) parent company guarantees, (d) advance payment bonds and (e) retention bonds were required by his Department in the last five years. [31226]

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

  Bosnia
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the UN implementation force's—IFOR—current policy towards those held responsible for crimes against humanity in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [31152]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  IFOR will detain and transfer to the international criminal tribunal for former Yugoslavia any persons indicated by the tribunal with whom it comes into contact in the performance of its mission.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Barristers
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reference to a declaration is contained in his warrant in respect of banisters taking silk. [27568]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  We warrant signifying the appointment of Queen's counsel will continue to make no reference to the declaration which will continue to be made when the appointee has tendered the warrant to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
  367

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he has shown the Government of the Republic of Ireland the text of his draft legislation for decommissioning arms and explosives; [31091]

  (2) if the Government of the Republic of Ireland has been asked to show him or his officials the text of their draft legislation for decommissioning arms and explosives; and if he will make a statement. [31103]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Both Governments are co-operating closely in drawing up legislation designed to underpin any decommissioning scheme.

  Fisheries
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answers of 31 January,Official Report, column 794, and 12 February, Official Report, column 436, for what reasons the fishery division of the Department of Agriculture did not oppose the application under its remit under the Fishery Act 1986 in respect of its responsibility for fisheries. [31275]

  Mr. Ancram
  The previous answers referred to do not make mention of an application. The question cannot be answered in its present form.

  "The Nemesis File"
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 801, what conclusion was reached by the inquiry conducted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary serious crime squad. [30705]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend on 14 December 1995,Official Report column 801, and to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on 24 April 1996, Official Report, columns 182–83. The RUC investigations into the allegations contained in this book continue.

  Public Bodies (Employees)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the number of women employed in each non-departmental public body in Northern Ireland and (b) the number of non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland which have a female chair. [30494]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Name of body

  Number of women employed

  Agricultural Research Institute of NI

  14

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for NI

  8

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  4

  Livestock and Meat Commission for NI

  8

  NI Fishery Harbour Authority

  1.5

  Construction Industry Training Board

  49

  Enterprise Ulster

  23

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  28

  Fair Employment Commission

  57

  General Consumer Council for NI

  8

  Labour Relations Agency

  25

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  138

  368

  (a) Name of body

  Number of women employed

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members1

  1

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action1

  1

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  104

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd.

  158

  Industrial Tribunals

  NI Industrial Tribunals2

  7

  NI Fair Employment Tribunal2

  4

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  26

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  26

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

  97

  Northern Ireland Higher Education Council3

  n/a

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  29

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  47

  Ulster Museum

  82

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  11

  Northern Ireland Museums Council

  2

  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards

  4

  Education and library boards (Non-teaching staff)

  Number of women employed

  Belfast

  3,357

  North-Eastern

  5,682

  South-Eastern

  3,964

  Southern

  5,164

  Western

  5,693

  NI Economic Council

  4

  NI Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee

  20

  Local Government Staff Commission

  7

  NI Housing Executive

  1,396

  Laganside Corporation

  7

  NI Transport Holding Company (including bus and rail companies)

  330

  Fire Authority NI

  179

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  250

  Council for Post-Graduate Medical Education1

  22

  Mental Health Commission1

  5

  Health and Social Services Boards

  728

  Health and Social Services Trusts1

  25,114

  Health and Social Services Directly Managed Units (DMUS)2

  12,143

  Health and Social Services Councils1

  15

  Central Services Agency

  339

  Health Promotion Agency1

  17

  Regional Medical Physics Agency

  27

  Blood Transfusion Services Agency

  120

  Police Authority for NI

  2,317

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints for NI

  12

  Probation Board for NI

  213

  Rathgael Training School

  82

  SACHR Secretariat

  6

  1 These are part-time posts filled by the same person.

  2 Of the seven listed under the NI Industrial Tribunals, four are also involved in the Fair Employment Tribunal.

  3 The Council's Secretariat is employed by the Department and not the Council itself.

  1. Includes NI Ambulance Trust.

  2. DMUS as at 31 December 1995.
  369
  (b) The NDPB's in NI which have a female chairman are as follows:

  HM Prison Magilligan

  HM Prison Maghaberry

  Agricultural Wages Board

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  General Consumer Council

  NI Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Health and Safety Agency

  Fair Employment Tribunal

  Industrial Tribunals—two full-time/five part-time

  Western Education and Library Board

  Historic Buildings Council

  Housing Benefit Review Board Panels

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Advisory Committee of the Therapeutic Professions Allied to
  Medicine

  Central Nursing Advisory Committee

  Central Personal Social Services Advisory Committee

  Central Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  Eastern Health and Social Services Council

  southern Health and Social Services Council

  Health and Social Services Trusts

  NI Blood Transfusion Service Agency

  Child Support Appeal Tribunal 12 part-time Chairmen

  Social Security Tribunal 14 part-time Chairmen

  Disability Tribunal eight part-time Chairmen

  Medical Tribunal four part-time Chairmen

  NI Consumer Committee for Electricity

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; what agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and what cost to his Department. [30565]

  Sir John Wheeler
  During 1995–95 and 1994–95, the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments have used detective agencies or investigators on the following occasions:

  (1) serving six debt enforcement orders;

  (2) gathering evidence in relation to an enforcement action against the unauthorised change of use of a property;

  (3) investigating seven public or employers liability claims;

  (4) investigating two industrial injury claims;

  (5) work in relation to an appraisal of a project for which grant assistance had been sought;

  at a total cost of £17,861.

  Names of the detective agencies have not been disclosed on grounds of confidentiality and security.

  Hydroelectricity
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available to the Lough Neagh and Maine System Game Anglers Association the contents of letters exchanged between a member of the 370
  fishery division of the Department of Agriculture and hydro-electric consultant of Dougal Billie Associates. [31224]

  Mr. Ancram
  No. Release of this information would adversely affect the Department's ability to secure the best possible fishery protection measures in water abstraction situations related to hydroelectric projects.

WALES

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many parcels of forestry are currently being offered for sale by Forest Enterprise Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29633]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its acting chief executive, Mr. Gordon M. Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 31 May 1996:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Wales the following question:
  "how many parcels of forestry are currently being offered for sale by Forest Enterprise Wales: and if he will make a statement."
  The question relates to an issue that is my responsibility, as Acting Chief Executive of Forest Enterprise, so I have been asked to respond. The information you require is as follows:-
  There are currently 34 woodlands totalling 1,242 hectares being offered for sale, by Forest Enterprise Wales. As set out in the Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99 Forest Enterprise plans to sell 40,000 hectares of forest land in the next three years and expects to receive about £60 million from the sale of forest land and surplus properties during that period. Some 15 per cent of these sales will be in Wales.

  Local Government Re-organisation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities which will cover all or part of each of the parliamentary constituencies which will come into existence at the end of the present Parliament. [30353]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is set out as follows:

  Constituency

  Unitary Authority

  Aberavon

  Neath Port Talbot

  Alyn and Deeside

  Flintshire

  Blaenau Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  Powys

  Bridgend

  Bridgend (part); Vale of Glamorgan (part)

  Caernarfon

  Gwynedd

  Caerphilly

  Caerphilly

  Cardiff Central

  Cardiff

  Cardiff North

  Cardiff

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  Cardiff (part); Vale of Glamorgan (part)

  Cardiff West

  Cardiff

  Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

  Carmarthenshire

  Carmarthen West and South

  Carmarthenshire (part);

  Pembrokeshire

  Pembrokeshire (part)

  Ceredigion

  Ceredigion

  371

  Constituency

  Unitary Authority

  Clwyd South

  Wrexham (part); Powys (part); Denbighshire (part)

  Clwyd West

  Denbighsire (part); Conwy (part)

  Conwy

  Conwy (part); Gwynedd (part)

  Cynon Valley

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Delyn

  Flintshire

  Gower

  Swansea

  Islwyn

  Caerphilly

  Llanelli

  Carmarthenshire

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  Gwynedd (part); Conwy (part)

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  Merthyr Tydfil; Caerphilly (part)

  Monmouth

  Monmouthshire; Torfaen (part)

  Montgomeryshire

  Powys

  Neath

  Neath Port Talbot

  Newport East

  Monmouthshire (part); Newport (part)

  Newport West

  Newport

  Ogmore

  Bridgend (part); Rhondda Cynon Taff (part)

  Pontypridd

  Rhondda Cynon Taff (part); Cardiff (part)

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  Pembrokeshire

  Rhondda

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Swansea East

  Swansea

  Swansea West

  Swansea

  Torfaen

  Torfaen

  Vale of Clwyd

  Denbighshire

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Wrexham

  Wrexham

  Ynys MÔn

  Isle of Anglesey

  Organochlorines
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has evaluated concerning production and discharge as waste of chlorinated organic compounds from industrial establishments in south Wales since 1966; and if he will make a statement. [30484]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A number of sources of information and reviews are available relating to the emission of certain chlorinated organic compounds from industrial sources. These include "The Chemical Release Inventory", first published by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in 1994, which includes detailed analyses of emissions both by local authority area and by industrial sector.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has evaluated on the level of organochlorines in the aerial environment of Cardiff as compared with other urban centres in the United Kingdom. [30485]

  Mr Jones
  Organochlorines in air, including dioxins, furans, polychlorinated biphenyls and pesticides, are currently monitored at three urban and four rural sites throughout the United Kingdom as part of the Department of the Environment's national air quality monitoring network. It should be noted that not all the pollutants are monitored at every site. Between January 1991 and September 1993 one site was located in Cardiff. A summary of data from these sites is presented each year in the "Digest of Environmental Statistics", copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  372

  Local Government Archives
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that arrangements entered into between two or more authorities on archive services offer an adequate and stable framework for the delivery of services. [30690]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The details of joint arrangements are a matter for the councils concerned. In considering the draft schemes on which councils consulted him under section 60 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, my hon. Friend looked for evidence that joint arrangements would exist for a reasonable period beyond April 1996 and that adequate staffing and other resources would be provided.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what assessment he has made of whether archive services are being provided at the same standards as the previous local authorities by the new unitary authorities under section 60 of the Local Government Act (Wales) 1994. [30689]

  Mr. Jones
  It is too early to make any such assessment. Eighteen county and county borough councils have still to send to my right hon. Friend the final versions of the schemes which they are required to prepare under section 60 of the 1994 Act.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether existing collections of archive records are being maintained intact by the new unitary authorities; and what arrangements are in place to monitor the operation of the archive schemes by the new authorities. [30691]

  Mr. Jones
  My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment. Section 60 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 imposes duties on county and county borough councils to prepare and maintain archive schemes; and, before making or modifying a scheme, to consult my right hon. Friend and to have regard to his advice.

  Pharmacy Contractors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pharmacy contractors there are in each of the local authority areas of Wales. [30590]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of pharmacy contractors in each health authority area is as follows:

  Area

  Number

  Bro Taf

  190

  Dyfed Powys

  122

  Gwent

  121

  Morgannwg

  129

  North Wales

  152

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from pharmacy contractors concerning the late payment of remuneration; how many payments of remuneration have been delayed more than 120 days; and if he will make a statement. [30588]
  373
  Mr. Hague
  There are no identified cases of agreed payments of salary, overtime or allowances to Welsh Office staff being delayed for more than 120 days.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will adopt to assist the cash flow problems of pharmacy contractors with regard to their need to pay their suppliers. [30589]

  Mr. Hague
  The present system of reimbursement is being considered as part of the 1996–97 pay negotiations for pharmacists' fees and allowances. As the negotiations are not completed, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from pharmacy contractors concerning the late payment of remuneration. [30587]

  Mr. Hague
  One from a pharmacy contractor, and eight from hon. Members writing on behalf of a constituent.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to retain retail price maintenance for medicines; and if he will make a statement. [30601]

  Mr. Hague
  The decision to review retail price maintenance for pharmacy products was made by the Office of Fair Trading. I understand that the review is looking closely at the possible effects which abolition may have on the viability of the independent pharmacy sector.

  Pharmacists Review Panel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contacts he maintains with the independent pharmacists' review panel; and if he will make a statement. [30600]

  Mr. Hague
  Welsh Office officials maintain regular contacts with the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee on matters concerning the provision of pharmaceutical services in Wales.

  Ambulance NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with chief ambulance officers and the chairmen of the Welsh ambulance trusts concerning(a) financial viability, (b) revisions of boundaries (c) mergers and (d) potential efficiency savings; and if he will make a statement. [30696]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no consultations with ambulance NHS trusts on border changes or mergers. All NHS trusts, including ambulance trusts, are monitored regularly by my Department to ensure financial viability. For 1996–97, I have asked health authorities to make 3 per cent. efficiency savings across Wales which will be reflected in the contracts which they strike with all trusts.

  Dispensing Doctors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the level of profit made by dispensing doctors in dispensing on the NHS free 374
  samples from pharmaceutical companies; what plans he has for an abatement scheme to recover these costs; and if he will make a statement. [30694]

  Mr. Hague
  It is for the independent Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration to make recommendations on the level and distribution of net incomes for doctors taking part in the NHS. Among the evidence available to it each year is a comparison of the earnings and expenses of dispensing and non-dispensing doctors.

  Payments to doctors in respect of practice dispensing have been subject to an abatement, known as the discount scale, since 1983. The discount scale represents the difference between the list price of all drugs dispensed in general practice and the net acquisition cost of the same drugs.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 66, what plans he has to set up rendering capacity in Wales in conjunction with the 30-month and cull cow slaughter scheme. [30698]

  Mr Hague
  We are continually monitoring all aspects of the operation of the over 30-month slaughter scheme; we are actively considering a variety of options for increasing throughput of cattle under the scheme.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of(a) beef cattle and (b) dairy cattle slaughtered so far in Wales under the 30-month compensation scheme. [31115]

  Mr. Hague
  The total number of cattle from Wales slaughtered under this scheme at 30 May 1996 is 7,383.

  No breakdown between beef cattle and dairy cattle is available.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women in his Department on 1 April. [30548]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Staff in the Welsh office by grade as at 1 April 1996

  Administrative Grades

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Percentage

  Senior Civil Servants

  68

  53

  15

  22

  G6

  23

  18

  5

  22

  G7

  146

  107

  39

  27

  SEO

  118

  95

  23

  19

  HEO

  293

  173

  120

  41

  EO

  460

  202

  258

  56

  AO

  522

  142

  380

  73

  AA

  526

  211

  315

  60

  Total

  2,156

  1,001

  1,155

  54

  375

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; what agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30564]

  Mr. Hague
  In 1994–95 private investigation services were used by my Department on eight occasions at a cost of approximately £670. In 1995–96 such agencies were used on three occasions at a cost of approximately £310.

  Private investigation agencies have been used in cases of damage to trunk road furniture and recovery of rent. The companies are not named for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Refereeing (Insurance)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of providing all-Wales insurance cover for school staff supervising or refereeing sporting activities and how this would compare with(a) each local education authority providing cover for their schools and (b) each school taking out its own insurance policy; [30707]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to insure all staff in schools when they are supervising or refereeing sporting activities. [30710]

  Mr. Hague
  No such estimate has been made. It is for local education authorities in respect of county and controlled schools, and the governing body in the case of voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools, to ensure that insurance is adequate to cover staff involved with school sporting activities.

  Specialist Beef Cattle
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce exemptions from the 30-month ban in respect of specialist beef cattle. [31080]

  Mr. Hague
  Comments from interested organisations were invited on 3 May on a proposal to establish a voluntary mature beef assurance scheme, which would allow cattle aged over 30 months from specialist beef herds which met the scheme's conditions to be sold for human consumption. Comments are being considered, and the next steps will be announced as soon as possible.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 65, how many (a) unconditional on-demand bonds, (b) performance bonds, (c) parent company guarantees, (d) advance payment bonds and (e) retention bonds were required by his Department in the last five years. [31227]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the concern 376
  caused by the BSE crisis to Welsh agriculture; and what has been the cost to public funds to date of measures taken to deal with BSE. [31099]

  Mr. Hague
  My hon. Friend and I have met the farming unions, farming delegations and others, and are well aware of their concerns. As regards the cost of Government measures introduced to deal with this crisis I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Northampton, North, (Mr. Allen)Official Report, columns 321–22.

  Cattle Trading
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action his Department is taking to ensure that cattle trading in Welsh markets is not subject to(a) cartels and (b) other unfair trading practices. [31079]

  Mr. Hague
  The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce is working to enable the carcases of clean beef animals over 30 months old and cull cows to be put into cold storage until rendering capacity is available to deal with them. This should help maintain a competitive market for these animals.

HEALTH

  GP Fundholding
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the statutory regulation will be in place requiring former general practitioner fundholding practices to apply accumulated savings to discharge outstanding liabilities; and what have been(a) the number of fundholders and (b) the financial amounts involved prior to the introduction of this statutory regulation over the last five years. [26725]

  Mr. Malone
  This regulation has been in effect since 1 April 1996. One fundholding practice left the scheme with both undischarged liabilities and savings before that date. In 1995–96 the practice overspent by £148,000. By agreement with the health authority, it returned £45,000 of its £92,000 savings from earlier years, towards the overspend, with the balance being met from contingency funds.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of providing free prescriptions and optical and dental treatment to students on the ground of low income; and what proportion of those students were in full-time higher education for each year since 1990. [29040]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals he has to modify the exemption list in relation to prescription charges and the criteria for the eligibility for the list; and if he will make a statement; [30186]

  (2) what proposals he has (a) to extend the range of medicines which are issued free of charge and (b) to widen the list of conditions entitling the sufferer to free prescriptions; and if he will make a statement. [30185]
  377
  Mr. Malone
  We do not plan to extend the arrangements to include other groups of people, medical conditions or medicines. Our prescription charge exemption and remission arrangements are among the most generous in Europe.

  Doncaster Health Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the running costs of(a) Doncaster health authority and (b) Doncaster family health services authority in each year since 1988. [29735]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  Headquarter revenue expenditure

  £ thousand

  Year

  Doncaster family health services authority

  Doncaster district health authority

  1988–89

  338

  1,843

  1989–90

  427

  1,883

  1990–91

  719

  2,082

  1991–92

  1,169

  1,226

  1992–93

  1,153

  1,476

  1993–94

  1,289

  1,827

  1994–95

  1,376

  1,996

  Source:

  Annual accounts of the district health authority and the family health services authority.

  Notes:

  1. Changes over the years in the roles and responsibilities of family practitioner committees, family health services authorities and district health authorities mean that the figures are not strictly comparable.

  2. The health authority costs are those reported in the accounts as "Authority administration and purchasing expenses". This includes capital charges after 1991–92. The family practitioner committee/family health services authority administration costs are those reported in the annual accounts as revenue administration costs and represent that part of total expenditure which is not medical, dental, ophthalmic or pharmaceutical.

  AIDS and HIV
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women were registered suffering from (i) AIDS and (ii) HIV, in each London borough council in December 1995. [29994]

  Mr Horam
  The number of men and women with AIDS reported voluntarily by clinicians to the communicable disease surveillance centre as resident in London boroughs to December 1995 is shown in the table. Similar information for diagnosed HIV infection is not available.

  For reasons of confidentiality the figures are not shown separately by sex.

  AIDS cases reported to PHLS AIDS centre by 31 December 1995 by local authority of residence at time of report

  Authority

  Total cases

  Known to have died

  Barnet

  142

  63

  Hillingdon

  53

  36

  Brent

  175

  99

  Harrow

  41

  24

  Ealing

  232

  160

  378

  AIDS cases reported to PHLS AIDS centre by 31 December 1995 by local authority of residence at time of report

  Authority

  Total cases

  Known to have died

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  523

  351

  Hounslow

  149

  109

  Kensington and Chelsea

  600

  394

  Westminster

  498

  316

  Barking and Dagenham

  14

  10

  Havering

  17

  10

  Redbridge

  53

  36

  Waltham Forest

  96

  58

  City of London

  8

  7

  Hackney

  209

  121

  Newham

  170

  100

  Tower Hamlets

  197

  114

  Enfield

  66

  45

  Haringey

  228

  137

  Camden

  403

  220

  Richmond

  103

  77

  Islington

  284

  176

  Bromley

  47

  37

  Bexley

  27

  14

  Greenwich

  85

  63

  Lambeth

  636

  440

  Lewisham

  180

  120

  Southwark

  311

  212

  Croydon

  125

  89

  Merton

  105

  72

  Sutton

  19

  18

  Wandsworth

  445

  317

  Kingston

  41

  26

  Crohn's Disease
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of public funding into research for Crohn's disease; if he will increase this figure over the planning period; and if he will make it his policy to amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to allow Crohn's sufferers to make claims for compensation. [3065]

  Mr. Horam
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The council is an independent body, deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment. Although it supports a significant portfolio of research related to intestinal diseases and inflammatory bowel diseases, it does not currently fund any research specifically on Crohn's disease.

  Responsibility for the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates Yorkshire regional health authority bought its premises at Park parade, Harrogate; how much was paid for the premises; and from whom they were bought. [30687]

  Mr. Malone
  The Yorkshire regional health authority bought its premises at Park parade, Harrogate from County Hotels (Harrogate) Limited on 31 March 1981 for a sum of £300,000.
  379

  Administration Costs
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the proportion of the budget spent on administration for(a) health authorities, (b) NHS trusts, (c) directly managed units, (d) fundholding general practitioner practices, (e) non-fundholding general practitioner practices and (f) the NHS as a whole. [30735]

  Mr. Malone
  The latest available information is for 1994–95 when spending on administration by regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities and special health authorities accounted for 3.5 per cent. of the national health service total gross spending. This figure includes the total revenue expenditure on pay and accommodation costs of staff at headquarter level in RHAs, DHAs and SHAs as identified in their annual accounts and the administration expenditure identified in the FHSAs' accounts.

  The costs of administrative support in trusts are not separately identifiable from the 1994–95 accounts, as these were regarded as part of operational expenditure.

  The costs of administrative support in directly managed units are included in the costs of the parent health authority.

  All general practitioners are independent contractors supported through the general medical services system of payments and allowances. There is no facility within this system to separate out administrative costs. Fundholding practices receive a management allowance to meet the additional costs incurred in managing a fund. In 1994–95 these allowances accounted for 0.2 per cent. of NHS total gross spending.

  Across the health service as a whole, 4.4 per cent. of total gross spending was committed to administration. This total includes the elements identified above as well as the gross running costs of the NHS executive and NHS-related functions of the Department of Health and the costs of the Prescription Pricing Authority and the Dental Practice Board.

  Charities (NHS Budget)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the total NHS budget came from charities in each of the past five years. [30736]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve prostate cancer screening; and if he will make a statement. [30800]

  Mr. Horam
  We have no plans to introduce a national NHS screening programme for prostate cancer. The key aim of any screening programme must be to secure a demonstrable improvement in health by increasing length of life and enhancing quality of life. There is, as yet, no evidence that this would be achieved in relation to prostate cancer. The Department is aware of the need to 380
  assess the value of available techniques for the early detection of prostate cancer. Several research projects are currently being undertaken.

  Although there is no national screening programme for prostate cancer, individual patients can be tested on request. This may be necessary where there is a family history of the disease. Some general practitioners offer patients testing as part of a general health check.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of prostate cancer have been identified in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years; what analysis he has made of these figures; and if he will make a statement. [31146]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of cases of prostate cancer registered in England and Wales were published in "Cancer Statistics Registrations", series MBI Nos. 19–1986, 20–1987, 21–1988 and 22–1989, and in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Monitor" MBI 95/1–1990. Copies of all five publications are available in the Library.

  Questions relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of NHS patients suffering from prostate cancer who have been treated with brachytherapy combined with external beam radiation; and if he will make a statement. [31147]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy with regard to making a prostate specific antigen test generally available at an early date to people suspected of suffering from prostate problems; and what plans he has to introduce a regular screening test for all men of vulnerable age groups. [31149]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department is aware of the need to assess the value of available techniques for the early detection of prostate cancer, including the prostatic specific antigen test. The Department of Health's standing group on health technology assessment has identified prostate cancer as one of the priority areas for health technology assessment and has commissioned work to assess the cost-effectiveness, clinical benefit and comparative value of measurement of PSA in serum and transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of prostatic cancer. The results of this work should be available shortly.

  Although there is no national screening programme for prostate cancer available to national health service patients, individual patients can be tested on request. This may be necessary where there is a family history of the disease. Where appropriate, general practitioners can offer some patients testing as part of a general health check.

  We have no plans currently to introduce a national NHS screening programme for prostate cancer. The key aim of any screening programme must be to secure a demonstrable improvement in health by increasing length of life and enhancing quality of life. There is, as yet, no evidence that this would be achieved in relation to prostate cancer.
  381

  Patient Costs
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the average patient care cost and (b) the number of in-patient beds in each NHS hospital trust, broken down by region. [30827]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on in-patient and day case costs will be placed in the Library.

  Information on the number of in-patient beds is contained in the Department of Health publication "Bed Availability for England, Financial Year 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered disabled people are employed by his Department; and what percentage this is of the total figures. [30774]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of registered disabled people employed by the Department, including the executive agencies, is 57. This represents 1.09 per cent. of the total number of staff.

  Depressive Illness
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Depression Alliance organisation; and if he will make a statement. [30782]

  Mr. Bowis
  I met representatives of Depression Alliance on 20 March. Departmental officials are in regular contact with the organisation and enjoy a constructive relationship with it.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the incidence of depressive illness in the United Kingdom; and what studies are being undertaken by his Department to investigate the effectiveness of treatment. [30781]

  Mr. Bowis
  The national survey of psychiatric morbidity carried out in 1993, and funded by the Department of Health, includes data on the incidence of depressive illness in the United Kingdom. Copies of the documents relating to the survey are available in the Library.

  Although the Department is not undertaking any studies into the effectiveness of treatment for depressive illness, the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President

  Prescribing data for general practitioners: non-fundholders and fundholders by fundholding wave Financial year 1990–91

  Net ingredient Cost per prescribing unit (£)

  1990–91 data for practices becoming fundholders in waves as indicated

  Year

  All non-FH

  Continuing non-FH

  1st wave

  2nd wave

  3rd wave

  4th wave

  5th wave

  1990–91

  33.85

  33.80

  33.25

  34.39

  34.06

  34.07

  33.82

  Source:

  PACT data, Prescription Pricing Authority. Figures are for items prescribed by GPs in England and dispensed during the months April-March.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure is quoted in net ingredient cost terms for comparison purposes. Fundholder spending is actually monitored against actual cost, after allowing for discounts and container costs.

  2. The population denominator is the prescribing unit. Persons 65 and over count as three PUs, those under 65 as one. PUs are calculated using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-year estimates of the resident England population.
  382
  of the Board of Trade, is funding a number of trials which examine different types of treatment and therapies in this field.

  Nurses' Wages
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been allocated to Doncaster health authority in 1996–97 for the purpose of increasing nurses' wages; and what percentage change this represents over the figure for 1995–96. [30811]

  Mr. Malone
  There is no specific funding within health authority allocations for pay.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken to implement the recommendations contained in its internal inquiry into the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes. [30994]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have conducted no internal inquiry into such matters.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places there were in residential care homes for children in(a) local authorities, (b) the voluntary sector and (c) the private sector for each year since 1979. [30993]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information currently available centrally on places in children's homes was published in "Children's Homes at 31 March 1995, England, A/F 95/22", copies of which are available in the Library.

  GP Prescribing Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his letter of 1 April, (1) what is the estimated timetable for having available information on the prescribing costs for 1995–96 of each of the relevant categories of general practitioner; [31200]

  (2) what was the average prescribing cost expressed as net ingredient cost per patient unit in 1989–90 and 1990–91 for those categories of general practitioners who had become by 1994–95 (i) non-fundholders, (ii) first wave fundholders, (iii) second wave fundholders, (iv) third wave fundholders, (v) fourth wave fundholders and (vi) fifth wave fundholders. [31203]

  Mr. Malone
  Data for 1990–91 are shown in the table. Comparable data for 1989–90 are not in a format suitable for analysis. Data for 1995–96 are not yet available.
  383
  3. For technical reasons, a proportion of items and their associated net ingredient cost values have been excluded from the data. The figures are comparable with those for later years quoted in the letter of 1 April, but are not directly comparable with national drugs bill data.

  4. "All non-fundholders" refers to non-fundholders in 1991, i.e. all doctors.

  5. The "Continuing non-fundholders" data represent those practices which have not become fundholders in the first five waves.

  Read Codes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the arrangements for fair remuneration to the NHS centre for coding and classification for licence income arising from overseas sales of Read codes material, if he will list the accrued income from each such overseas country; and if he will make a statement. [31198]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service centre for coding and classification has no responsibilities for overseas use of Read codes. As a result of the negotiations to purchase the copyright of the Read codes in 1990, Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. currently has total rights to market Read codes overseas.

  Overseas income during the period from March 1990 to 30 September 1995 was £220,000, against which direct expenses and company costs of £270,000 have been expended over the same period. Details of individual arrangements are commercially confidential.

  In 1994, CAMS proposed, free of charge, to surrender to the Department of Health its total rights to generate income overseas and to bring overseas income within the controlled cost plus arrangements which apply to the income from NHS sources. Negotiations to amend the original contract are in hand.

  NHS Accounting
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the arrangements for the joint accounting and book-keeping of the NHS centre for coding and classification and Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. [31199]

  Mr. Horam
  The accounting and book-keeping arrangements for the national health service centre for coding and classification are the responsibility of the NHS executive, of which the centre is a part; the arrangements for Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. are the responsibility of that private company. There are no joint accounting or book-keeping arrangements, but the same financial consultant overseas the accounting and book-keeping at both CAMS and NHS CCC. This arrangement is being reviewed.

  Drug Addicts (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of registered drug addicts in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands in each year since 1990. [31093]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table.

  All drug addicts notified to the Home Office in Coventry district health authority and West Midlands regional health authority, 1990–1994

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Coventry

  95

  73

  76

  91

  101

  West Midlands

  670

  947

  1,143

  1,221

  1,506

  384

  Silicone Breast Implants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ban the use of silicone breast implants. [30667]

  Mr. Horam
  No.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests are available in the United Kingdom to measure the extent of silicone migration in the body. [30664]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no validated test methods available, either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, suitable for determining the extent of silicone migration in body fluids and tissues.

  Pesticide Poisoning
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to ensure that the publication "Pesticide Poisoning, Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners" is made publicly available through bookshops. [31019]

  Mr. Horam
  "Pesticides Poisoning, Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners", will be available in Her Majesty's Stationery Office bookshops from the end of June.

  Resource Management Initiative
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost to date of the resource management initiative. [31049]

  Mr. Malone
  The total cost is not possible to ascertain since boundaries between the programme and normal local developments in information technology and clinical management would be impossible to define precisely and therefore to cost.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation is being undertaken of the resource management initiative. [31050]

  Mr. Malone
  An independent evaluation of the resource management programme in England was commissioned by the national health service executive from a consortium led by the health services management unit.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to allow general practitioners' staff to join the NHS pension scheme. [31022]

  Mr. Malone
  The matter is under consideration. A number of complex issues have to be resolved before a decision is reached.

  Psychiatry (Children)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of(a) whole-time equivalent child and adolescent psychiatry consultants, (b) clinical

  385
  psychologists working with children and (c) psychotherapists working with children for each year since 1979. [30991]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table. Information on the number of clinical psychologists working with children is not available centrally.

  National health service hospital and community health services child and adolescent psychiatry consultants and child psychotherapists, excluding assistants and trainees, in England at 30 September each year 1979 to 1994

  Whole-time equivalents

  Year

  Child and adolescent psychiatry consultants

  Child psychotherapists

  1979

  240

  60

  1980

  260

  70

  1981

  280

  50

  1982

  300

  70

  1983

  300

  60

  1984

  310

  50

  1985

  320

  60

  1986

  330

  70

  1987

  320

  80

  1988

  340

  110

  1989

  330

  110

  1990

  350

  140

  1991

  340

  160

  1992

  320

  1250

  1993

  340

  220

  1994

  330

  220

  Note:

  1 A new pay and grade system for child psychotherapists was introduced in October 1991. One of the new pay scales was identified by a code formerly used for clinical psychologists. Figures for 1992 include some clinical psychologists who cannot be identified separately.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental and non-medical work force censuses.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to is answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 78, how many (a) unconditional on-demand bonds, (b) performance bonds, (c) parent company guarantees, (d) advance payment bonds and (e) retention bonds were required by his Department in the last five years. [31236]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age"
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of(a) the number and (b) the proportion of elderly people in long-term residential and nursing care homes in (a) 2000, (b) 2005 and (c) 2010 who will have a partnership long-term care policy if the proposals in "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age" are implemented. [31296]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no targets for the take-up of partnership products to meet long-term care costs. This will depend on the nature of the scheme and consumer choice.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the annual cost in terms of income forgone by local authorities or the Government in(a) 2000,
  386
  (b) 2005 and (c) 2010 of a partnership long-term care insurance scheme, as proposed in the White Paper, "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age", assuming £1.50 protection for every £1 of insurance benefit was taken out by (i) 10 per cent., (ii) 25 per cent., (iii) 50 per cent., and (iv) 100 per cent., of elderly people with capital assets greater than £10,000. [31294]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 14 May,Official Report, column 419. In reaching conclusions about the partnership proposals, the Government will take careful account of the cost implications, including costs falling on local authorities.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will supplement the examples given on pages 35–36 of "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age", to exemplify the cost of long-term care insurance, within and without a partnership scheme, in terms of a monthly premium and a lump sum payment for benefits worth £1,600 a month for(a) a single male, (b) a single female and (c) a couple aged (i) 60 and (ii) 65 years. [31295]

  Mr. Bowis
  We expect that premiums for long-term care insurance generally, and particularly under a partnership scheme, will fall relative to current products as the market develops. However, premiums are still likely to vary considerably according to individual circumstances.

  Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the calendar years(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995 the total number of fatal suspected adverse drug reactions reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and for each of the years if he will list the 10 drugs associated with the largest number of reported suspected fatal adverse reactions. [26291]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: The information is shown in the tables.

  Year

  Total number of fatal1reports

  1993

  471

  1994

  408

  1995

  476

  1 Reports where the fatality was associated directly or indirectly with the adverse reaction.

  The table provides information on the number of reports of suspected adverse drug reactions for fatal cases associated directly or indirectly with reactions reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines by health professionals from 1993 to 1995. As the scheme is voluntary, not all adverse reactions are reported. A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug cited; other factors may have contributed. Comparisons between different drugs may be misleading because many factors influence

  387
  reporting, including the level of usage of a medicine, the length of time it has been on the market and whether there has been significant media coverage relating to its use.

  Drug substances most frequently associated with fatal reactions in 1993

  Drug substances most frequently associated with fatal reactions in 1994

  Drug substances most frequently associated with fatal reactions in 1995

  Drug substance

  Number of reports

  Drug substance

  Number of reports

  Drug substance

  Number of reports

  1 = Clozapine

  32

  1 = Clozapine

  28

  1. Clozapine

  34

  1 = Flosequinan2

  32

  1 = Diclofenac

  28

  2. Diclofenac

  22

  3. Virus Influenza

  17

  3. Fluoxetine

  12

  3. Ethinyloestradiol

  21

  4. Fluoxetine

  16

  4 = Cyproterone

  9

  4. Fluoxetine

  15

  5. Streptokinase

  15

  4 = Strepokinase

  9

  5 = Sertraline

  12

  6 = Ethinlyoestradiol

  14

  4 = Finasteride

  9

  5 = Paroxetine

  12

  6 = Diclofenac

  14

  7 = Paroxetine

  7

  7 = Amiodarone

  10

  8. Moclobemide

  12

  7 = Ethinyloestradiol

  7

  8 = Nicorandil

  9

  9. Cyproterone

  9

  9 = Virus influenza

  6

  8 = Ibuprofen

  9

  10. Methotrexate

  8

  9 = Amiodarone

  6

  10 = Thioridazine

  8

  9 = Misoprostol

  6

  10 = Gestodene

  8

  9 = Ciprofloxacin

  6

  10 = Levonorgestrel

  8

  9 = Lithium

  6

  10 = Methotrexate

  8

  1 Reports where the fatality was associated directly or indirectly with the adverse reaction.

  2 This product was withdrawn from the market in 1993 because of concerns regarding increased mortality associated with its use. Some of the reports associated with the drug substances presented concern products containing multiple active ingredients. The figures provided are for the number of suspected adverse drug reactions where the reaction began in the year specified.

  Residential Care Provision
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers he has to ensure that local authority care managers offer the required level of choice to elderly people and their relatives seeking residential care. [31189]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have issued a statutory direction to local authorities which requires them to place a resident in a care home of his or her choice subject only to availability of a bed, appropriateness of the home to the level and type of assessed need and reasonableness of cost in relation to the range of price normally paid by the authority for the level and type of need.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy in respect of an independent inspectorate supported by private residential sector residential homes. [31269]

  Mr. Bowis
  A number of organisational models, including an independent inspectorate, have been put forward for consultation in our review of the regulation and inspection of social services. We shall consider possible changes to the current regulatory structure in the light of the independent assessor's report.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cut-off point of beds per home for private sector residential homes in Devon laid down by Devon social services; what is the equivalent figure for local authority homes; and what guidance he has issued on this matter. [31188]

  Mr. Bowis
  These are matters for the registering authority. No guidance has been issued by the Government on the maximum number of beds in residential homes.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority residential homes in Devon are neither registered nor accredited; and what action he plans to take to bring about their registration or accreditation. [31239]
  388
  The 10 drugs most frequently associated with fatal1 suspected adverse reactions in 1993, 1994 and 1995 are listed in the table.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authority residential care homes are not currently required to register under the Registered Homes Act 1984. Authorities are however required to inspect their directly managed homes and apply the same standards as they do to independent sector homes. The possible need for local authority homes to be regulated is being considered as part of our review of the regulation and inspection of social services.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he plans to take in respect of staffing levels in local authority residential homes in Devon which fail to meet Devon council's recommendations for the private sector. [31238]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for the local authority. We require local authorities to apply the same standards, including standards on staffing levels, to directly managed homes as they do to independent sector homes.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the provision of health care of the relative costs of caring for the elderly, mentally ill patients in(a) a local authority-run home in Plymouth and (b) private sector establishments in Devon. [31240]

  Mr. Bowis
  No assessment has been made centrally of these relative costs.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers he has to ensure that in residential homes in Devon the purchaser/provider split takes place in accordance with the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. [31195]

  Mr. Bowis
  There are no such powers in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. We encourage authorities to obtain maximum value for money from their purchasing arrangements for community care services and we agree with the Audit Commission that this includes making better use of the independent sector.
  389
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the differences in the provision of respite care to(a) private sector homes in Devon and (b) the local authority's own residential homes. [31187]

  Short-stay residents in and short-stay admissions to residential homes in Devon1

  Number of residents at 31 March 1995

  Percentage of all residents

  Number of admissions in year to 31 March 1995

  Percentage of all admissions

  Local authority homes

  225

  61

  5,860

  76

  Independent sector homes2

  145

  39

  1,890

  24

  All homes

  370

  100

  7,750

  100

  1"Short stay" includes short placement for assessment and other reasons as well as respite care.

  2Private and voluntary sector residential care homes registered under the terms of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year since 1990 the total number of suspected adverse reactions to combined oral contraceptives reported via the yellow card system and the number which were fatal. [26437]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: The information is shown in the table.

  Suspected adverse reactions reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines from 1990–1995 for oral contraceptives in the United Kingdom

  Year

  Total number of suspected adverse drug reaction reports where oral contraceptives are indicated as a suspect drug

  Total number of suspected fatal1 adverse drug reaction reports where oral contraceptives are indicated as a suspect drug

  1990

  285

  12

  1991

  215

  10

  1992

  199

  6

  1993

  137

  14

  1994

  121

  6

  1995

  232

  21

  1 Reports where the fatality was associated directly or indirectly with the adverse reaction.

  A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug cited.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Polly Peck
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what action is currently being taken by the Serious Fraud Office to investigate moneys stolen from Polly Peck plc for the purposes of political donations in the United Kingdom. [30666]

  The Attorney-General
  The role of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate alleged serious or complex fraud.

  Asil Nadir, formerly chairman of Polly Peck International plc, stands indicted before the central criminal court on 13 counts of theft involving over £33 million alleged to have been stolen from Polly Peck International plc. In May 1993 he absconded and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
  390
  Mr. Bowis
  Centrally available information on adult short stay residents in residential care homes in Devon at 31 March 1995 and on short stay admissions during the year to 31 March 1995 is shown in the table.

  The purposes for which moneys allegedly stolen are alleged to have been used are not directly relevant to the charges and are not the subject of current investigation by the SFO.

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received on the operation of section 34 of the Gaming Act 1968. [30805]

  The Attorney-General
  I have received letters from 27 Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman, requesting clarification of the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords for a definitive ruling about the interpretation of section 34 of the Gaming Act 1968 in the case of Rv. Burt and Adams Ltd. the HB Leisure case.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, columns 56–57, what was the size of the performance bond called in by the ODA; and what size of company it related to. [31225]

  Mr. Hanley
  The company had a contract partly funded by ODA, it went into receivership and the performance bond of £54,608 was called in by the overseas client.

  The company no longer exists and no record of the company's size is available in ODA.

  Bosnia
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received from the World Health Organisation about the use the World Health Organisation made of the £300,000 which it received from the British Government for the physical rehabilitation programme in Bosnia; how much was used for prosthetics; and in which Bosnian medical institutions. [31120]

  Mr. Hanley
  The World Health Organisation has provided an interim report to my Department, dated 31 May 1996. As Finland had tied its contribution to the
  391
  provision of prosthetics, WHO has chosen to use the ODA grant—originally expected to cover this area—elsewhere within its programme of co-ordinated physical rehabilitation activities. The grant will be used in 1996 to expand the programme within Bosnia (Banja Luka and Bihac), Serbia-Montenegro (western Baka), and Croatia (eastern Slavonia). The activities include training for professionals, rehabilitation, and the provision of equipment and supplies.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the British Government to work with the Bosnian Government to co-ordinate the work of voluntary and non-government organisations in Bosnia. [31121]

  Mr. Hanley
  We work with the Bosnian and other former Yugoslav Governments, non-government organisations and international agencies such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to identify needs and determine priorities. Because non-government organisations are independent, neither we nor the Bosnian Government are in a position to direct them, but co-ordination between and with them is achieved through practical liaison. Since 1992, the Government have provided more than £18 million for the work of voluntary, non-government organisations in former Yugoslavia.

  Greenwich University
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what transfer of funds took place from the ODA to the university of Greenwich arising from the transfer of the scientific arm of the ODA to the university. [31193]

  Mr. Hanley
  There was no transfer of funds from ODA to Greenwich on completion of the sale agreement. There will be an adjustment to the nominal consideration paid by Greenwich based on the agreed level of net current assets at completion; this could result in a payment from the ODA to Greenwich or vice versa.

  HIV-AIDS
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the United Kingdom's contribution to UN organisations has been used specifically for HIV-AIDS programmes for each year since 1991. [30227]

  Mr. Hanley
  Several UN systems agencies—including the World Health Organisation, UN Development Programme, UN Population Fund, UN Childrens' Fund, UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and, now, the UN AIDS programme—have, since 1991, implemented programmes that will benefit people at risk of, or affected by, HIV infection. The UK is an important contributor to all, except UNESCO. The data needed to calculate the proportion of these contributions used "specifically for HIV-AIDS programmes" are not currently available.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Commission has been used for HIV-AIDS specific activities for each year since 1991. [30226]
  392
  Mr. Hanley
  Several directorates-general within the EC—including I, V, VIII and XII—have, since 1991, used funds with the specific intention of benefiting people at risk of, or affected by, HIV infection. The data needed to calculate the proportion of the UK's contribution used for these activities are not currently available.

  Myanmar
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each of the past five years, the(a) grant loans and (b) loans made available by his Department to Myanmar. [31279]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 20 December 1995,Official Report, column 1177. In 1990–91 and 1991–92—the years not covered by my earlier reply—UK bilateral aid to Burma amounted to £68,000 and £53,000 respectively. All UK bilateral assistance over the past five years has been on grant terms, largely for humanitarian aid.

  Contraception Research
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what research projects to develop new methods of contraception were funded by the aid budget in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995; and for what period of time. [30459]

  Mr. Hanley
  None in 1994. In 1995, ODA and the Medical Research Council agreed support over a five-year period for a contraceptive development network focusing on the contraceptive effects of antigestogens for women and steriodal hormones for male contraception with the aim of developing promising new methods of contraception.

  Sexual and Reproductive Health
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what research projects in the field of sexual and reproductive health were being funded by the aid budget in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995; and for what period of time. [30460]

  Mr. Hanley
  Twenty-three research projects were funded in 1994 and 24 in 1995. Details are as follows:

  Methodologies for measuring maternal health in developing countries. April 1992—April 1995.

  Hypertension and Eclampsia in Pregnancy. April 1994—March 1996.

  Pelvic Inflammatory disease in slum women in Bombay. January 1993—December 1995.

  Sexual awareness, life styles and related health needs of young, single female factory workers. April 1992—April 1995.

  Socio-cultural determinants of induced abortion in developing countries. April 1992—April 1994.

  The management of eclampsia-control trial of magnesium sulphate and diazepam to reduce maternal morbidity. June 1992—June 1995.

  Reproductive Morbidity. April 1992—April 1995.

  Study of induced abortion among urban poor. October 1992—October 1995.

  Reproductive health beliefs among young women. June 1994—December 1994.

  393

  Impact and cost-effectiveness of focused perinatal health education for mothers on infant care, neonatal mortality and postnatal family planning practices. January 1994—January 1996.

  Pilot study to explore and compare health seeking behaviour and socio-economic context in commercial sex workers and other women. May 1994—December 1994.

  Menstrual health of adolescent girls. July 1994—July 1996.

  Malaria and maternal anaemia—an intervention study in pregnancy. September 1994—September 1997.

  The development of an appropriate approach to community based education in family planning. April 1994–1995.

  Cervical cancer in developing countries. March 1993—March 1996.

  Assessment of reproductive health needs of out of school adolescents. April 1992—April 1994.

  HIV-AIDS study of selected economic aspects of adult illness. August 1990—March 1995.

  Prevention of HIV-related tuberculosis. October 1992—October 1996.

  Risk factors for mother-to-infant transmission of HIV-1. October 1993—December 1995.

  Investigation of early diagnosis of HIV in children. April I 994—March 1996.

  The Informal Economy of Health: Management of STDs and Paediatric Crisis by Women. November 1992 March 1996.

  Collaborative study on effectiveness of HIV-AIDS work in developing countries by non-governmental organisation. November 1993—March 1996.

  New tools for prioritising and evaluating safe motherhood programmes. December 1994—October 1996.

  The social factors influencing the high rates of Caesarian section births. October 1995—February 1997.

  Acceptability of barrier methods as a means to prevent reproductive tract infection. October 1995—October 1998.

  A rational package of antenatal care: economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. November 1995—November 1996.

  Delivering cost-effective antenatal care in low and middle income countries. November 1995—February 1996.

  Increasing the efficiency of antenatal care in identifying and referring women needing institutional deliveries. December 1995—December 1996.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Special Needs
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list by local education authority the ratio of staff employed in a special educational needs capacity to pupils receiving special needs education; [30403]

  (2) if she will list by local education authority the ratio of teaching assistants to qualified teaching staff employed in a special educational needs capacity. [30401]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to 394
  introduce further incentives in the near future to encourage firms to employ an increased percentage of disabled workers. [30351]

  Mr Paice
  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will provide an effective legal framework for improving access to jobs, and participation in all aspects of work, for disabled people. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment intends to commence the employment provisions of the Act around the end of the year. Together with the practical schemes and services that the Government provide through the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils both for disabled people and for their employers, this will help to ensure that disabled people can make increased use of the available opportunities.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many registered disabled people are employed by her Department; and what percentage this is of the total figures. [30776]

  Mr Paice
  The number of registered disabled staff employed by the Department, including its agencies, was 1,597 at 1 April 1996. This was 3.69 per cent. of the total number of staff employed by the Department.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the educational attainments of ethnic minorities. [30448]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Secretary of State has commissioned research studies which provide data on educational qualifications and labour market experiences of ethnic minority groups. These are:

  (i) The youth cohort study.

  The fourth national survey of ethnic minorities.

  This and other relevant research brought to the Department's attention is reviewed as results become available.

  Consultants
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the contracts for consultancy work between(a) her Department and (b) training and enterprise councils and (i) Millbank Consultants Ltd., (ii) Paddington Consultancy Partnership Ltd., (iii) Mr. Neale Coleman, (iv) Mr. Stephen Hilditch and (v) Mr. Peter Bradley; and if she will indicate the total fees paid to (i) to (v). [30660]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  According to existing databases, the Department has not entered into any contracts with the consultants as named, either in its own right or in conjunction with any training and enterprise council. TECs are private companies and are not required to inform the Department of contracts that they enter into in their own right.
  395

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women in her Department on 1 April. [30559]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows the number of full-time equivalent staff at 1 April 1996, including the Employment Service and the Teachers' Pensions Agency.

  Grade, including equivalents

  Men

  Women

  Total number of staff

  Women as a percentage of total staff

  Permanent Secretary

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Director-General

  5

  0

  5

  0

  Director

  20

  0

  20

  0

  Divisional Manager

  96

  30

  126

  23.8

  Grade 6

  46

  14

  60

  23.3

  Grade 7

  493

  175

  668

  26.2

  SEO

  570

  323

  893

  36.2

  HEO

  1,538

  1,319

  2,857

  46.2

  EO

  4,176

  8,188

  12,364

  66.2

  AO

  5,817

  16,047

  21,860

  73.4

  AA

  494

  979

  1470

  66.5

  Total

  13,256

  27,071

  40,324

  67.1

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what use her Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; which agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to her Department. [30574]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department for Education and Employment made no use of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 600, what arrangements are in place for ensuring that the objectivity and impartiality of the careers service will be delivered; and what will be the involvement of (a) schools, (b) employers, (c) pupils and (d) parents. [31041]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave on 17 May 1996,Official Report, columns 599 and 600. The arrangements described there for quality assuring and inspecting careers services involve seeking the views of schools, employers, pupils and parents as appropriate. The arrangements are set out in the "Requirements and Guidance for Providers", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer 17 May,Official Report, column 599, what steps were
  396
  taken to replace the input of the inspector with the possible conflict of interest; and what terms and conditions of service apply to his successor. [31045]

  Mr. Paice
  There is no longer a specific careers inspector post; therefore, the inspector has not been replaced.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the funding provided to the careers service will be protected and enhanced in areas where there is increased population; and how the targets set for the service reflect the needs of individuals. [31043]

  Mr. Paice
  Funding for careers service work is allocated to Government offices based on the number of young people in each region. Government offices then have the flexibility to negotiate funding with individual careers services, taking into account the number of young people in the area and other relevant local circumstances.

  The targets agreed with each careers service include group advice sessions, individual interviews and action plans for young people. These targets reflect the key purpose of the careers service which is to provide objective advice that enables young people to make appropriate choices.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 600, what plans her Department has to ensure that the careers service will cater for the needs of adults not in full—time education or part-time vocational education; and what is the timetable for the integration of adult guidance services with the careers service. [31042]

  Mr. Paice
  There are no plans to expand the existing statutory careers service client group. However, the consultation document on lifetime learning published in December 1995 highlights the importance of guidance. The Government will be responding to the consultation shortly.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 599, if local education authorities' partners in the new careers service are companies; and what is their strategic operational role in the delivery of careers services. [31044]

  Mr. Paice
  The majority of new careers service companies have training and enterprise councils and local education authorities as major partners. A minority of careers service providers are other types of company with a major interest in guidance training and education. Additionally, the prospectus inviting bids to provide a careers service seeks clear proposals from bidders for achieving and maintaining the confidence, trust and support of key customers and stakeholders, including LEAs. The Secretary of State's "Requirements and Guidance for Providers" states that careers services must be able to demonstrate responsiveness to local community needs, including clients, local employers, local authorities, and education and training providers.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many foreign nationals have been given awards under the assisted places scheme. [30989]
  397
  Mrs. Gillan
  Information about the nationality of children holding assisted places is not collected centrally. The number of foreign nationals is likely to be small. To be eligible for an assisted place, a child must have been ordinarily resident in the British Islands or, if a national of a country in the European Economic Area and a child of a migrant worker, in an EEA country, for two calendar years before taking up the place, unless of a refugee granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the British Islands.

  Benefits
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics the Employment Service is required to keep on decisions relating to persons suspended from benefit for not actively seeking work. [31254]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Clive Soley, dated 4 June 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about what statistics the Employment Service Agency is required to keep on decisions relating to persons suspended from benefit for not actively seeking work.
  The actively seeking employment condition was introduced in the 1989 Social Security Act. Information on the number of decisions and disallowances issued to Unemployment Benefit claimants, including those in respect of the definition of actively seeking work, is contained in the quarterly summary entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions", copies of which are held in the Library of the House. This information is available from 1 October 1989, when the actively seeking work condition was introduced, to the quarter ending March 1996.
  Decisions to disallow Income Support claims because of failure to satisfy the actively seeking work condition are given by Adjudication Officers in the Benefits Agency of the Department of Social Security. Therefore, we do not hold information about the number of these disallowances.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps her Department is taking to ensure that additional resources allocated to reducing disruptive behaviour in schools will address the problems of excluded children from ethnic minorities; [31082]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to reduce the number of ethnic minority children among those excluded from school; [31071]

  (3) what plans her Department has to discuss with the Commission for Racial Equality the proportion of children from ethnic minorities among those excluded from school; [31072]

  (4) what action her Department plans to take based on the data available to it regarding the number of ethnic minority children among those excluded from school. [31073]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's guidance on exclusions, which was issued to all schools in May 1994, emphasises that disciplinary procedures should be applied 398
  objectively and consistently across all cultural groups and reminds head teachers that failure to do so could constitute unlawful racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976.

  The aim of reducing the number of ethnic minority pupils who are excluded is an important element in a number of the projects the Department is supporting under our 18 million programme of grants over the next three years to help schools tackle behaviour and discipline problems.

  This Department is currently analysing data collected from schools on permanent exclusions in the 1994–95 school year, including, for the first time, information on the ethnic origin of permanently excluded pupils. Aggregate data will be available in the early autumn. My right hon. Friend will consider whether action needs to be taken in the light of that information and consultations with interested bodies.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the annual cost of vandalism in the Bolton area, in each of the last 10 years; of that what amount can be attributed to arson; how many incidents of arson there have been in each year; and if he will make a statement. [31160]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held centrally.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 11, how many (a) unconditional on-demand bonds, (b) performance bonds. (c) parent company guarantees, (d) advance payment bonds and (e) retention bonds were required by her Department in the last five years. [31234]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  According to existing databases the Department has required one performance bond(b) and one parent company guarantee (c).

  Computers in Schools
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to promote an increase in the availability of computers in schools before the next general election. [31057]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department is continuing to promote the availability of computers in schools through its programme of grants for education support and training and by other means.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what schemes have been put in place since 1992 to ensure that each child(a) has had access to a computer and (b) is computer literate by the time he or she leaves school. [31059]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department has continued to support the development of pupils' information technology skills in a number of ways. These include the establishment of IT as a separate subject within the national curriculum; the programme of grants for education support and training which supports the purchase of computer
  399
  hardware, software and teacher training in IT; and support for the work of the National Council for Educational Technology.

  Internet
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what schemes she has established to promote access to the Internet in schools. [31058]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government published in November 1995 their statement of policy on the development of networked communications in education. "Superhighways for Education: The Way Forward", a copy of which is in the Library, identifies the national priorities and sets out the action to which the Government are committed. This includes support and encouragement for the piloting of new communications technologies in education, and ensuring that advice on the use of these technologies is made available through appropriate bodies. The paper announced an innovative programme of pilot projects, including several piloting the use of the Internet, which the Department is evaluating. The Department is also supporting two parallel projects. One will evaluate the benefit of educational Internet services; the other will assess the development of a virtual languages centre on the Internet. Advice and guidance for schools on networking and the use of the Internet is available from the National Council for Educational Technology.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to public funds of the visit by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to Innerleithen, Tweeddale, on 26 April; what was the purpose of the visit; and what is the policy of Scottish Office Ministers in respect of notifying right hon. and hon. Members of visits to their constituencies. [28063]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government visited Peebles and Innerleithen in the right hon. Member's constituency on 25 April, not 26 April. He visited Clough Mill Ltd., Waverley Mills, Innerleithen with the chairman of Scottish Borders Enterprise as one of a number of engagements in the area. The cost of this element of the day's programme cannot be separately identified. My hon. Friend wrote to the right hon. Member on 26 March, as is the normal practice, to inform him that he would be carrying out ministerial engagements in his constituency; this particular engagement was added to the original programme at a late stage.

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings outside trust premises have been held between private companies tendering for the support services at the Victoria infirmary in Glasgow and staff who work for the Victoria infirmary trust; if the trust board was informed of such meetings; and what action the board has taken about them. [30132]
  400
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The question concerns specific operational matters on which the chief executive of the trust is best placed to provide answers. Accordingly the hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Small for details.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what opportunity was available to staff at the Victoria infirmary in Glasgow to make an in-house bid for the support services recently put out to competitive tender; if he will list those in attendance at the meeting where staff were informed of that opportunity; and if he will place in the Library(a) a copy of the minutes of the meeting and (b) all correspondence between the trust board and those private companies which indicated an interest in tendering for the services. [30131]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  I understand from the Victoria Infirmary NHS trust that, in addition to placing an advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Communities, a number of open meetings were held with staff to announce the trust's intention to invite tenders for specific contracts and to confirm that there was a potential for making an in-house bid. No record of staff who attended these open meetings was made, nor were minutes or notes taken. Correspondence between the trust and the private organisations expressing interest in this tender exercise is a matter of commercial confidence.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each of his Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30121]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1996, the activities listed below have been reviewed under my competing for quality programme. Market testing is one of three main outcomes from competing for quality reviews. The others—strategic contracting out and internal restructuring—are also listed.

  Activity

  Outcome

  Scottish Prison Service

  Capital building

  Strategic Contracting Out: on a project basis

  Central store

  Market Test: won in-house

  Maintenance and minor works (phase 1) at four establishments

  Market Test: three won in-house and one to an external contractor

  Maintenance and minor works (phase 2) at six establishments

  Market Test: all won in-house

  Maintenance and minor works (phase 3) at remaining nine establishments

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Education services

  Market Test: won by various contractors

  Historic Scotland

  Monument conservation unit

  Internal restructuring

  Gardeners at Holyrood palace and park

  Market Test: won in-house

  HQ office support staff

  Internal restructuring

  Patrolmen at Edinburgh castle

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Scottish Agricultural and Science Agency

  Animal house

  Market Test: won by external contractor

  Security

  Market Test: won by external contractor

  401

  Activity

  Outcome

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Marine surveillance

  Internal restructuring

  Internal audit

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Information technology

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Messengers

  Market Test: won in-house

  Registers of Scotland

  Messengers/telephonist services

  Market Test: won in-house

  Reprographic services

  Market Test: won in-house

  Typing/proof reading

  Market Test: won in-house

  Workflow functions

  Market Test: won in-house

  Scottish Court Service

  Capital works programme

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Estate management services

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Managing agents services: north, west and east regions

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Security

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Cleaning

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Catering

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Payroll services

  Strategic Contracting Out

  IT hardware and software support

  Strategic Contracting Out

  Scottish Record Office

  Cleaning

  Market Test: won in-house

  Reprographics

  Market Test: won in-house

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 158, what were the electorates of each of the existing parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, as at 16 February. [30238]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Electorate

  Aberdeen, North

  48,667

  Aberdeen, South

  60,829

  Angus, East

  64,826

  Argyll and Bute

  49,869

  Ayr

  67,485

  Banff and Buchan

  67,105

  Caithness and Sutherland

  31,346

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  55,404

  Central Fife

  57,674

  Clackmannan

  50,405

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  48,581

  Clydesdale

  63,338

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  48,112

  Cunninghame, North

  56,137

  Cunninghame, South

  49,961

  Dumbarton

  56,858

  Dumfries

  61,697

  Dundee, East

  57,550

  Dundee, West

  56,629

  Dunfermline, East

  52,147

  Dunfermline, West

  52,764

  East Kilbride

  66,796

  East Lothian

  69,171

  Eastwood

  65,508

  Edinburgh, Central

  59,826

  Edinburgh, East

  46,137

  Edinburgh, Leith

  57,679

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  56,476

  Edinburgh, South

  63,286

  Edinburgh, West

  59,394

  Falkirk, East

  52,364

  Falkirk. West

  49,628

  402

  Electorate

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  54,942

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  43,418

  Glasgow, Central

  48,975

  Glasgow, Garscadden

  40,726

  Glasgow, Govan

  43,873

  Glasgow, Hillhead

  59,784

  Glasgow, Maryhill

  48,491

  Glasgow, Pollok

  44,433

  Glasgow, Provan

  34,501

  Glasgow, Rutherglen

  51,764

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  51,680

  Glasgow, Springburn

  45,098

  Gordon

  85,435

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  50,377

  Hamilton

  62,846

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  72,918

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  62,359

  Kincardine and Deeside

  70,308

  Kirkcaldy

  53,507

  Linlithgow

  63,299

  Livingston

  64,204

  Midlothian

  60,978

  Monklands, East

  48,849

  Monklands, West

  49,881

  Moray

  65,216

  Motherwell, North

  58,129

  Motherwell, South

  49,904

  North-East Fife

  58,495

  North Tayside

  58,447

  Orkney and Shetland

  32,635

  Paisley, North

  47,105

  Paisley, South

  48,402

  Perth and Kinross

  68,317

  Renfrew, West and Inverclyde

  60,995

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  58,626

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  44,371

  Stirling

  59,979

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  62,038

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  40,910

  Western Isles

  23,208

  Retex
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make dependency on textiles a deciding factor when calculating levels of additional resources under the EU RETEX initiative; and if he will make special provision for the borders region. [30673]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Textile dependency as set out in article 6 of the Commission's guidelines as decided on 13 May 1992 (Official Journal number C 142, 4 June 1992), already determines eligibility for funding under RETEX, and additional resources will be allocated between UK eligible areas, including border region, on the same basis as the original allocation.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the number of (i) males and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women in his Department on 1 April. [30550]
  403
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of male and female staff in each of the principal and administrative grades,

  Staff in post in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies at 1 April 1996 selected groups of staff—full-time equivalents A. Unified grades

  Scottish office

  Historic Scotland

  Scottish fisheries protection agency

  Grade1

  Male

  Female

  Percentage Female

  Male

  Female

  Percentage Female

  Male

  Female

  Percentage Female

  SCS

  119.8

  19.6

  14.1

  2.7

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  —

  G6

  57.0

  11.0

  16.2

  5.0

  —

  —

  2.0

  —

  —

  G7

  239.6

  64.7

  21.3

  17.0

  5.4

  24.0

  2.0

  —

  —

  Sub total

  416.4

  95.3

  18.6

  24.7

  5.4

  17.9

  5.0

  —

  —

  Scottish Agriculture Science Agency

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Student's Awards Agency for Scotland

  Grade1

  Male

  Female

  Percentage Female

  Male

  Female

  Percentage Female

  Male

  Female

  Percentage Female

  SCS

  1.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  —

  G6

  2.0

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G7

  10.0

  1.6

  14.2

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sub total

  13.0

  1.6

  11.0

  4.0

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  —

  1 Professional and administrative staff at Scottish Civil Service grades and grades 6 and 7 are not identified separately on returns to Treasury.

  B. Main grades within administration group

  Scottish Office Core

  Historic Scotland

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Grade1

  Male

  Female

  Percentage female

  Male

  Female

  Percentage female

  Male

  Female

  Percentage female

  SEO

  100.4

  26.2

  20.7

  4.0

  —

  —

  3.0

  —

  —

  HEO

  285.8

  156.2

  35.3

  14.0

  2.0

  12.5

  4.0

  —

  —

  EO

  194.6

  236.2

  54.8

  8.0

  17.0

  68.0

  5.0

  1.0

  16.7

  AO

  210.9

  371.2

  63.8

  13.5

  27.3

  66.9

  7.0

  1.0

  12.5

  AA

  159.0

  285.2

  64.2

  12.0

  16.5

  57.9

  3.0

  18.3

  85.9

  Sub total

  950.7

  1075.0

  53.1

  51.5

  62.8

  54.9

  22.0

  20.3

  48.0

  Scottish Agriculture Science Agency

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Student's Awards Agency for Scotland

  Grade1

  Male

  Female

  Percentage Female

  Male

  Female

  Percentage Female

  Male

  Female

  Percentage Female

  SEO

  1.0

  2.0

  2.0

  1.0

  33.3

  HEO

  0.6

  100.0

  11.0

  3.0

  21.4

  5.0

  1.6

  24.3

  EO

  1.0

  100.0

  17.0

  15.1

  47.1

  9.0

  10.6

  54.1

  AO

  4.1

  100.0

  32.0

  36.5

  53.3

  30.0

  40.6

  57.5

  AA

  5.0

  2.0

  28.6

  25.0

  13.0

  34.2

  7.0

  8.0

  53.3

  Sub total

  6.0

  7.7

  56.2

  87.0

  67.6

  43.7

  53.0

  61.8

  53.8

  1 This is for main administration grades and as such excludes professional staff below grade 7, industrial grades and other administrative grades such as typing, secretarial and support grades.

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been created as a result of the establishment of the Inverclyde enterprise zone; in which industries such employment has been found; what is the sex ratio of the employed; and if he will make a statement. [30175]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As at 31 March 1995, 2,245 jobs had been created within the Inverclyde enterprise zone. Of these, 1,669 were in manufacturing industry and the remaining 576 in other activities ranging from construction work to catering. Information is not available to distinguish between male and female employment.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many designated sites of the Inverclyde enterprise zone are still awaiting industrial development; and if he will make a statement. [30176]
  404
  and the percentage of these are women are shown in the table.

  Mr. Kynoch
  Four of the 13 designated sites within the Inverclyde enterprise zone do not, at present, have any enterprise zone activity.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the companies which have established industrial and commercial units in the designated sites of the Inverclyde enterprise zone; how many full-time employees they have recruited since commencing business in the zone; and if he will make a statement. [30177]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The table contains the names of companies and details of the sites in which they were located within the enterprise zone as at September 1994, the most recent date for which this information is available. Monitoring information compiled for the Department of Environment indicates that, by March 1995, 33 industrial and commercial establishments,
  405
  employing a total of 2,245 people, were located on designated enterprise zone sites. No information is available on the number of full-time employees recruited since these companies commenced business in the zone.

  Companies and organisations located in Inverclyde enterprise zone, September 1994

  Name

  Site

  East End Bakery

  Kingston

  Ian's Grill

  Kingston

  Anaplast

  Kingston

  Madison Cable

  Kingston

  Viking Life Saving Equipment

  Kingston

  Accurate Armour

  Kingston

  S and A Seafoods

  Kingston

  Fairway Leisure

  Kingston

  The Sign Factory

  Kingston

  T R Shellfish

  Kingston

  W H M Maintenance Supplies

  Kingston

  Xtraz

  Kingston

  Brands Electronics

  Kingston

  Minebea

  Kelburn

  Blair Joinery

  Ingleton

  Cigna Employee Benefits

  Cartsburn

  HCS Global

  Cartsburn

  Bathroom Elegance

  Cartsburn

  JCS Training

  Cartsburn

  Royal Mail

  Cartsburn

  Drummond Packaging

  Larkfield

  Mimtec

  Faulds Park

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to modify the regulations governing the designation of sites in the Inverclyde enterprise zone; and if he will make a statement. [30178]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to modify the regulations governing the designation of sites in the Inverclyde enterprise zone.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Inverclyde enterprise zone is due to cease to exist; what proposals he has to extend its existence; and if he will make a statement. [30179]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Inverclyde enterprise zone will cease to exist on 2 March 1999 after 10 years of enterprise zone designation. My right hon. Friend has no plans to extend its existence.

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the demolition or retention of the Gourock ropeworks of Port Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [30180]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations regarding the Gourock ropeworks. An application for listed building consent to demolish the building has been received by Historic Scotland and is under consideration. A decision on whether my right hon. Friend will call the application in for his own determination will be taken soon.
  406

  Greenock Sheriff Court
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total cost of the renovation of the Greenock sheriff court; and if he will make a statement; [30182]

  (2) on how many occasions proceedings at the Greenock sheriff court have been postponed in the past two years; what were the reasons for such postponements; and if he will make a statement; [30183]

  (3) what has been the total cost of remedial work carried out to the structure, heating system, water supply and other facilities and services at the Greenock sheriff court following its re-opening on the completion of the renovation programme; and if he will make a statement. [30184]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The total cost of the renovation of Greenock sheriff court, including the temporary outhousing of the court while work was proceeding, was £4,032,000, inclusive of professional fees and VAT. The work involved rot eradication, stonework repairs and extensive internal refurbishment. Subsequent to the renovation, parts of the external drainage system were replaced at an inclusive cost of £56,500.

  The courthouse was reopened on 8 August 1994. On two occasions during the winter of 1995, business was adjourned at 10am following difficulties with the heating system. On 3 and 9 May 1996, business was adjourned at loam and on 13 May 1996 business was adjourned at noon; each of these adjournments was a result of problems with the incoming water main. On each occasion, the courthouse was open for business the next working day.

  The causes of the problems experienced at the court and the allocation of costs for remedial action are still the subject of discussion between the Scottish Court Service and its contractors and consultants.

  Fixed Penalties
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many charges of breach of the peace have been dealt with by way of fixed penalty by the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock in the past 12 months; and how many of these have involved criminal injuries. [31068]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am advised by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that, during the period from 1 May 1995 to 23 May 1996, the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock issued 198 fixed penalty notices in respect of charges of breach of the peace. The procurator fiscal does not have information available to him to indicate how many, if any, of such cases resulted in awards by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Agency. As to whether personal injury was involved in any of the cases, this information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In general, it is unusual for a breach of the peace charge to involve personal injury to any party.

  Computerised Tomography Scanners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals that have CT scanners; and if he will make a statement. [31157]
  407
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 28 CT scanners in the following NHS hospitals in Scotland:

  Hospitals

  CT Scanner

  Aberdeen royal infirmary

  2

  Western infirmary, Glasgow

  1

  Glasgow royal infirmary

  1

  Royal infirmary, Edinburgh

  2

  Ninewells

  1

  Western general, Edinburgh

  1

  Southern general

  2

  Stobhill, Glasgow

  1

  Raigmore, Inverness

  1

  Crosshouse hospital

  1

  St. John's at Howden

  1

  Royal Alexandra hospital

  1

  Victoria infirmary, Glasgow

  1

  Queen Margaret hospital

  1

  Royal hospital for sick children, Yorkhill

  1

  Law, Carluke

  1

  Dundee royal infirmary

  1

  Stirling royal infirmary

  1

  Perth royal infirmary

  1

  Falkirk royal infirmary

  1

  Hairmyres, East Kilbride

  1

  Monklands hospital

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary

  1

  The Ayr hospital

  1

  Inverclyde royal hospital

  1

  Information on CT scanners in independent sector hospitals is not available centrally.

  Sheriffs
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average cost saving achieved per day through the use of a temporary instead of a full-time permanent sheriff in Scotland. [25470]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Temporary sheriffs provide cover for the absences of permanent sheriffs and more generally offer a useful element of flexibility in the handling of court business.

  Temporary sheriffs are paid a daily rate of £282 plus travel and subsistence expenses. The daily rate for a permanent sheriff, based on working 220 days per annum is £345.

  Information Directorate
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost to date of media monitoring carried out on behalf of the information directorate; and if he will make a statement. [25489]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The contract for media monitoring was awarded on the basis of a competitive tendering exercise. The actual cost of the contract is a matter of commercial confidence.
  408

  Animal Foodstuffs
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current means of ensuring prohibited foodstuffs are kept out of the foodchain; what assessment he has made of their effectiveness; and what criteria he adopts to assess their effectiveness. [29914]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: It is a statutory requirement that cattle organs prohibited from human consumption—those which could potentially contain the BSE agent (the head including the brain but not the tongue, the spinal chord, spleen, thymus, tonsils and intestine)—are removed from carcases in the abattoir and stained with a distinctive dye. Such material is then rendered and disposed of at licensed landfill sites. Compliance with this requirement is supervised by the Meat Hygiene Service, an executive agency of the Great Britain agriculture Departments. The State Veterinary Service monitors the effectiveness of those operations on a regular basis to ensure that the statutory controls are being complied with.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the test for mammalian feed in animal foodstuff will be made available for public analyst services and protective services departments of local authorities. [29916]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: The ELISA test used for the detection of mammalian protein in animal feed is currently not available for use in other laboratories. The purification process for the preparation of samples prior to test has been patented and is available. For the immunological test, however, because of the difficulties experienced with validation and the limited stocks of antisera currently available, it is not possible to make the test more widely available. Nevertheless, materials can be submitted to MAFF for testing at the one veterinary investigation centre that is currently equipped to carry out the test, subject to available capacity.

  Commercially available ELISA kits were tested with a view to assisting other laboratories to introduce testing, but these proved not to be sufficiently consistent in sensitivity, specifically for use for statutory purposes.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what trials have been conducted by his Department regarding the test for mammalian feed in animal foodstuff; and when these trials began. [29915]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: During validation of the test on samples collected on farms in Great Britain by the State Veterinary Service, a total of 1,577 samples were analysed between June 1994 and January 1996.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes and additions to the list of chairpersons and non-executive directors of NHS trusts in Scotland have occurred since 25 January 1993 and what are the current levels of annual remuneration. [27049]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: The information requested by the hon. Member has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
  409

ENVIRONMENT

  Landlords
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage small landlords. [29780]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Housing Bill includes provisions to encourage landlords into the private lettings market.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the current year's standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement. [29786]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have received a number of representations from local authorities and their associations. Proposals for change are examined with the local authority associations.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Government's proposals under the European directive on packaging waste. [29787]

  Mr. Clappison
  Shortly.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the provision of a conscience clause in the draft regulations, now being prepared by his Department, under the Environment Act 1995, concerning the shared legal obligations and recovery in recycling of packaging waste; and if he will make a statement. [30646]

  Mr. Clappison
  I and colleagues are fully aware of concerns that the regulations which we are presently preparing on producer responsibility for packaging waste should not compel businesses to join a scheme if, for whatever reason, they do not wish to do so. I can offer a full reassurance on this matter. There will be two routes for businesses obliged under the regulations to discharge their obligation. They will be free to discharge it alone, or by joining a collective scheme. One of the central provisions of the enabling legislation was that the individual route should be a valid option for an individual business and this will be fully reflected in the regulations. This should become clear when the draft regulations are issued for consultation.

  Water (London)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State of the Environment if he will make a statement about water supplies in London. [29789]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Most of London receives its public water supplies from Thames Water, although some of the outer London boroughs are supplied by Three Valleys Water, Essex and Suffolk Water, Sutton and East Surrey Water or North Surrey Water. The quality of the public water supply is very high. The Environment Agency's recent report to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, published on 1 May, states that water resource problems are not expected in the Thames Water and North Surrey Water areas this summer, whatever the 410
  weather. In the other companies' areas, no restrictions are anticipated given a normal summer although hosepipe and inessential use bans may possibly become necessary in parts of these areas if the summer is very hot and dry.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he proposes to introduce over the next year by way of advancing the objectives set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". [29790]

  Mr. Clappison
  We published the latest "This Common Inheritance" annual report on 26 March. This sets out what we propose to do over the next year to meet our objectives for sustainable development and the environment. Copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding water pollution. [29791]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have received representations on various aspects of water pollution, including in respect of the very considerable improvements in the quality of our rivers that have been achieved in recent years.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to give councils the powers to set their own spending limits. [29792]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We will soon begin to consider the details of the next year's local government finance settlement, including capping. Once we have reached decisions on the local government settlement for next year, they will be announced in the normal way.

  Elderly Person's Accommodation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the support he makes available for local authorities to upgrade facilities for elderly persons' accommodation. [29794]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authority housing investment programme allocations total over £1.2 billion for 1996–97. Local authorities also use resources from revenue and useable capital receipts for capital expenditure on housing. In 1995–96, this totalled £1.1 billion. It is up to local authorities to use these resources efficiently and effectively to address their local housing needs, including those of the elderly.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authority expenditure is met by the council tax in(a) Hyndburn borough council and (b) Westminster city council. [29796]
  411
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The proportion of local authority expenditure funded by council tax depends largely on where an authority sets it budget in relation to its standard spending assessment.

  Hyndburn borough council has set a budget in 1996–97 which is 28.4 per cent. above its SSA, so the proportion of expenditure funded by council tax is 41.5 per cent. while Westminster city council has set a budget which is 12.7 per cent. below its SSA, so its proportion is 14.2 per cent.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authority expenditure council tax constitutes in(a) Nottingham and (b) Westminster. [30535]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The proportion of local authority expenditure funded by council tax depends largely on where an authority sets its budget in relation to its standard spending assessment.

  Nottingham city council has set a budget in 1996–97 which is 10.9 per cent. above its SSA, so the proportion of expenditure funded by council tax is 28.7 per cent., while Westminster city council has set a budget which is 12.7 per cent. below its SSA, so its proportion is 14.2 per cent.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from planning authorities to his new proposals for planning appeals; and if he will make a statement. [29798]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Responses to the Department's recent draft circular on planning appeal procedures have been received from the main local authority associations in England and from nine local planning authorities. Responses have also been received from around 80 other organisations.

  Noisy Neighbour Prosecutions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how may(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful noisy neighbour prosecutions have been brought in (i) the London borough of Ealing and (ii) other London boroughs in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [30662]

  Mr. Clappison
  Comprehensive details are not available. The tables set out the readily available information:

  (1) 1991–92 to 1993–94 (based on responses to surveys by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and information from the London borough of Ealing)

  Year

  Number of London boroughs

  Number of prosecutions1,4 (of which are Ealing)

  Number of convictions1,4 (of which are Ealing)

  1991–92

  18

  113(11)

  93(11)

  1992–93

  20

  106(13)

  101(12)

  1993–94

  18

  154(24)

  131(22)

  412

  (2) 1994–95 to 1995–96 (based on information from the London Borough of Ealing)

  Year

  Number of prosecutions1 4

  Number of convictions1 4

  1994–95

  132

  102

  1995–96

  253

  243

  1 Prosecutions and convictions under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 relating to noise from domestic premises.

  2 A further three successful prosecutions were brought under section 23 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 relating to domestic intruder alarms.

  3 A further six successful prosecutions were brought under section 23 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 relating to domestic intruder alarms.

  4 Some prosecutions and convictions may relate to complaints in previous years.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to reduce air pollution. [29795]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government will be publishing a consultation draft of a national air quality strategy this summer, as required by the Environment Act 1995. It will include air quality standards and objectives, and set out the measures required to meet those objectives.

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; what agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30563]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Tree Planting
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to continue and expand initiatives to encourage tree planting in towns and the countryside. [29797]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the recent White Paper, "Rural England", we said that the Government would like to see a doubling of the woodland in England over the next half century. To this end we support directly the national forest in the east midlands and the 12 community forests. In addition to the £35 million the Forestry Commission will provide in forestry grants this year, Government-funded regeneration grants and agri-environment schemes can also support tree planting. My Department has spent over £1 million since 1992 on research into more cost effective tree planting and management methods.

  In 1995 my Department established the national urban forestry unit to promote good practice in the planting and management of trees and woodlands in urban areas. The unit will work in partnership with local authorities, groundwork trusts, English Partnerships and other public, private and voluntary sector interests. Urban forestry will be an important element of the greening the city initiative which I launched last October. This initiative is drawing together information, experience and expertise on the greening of our towns and cities and we will make this available as a good practice guide, to be launched at a

  413
  national conference in the autumn. We are also assisting local authorities to develop tree strategies for their areas and to encourage the planting of trees when land is developed.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and

  All disciplines

  Grade

  Female

  Per cent.

  Male

  Per cent.

  Total

  Questions (a) i, (a) ii and (b)

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  1

  100

  1

  Grade 2

  3

  60

  2

  40

  5

  Grade 3

  3

  12

  23

  88

  26

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  5

  100

  5

  Grade 5

  22

  19

  94

  81

  116

  Grade 6

  28

  10

  253

  90

  281

  Grade 7

  135

  24

  434

  76

  569

  SEO and equivalents

  113

  23

  383

  77

  496

  HEO and equivalents

  270

  35

  503

  65

  773

  EO and equivalents

  409

  45

  495

  55

  904

  AO and equivalents

  689

  63

  404

  37

  1,093

  AA and equivalents

  318

  65

  174

  35

  492

  Total

  1,990

  42

  2,771

  58

  4,761

  Question (c) administrative staff only

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  1

  100

  1

  Grade 2

  2

  50

  2

  50

  4

  Grade 3

  2

  10

  18

  90

  20

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  1

  100

  1

  Grade 5

  13

  16

  68

  84

  81

  Grade 6

  3

  13

  20

  87

  23

  Grade 7

  85

  28

  215

  72

  300

  SEO

  44

  20

  174

  80

  218

  HEO

  216

  36

  389

  64

  605

  EO

  341

  45

  414

  55

  755

  AO

  486

  56

  380

  44

  866

  AA

  139

  55

  112

  45

  251

  Total

  1,331

  43

  1,794

  57

  3,125

  Consultants
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the(a) contracts with and (b) work carried out for (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies, (iii) development corporations and (iv) housing action trusts by (1) Paddington Consultancy Partnership Ltd. or its directors, (2) Millbank Consultants, (3) Mr. Neale Coleman, (4) Mr. Stephen Hilditch and (5) Mr. Peter Bradley; and if he will indicate the total fees paid to (1) to (5). [30661]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Stonebridge housing action trust currently has a contract with Paddington Consultancy Partnership Ltd. to advise on the market test of its housing management function and to assist with the tender process. The contract was tendered competitively and is worth £42,350 including VAT.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings have been bought under(a) the right-to-buy and (b) the rent-to-mortgage schemes; and if he will make a statement. [30042]
  414
  (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women in his Department on 1 April. [30547]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following information covers non-industrial staff in my Department as at 1 April 1996:

  Mr. Clappison
  Between the introduction of right-to-buy legislation in October 1980 and the end of December 1995, local authorities and new towns in England reported total sales under RTB of 1.25 million homes. In the same period, housing associations reported right-to-buy sales of 28,000.

  Between the introduction of the rent-to-mortgage scheme in October 1993, and the end of December 1995, there have been 16 completed sales.

  Water Leakages
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the domestic water supply was lost in leakage and what was the shortfall in supply last year; and what estimate he has made of the shortages in summer 1996. [29777]

  Mr. Clappison
  Leakage figures for the year 1995–96 are not yet available. For 1994–95 about 30 per cent. of the water put into the domestic supply system was lost due to leakage, including leakages from customers' supply pipes.
  415
  There were no supply cuts last year despite one of the hottest and driest summers for over 200 years. The Environment Agency has confirmed in its recent report to my right hon. Friend on the water resource and supply situation for this summer, that, although there is no room for complacency, the measures water companies are taking should be sufficient to enable essential supplies to be maintained in all areas even through a hot, dry summer.

  Highways Maintenance, Lincolnshire
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consultations he had with those delivering services and those involved in taking the decision to award the contract before ordering Lincolnshire county council to re-tender its highways maintenance contract; [30581]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the recommendations by Touche Ross in respect of the tendering of the highways maintenance contract by Lincolnshire county council. [30582]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Following a complaint from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, officials of the Department undertook an investigation of the way in which Lincolnshire county council decided to carry out highways maintenance work. In considering the authority's response to a notice served on it, my right hon. Friend took account of the authority's possible externalisation of the work, but decided to give a direction as it appeared to him that the authority had acted anti-competitively. Since then, officials have met officers of the authority, and discussed externalisation plans, including the Touche Ross report. The authority has been

  Average house price

  Mix adjusted house price index

  Average price £

  Annual percentage change

  Percentage change on 1990

  Annual percentage change

  Percentage change on 1990

  1990

  54,700

  10

  n/a

  2

  n/a

  1991

  58,500

  7

  7

  0

  0

  1992

  57,900

  -1

  6

  -3

  -3

  1993

  58,300

  1

  7

  -1

  -4

  1994

  59,100

  1

  8

  1

  -4

  1995

  60,500

  2

  11

  -1

  -4

  Source:

  Department of the Environment, Survey of Mortgage Lenders (5 per cent. sample of mortgage completions).

  The figures in the first three columns of the table show changes in the prices of a sample of properties sold in each year without adjustment for changes in the mix of properties sold. The Department's mix adjusted house price index included in the fourth and fifth columns overcomes this limitation.

  Reliable figures of average house prices for Coventry are unavailable.

  House Building, Lancaster
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what body is responsible for determining the Lancaster target of 8,300 new homes in the period 1991 to 1996 as set out in the Lancashire structure plan. [30794]
  416
  told that when its externalisation plans are firm, the Secretary of State will consider any request it might make to carry the direction so that it does not cut across those plans. Ministers and officials have regular meetings with the FCEC to discuss the ability of the private sector to undertake highway work.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to collate figures on repossession by region. [30757]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government do not collect figures on repossessions. These figures are collected by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and are not available by region.

  Fisheries Service
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibility his Department has for the funding of the fisheries service. [31007]

  Mr. Clappison
  None.

  House Prices
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average house price in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands in each year since 1990; and if he will express the figures (i) as a percentage change on the previous year and (ii) as a percentage change on 1990. [30754]

  Mr. Clappison
  Figures for the west midlands region are as follows:

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Lancashire county council is responsible for preparing the Lancashire structure plan. Lancaster city council was involved in the wide consultation process which took place.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are homeless in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands. [30755]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities in England report to my Department, on their quarterly P1E return, the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985.

  The latest estimate for the west midlands appears in table 2 of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act 1985: England. Statistics for the fourth quarter of 1995".
  417
  The latest reported figure for Coventry appears in the associated supplementary table.

  House Sales
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many house sales there were in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands in each year since 1990; and if he will express the figures (i) as a percentage change on the previous year and (ii) as a percentage change on 1990. [30756]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information for the west midlands region is as follows:

  Number of residential transactions

  Annual percentage charge

  Percentage change on 1990

  1990

  125,000

  -13

  n/a

  1991

  119,000

  -5

  -5

  1992

  91,000

  -24

  -27

  1993

  97,000

  7

  -22

  1994

  109,000

  12

  -13

  19951

  98,000

  -10

  -22

  1 Provisional.

  Source:

  Inland Revenue Survey of Property Transactions.

  Reliable information on the number of house sales in Coventry is not available centrally.

  Educational Needs Funding
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the decision was made to ignore the change in income support claimants since 1994–95 in respect of the additional educational needs index weighting within the education standard spending assessment for 1996–97; and if he will list for each local education authority the effect on the funding for additional educational needs if the change in income support claimants since 1994–95 had been taken into account. [30810]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Final decisions on the distribution of standard spending assessments for 1996–97 were taken during January this year, following consultation with the local authority associations and the consideration of representations from local authorities.

  The table shows the effect on the education block of SSAs of using numbers of income support claimants since 1994–95 in place of the numbers actually used in SSAs for 1996–97.

  1996–97 Education SSA

  Change

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  City of London

  0.759

  0.000

  0.0

  Camden

  78.312

  1.147

  1.5

  Greenwich

  114.263

  1.357

  1.2

  Hackney

  92.084

  1.624

  1.8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  56.047

  0.733

  1.3

  Islington

  81.095

  1.281

  1.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  34.193

  0.299

  0.9

  Lambeth

  100.826

  1.687

  1.7

  Lewisham

  108.942

  1.410

  1.3

  418

  1996–97 Education SSA

  Change

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  Southwark

  109.297

  1.83

  1.7

  Tower Hamlets

  122.839

  2.599

  2.1

  Wandsworth

  86.304

  0.808

  0.9

  Westminster

  58.134

  0.630

  1.1

  Barking and Dagenham

  69.879

  0.413

  0.6

  Barnet

  117.029

  0.268

  0.2

  Bexley

  88.646

  -0.157

  -0.2

  Brent

  109.692

  1.492

  1.4

  Bromley

  103.845

  -0.389

  -0.4

  Croydon

  118.396

  0.493

  0.4

  Ealing

  112.151

  0.912

  0.8

  Enfield

  117.827

  0.664

  0.6

  Haringey

  93.427

  1.567

  1.7

  Harrow

  72.99

  -0.007

  0.0

  Havering

  87.183

  -0.314

  -0.4

  Hillingdon

  93.797

  0.133

  0.1

  Hounslow

  94.807

  0.689

  0.7

  Kingston upon Thames

  47.066

  -0.099

  -0.2

  Merton

  58.096

  0.089

  0.2

  Newham

  130.381

  2.118

  1.6

  Redbridge

  98.258

  0.351

  0.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  45.854

  -0.316

  -0.7

  Sutton

  67.782

  -0.016

  0.0

  Waltham Forest

  97.421

  1.129

  1.2

  Birmingham

  448.721

  4.720

  1.1

  Coventry

  119.872

  0.663

  0.6

  Dudley

  104.158

  -0.292

  -0.3

  Sandwell

  118.096

  0.643

  0.5

  Solihull

  73.069

  -0.348

  -0.5

  Walsall

  108.588

  0.331

  0.3

  Wolverhampton

  99.898

  0.721

  0.7

  Knowsley

  73.138

  0.897

  1.2

  Liverpool

  209.232

  2.527

  1.2

  St. Helens

  66.604

  0.005

  0.0

  Sefton

  106.847

  0.128

  0.1

  Wirral

  132.298

  0.645

  0.5

  Bolton

  100.891

  0.078

  0.1

  Bury

  61.635

  -0.184

  -0.3

  Manchester

  188.261

  2.938

  1.6

  Oldham

  94.759

  0.241

  0.3

  Rochdale

  82.736

  0.265

  0.3

  Salford

  82.496

  0.413

  0.5

  Stockport

  89.804

  -0.478

  -0.5

  Tameside

  80.591

  -0.217

  -0.3

  Trafford

  76.735

  -0.155

  -0.2

  Wigan

  110.133

  -0.292

  -0.3

  Barnsley

  76.867

  -0.059

  -0.1

  Doncaster

  119.680

  0.205

  0.2

  Rotherham

  102.425

  0.123

  0.1

  Sheffield

  170.970

  0.397

  0.2

  Bradford

  209.868

  1.217

  0.6

  Calderdale

  77.167

  0.106

  0.1

  Kirklees

  141.523

  -0.095

  -0.1

  Leeds

  252.509

  -0.036

  0.0

  Wakefield

  111.605

  -0.262

  -0.2

  Gateshead

  70.844

  0.246

  0.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  99.652

  0.764

  0.8

  North Tyneside

  68.757

  0.057

  0.1

  South Tyneside

  59.03

  0.191

  0.3

  Sunderland

  114.863

  0.296

  0.3

  Isles of Scilly

  1.233

  -0.012

  -0.9

  Bedfordshire

  220.156

  -0.207

  -0.1

  Berkshire

  282.308

  -1.009

  -0.4

  Buckinghamshire

  252.855

  -1.155

  -0.5

  Cambridgeshire

  237.278

  -1.042

  -0.4

  Cheshire

  348.970

  -1.392

  -0.4

  Cornwall

  164.930

  -0.704

  -0.4

  Cumbria

  170.602

  -0.919

  -0.5

  419

  1996–97 Education SSA

  Change

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  Derbyshire

  319.922

  -1.328

  -0.4

  Devon

  345.862

  -1.070

  -0.3

  Dorset

  207.427

  -0.850

  -0.4

  Durham

  216.644

  -0.219

  -0.1

  East Sussex

  219.761

  -0.378

  -0.2

  Essex

  566.981

  -1.994

  -0.4

  Gloucestershire

  183.797

  -1.014

  -0.6

  Hampshire

  525.153

  -2.700

  -0.5

  Hereford and Worcester

  229.005

  -1.404

  -0.6

  Hertfordshire

  387.245

  -1.663

  -0.4

  Isle of Wight Council

  45.138

  -0.099

  -0.2

  Kent

  581.733

  -1.431

  -0.2

  Lancashire

  510.448

  -0.766

  -0.1

  Leicestershire

  333.840

  -0.588

  -0.2

  Lincolnshire

  213.026

  -1.197

  -0.6

  Norfolk

  243.384

  -1.242

  -0.5

  Northamptonshire

  222.270

  -0.815

  -0.4

  Northumberland

  113.513

  -0.571

  -0.5

  Nottinghamshire

  365.135

  0.017

  0.0

  Oxfordshire

  192.571

  -1.340

  -0.7

  Shropshire

  145.332

  -0.830

  -0.6

  Somerset

  150.908

  -1.093

  -0.7

  Staffordshire

  366.019

  -1.826

  -0.5

  Suffolk

  217.470

  -1.476

  -0.7

  Surrey

  307.474

  -2.515

  -0.8

  Warwickshire

  164.025

  -0.951

  -0.6

  West Sussex

  235.410

  -1.285

  -0.5

  Wiltshire

  197.517

  -1.304

  -0.7

  Bath and North East Somerset

  54.404

  -0.23

  -0.4

  City of Bristol

  119.87

  0.386

  0.3

  North Somerset

  58.642

  -0.416

  -0.7

  South Gloucestershire

  78.677

  -0.547

  -0.7

  Hartlepool

  37.013

  0.102

  0.3

  Middlesbrough

  61.491

  0.452

  0.7

  Redcar and Cleveland

  59.590

  0.174

  0.3

  Stockton on Tees

  71.747

  0.008

  0.0

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  102.701

  0.659

  0.6

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  102.954

  -0.928

  -0.9

  North East Lincolnshire

  64.840

  0.045

  0.1

  North Lincolnshire

  56.381

  -0.301

  -0.5

  North Yorkshire

  185.854

  -1.603

  -0.9

  York

  52.793

  -0.25

  -0.5

  Inner London

  1043.096

  15.404

  1.5

  Outer London

  1824.526

  9.019

  0.5

  Mets

  4304.322

  16.400

  0.4

  Shires

  9484.108

  -38.362

  -0.4

  New LEAs

  1106.956

  -2.449

  -0.2

  Isles of Scilly

  1.233

  -0.012

  -0.9

  England

  17.764.242

  0.000

  0.0

  Copies of both are in the Library.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many registered disabled people are employed by his Department; and what percentage this is of the total figures. [30771]
  420
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department currently employs a total of 91 disabled people of whom 60 are registered and 31 are non-registered. This constitutes 2 per cent. of the total number of staff employed in the Department and its agencies.

  Gloucestershire County Council
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the debt figure for Gloucestershire county council for each of the last 10 years. [30799]

  Mr. Paul Beresford
  The information for Gloucestershire county council is as follows:

  Outstanding debt at end of financial year1

  £ million

  1985–86

  45.9

  1986–87

  53.4

  1987–88

  66.8

  1988–89

  92.4

  1989–90

  104.4

  1990–91

  121.1

  1991–92

  124.5

  1992–93

  129.9

  1993–94

  136.3

  1994–95

  150.8

  Sources:

  11983–90 CIPFA Capital Expenditure and Debt Financing Statistics, 1990–95 Total external debt, borrowing and lending surveys and PWLB.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, columns 44–45, how many (a) unconditional on-demand bonds, (b) performance bonds, (c) parent company guarantees, (d) advance payment bonds and (e) retention bonds were required by his Department in the last five years. [31230]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Alport Dale
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding Forest Enterprise's proposals for Alport dale in the Peak District national park. [31158]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have received 11 representations concerning Forest Enterprise's harvesting and replanting proposals for Alport dale, including one petition.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will intervene to prevent the extension of forestry plantation in Alport dale in the Peak District national park. [31159]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand there are no plans to extend the woodlands at Alport dale.

  Water Additives
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received from the
  421
  drinking water inspectorate on the addition of aluminium sulphate to remove discolouration from drinking water supplies. [31137]

  Mr. Clappison
  The drinking water inspectorate has made no reports about the use of aluminium sulphate in drinking water treatment.

  Aluminium compounds have long been established in most parts of the world as coagulants in water treatment and their use is considered unobjectional on health grounds.

  Smoke Control
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many fuels are now authorised to be burnt in smoke-controlled areas. [31107]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are currently 47 fuels authorised for use in smoke control areas by the Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) Regulations 1991 and by subsequent amendments.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to deregulate smoke control legislation. [31104]

  Mr. Clappison
  As announced in "Cutting Red Tape" in January 1994, the Government intend to repeal certain sections of the Clean Air Act 1993, including section 4 which enables local authorities to approve the design and installation of industrial furnaces in order to ensure smokeless operation. These are no longer necessary in light of changes in fuel use and the provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many fuels currently on the market cannot be burnt in smoke controlled areas. [31105]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department does not maintain a list of all such fuels. The use of a fuel, other than one authorised by the Secretary of State in the Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) Regulations 1991 and subsequent amendments, may constitute an offence under the Clean Air Act 1993. Some unauthorised fuel, such as coal and wood, may be used in smoke control areas when burnt in fireplaces exempted by order of the Secretary of State.

  Waste Management, Plymouth
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authority will be responsible for all aspects of waste management after unitary status is granted to Plymouth. [31101]

  Mr. Clappison
  Once a shire district has become a unitary authority, it is both waste collection authority and waste disposal authority for its area. Waste regulation, however, is not a local authority function; instead it is exercised by the Environment Agency.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government auditors in Lancashire. [29773]
  422
  Mr. Curry
  I have had no such representations, although we receive representations about a range of audit issues in Lancashire, as in other parts of the country.

  Song Birds
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he is carrying out into song bird conservation and sparrowhawk predation; and if he will make a statement. [31194]

  Mr. Clappison
  The nature conservation agencies are participating in a number of studies and action plans related to the conservation of a variety of song bird, and other, species. Contracts with the British Trust for Ornithology support the breeding bird survey, common bird census, nest record card system, and the constant effort ringing scheme—which assesses annual productivity and survival. No specific work is presently being funded into predation by sparrowhawks. Earlier studies have indicated that this is not a significant factor causing decline in national song bird populations.

  Fluoroaceteamid
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further research has been undertaken since 24 October 1995 into the use of the pesticide fluoroaceteamid on farming land in Kent in 1963 and the subsequent removal of contaminated soil from the farm. [29484]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 14 May 1996]: None.

  Concessionary Travel
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost of complying with the Atkins v. Wrekin district council and Department of Transport decision by the advocate general of the European Court of Justice (a) in the current financial year, (b) in future years and (c) for each year between 1984 and 1995. [30134]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 16 May, Official Report, columns 571–72.

TRANSPORT

  Concessionary Travel
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to amend the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and Transport Act 1985 to include men aged 60 years or over as a further eligible class of person for transport concessions following the Atkins v. Wrekin district council and Department of Transport case considered by the European Court. [30026]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 10 May,Official Report, column 275.
  423
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) in what circumstances men aged 60 to 65 years since December 1984 will be able to claim compensation from their local authority as a result of the Atkins?. Wrekin district council and Department of Transport case considered by the European Court; [30025]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of complying with the Atkins v. Wrekin district council and Department of Transport case decision by the advocate general of the European Court of Justice (a) in the current financial year, (b) in future years and (c) for each year between 1984 and 1995. [30134]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 16 May, Official Report columns 571–72.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost to public funds in 1995 of treating oil pollution at coastal resorts. [30205]

  Mr. Norris
  No costs were incurred by central Government in 1995 on the treatment of oil pollution at coastal resorts. Information on local authority expenditure on oil pollution response activities is not collected centrally.

  Airworthiness
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice in relation to airworthiness safety is provided by the Civil Aviation Authority to the Jamaican Government. [30492]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority contract with the Government of Jamaica lists the general airworthiness matters on which it shall advise in a two-page technical appendix. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Heavy Vehicle Licensing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those vehicles exempt from goods vehicle operator licensing regulations and the reasons for exemption. [30471]

  Mr. Norris
  The classes of vehicle for which a heavy goods vehicle operator licence is not required are listed in schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995.

  There is a variety of reasons for the exemptions but, generally, it is either because the vehicles are not widely used on public roads and are not therefore a significant road safety hazard, or because they do not carry goods commercially. We are currently carrying out a review of these exemptions.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the total income generated by(a) the heavy goods vehicle operator licensing fee, (b) the public service vehicle operator licensing fee and (c) bus registration fees. [30461]
  424
  Mr. Norris
  The figures are:

  Year

  HGV operator licencing

  PSV operator licensing

  Bus registration

  1991–92

  14,588,537

  2,819,169

  673,826

  1992–93

  15,424,930

  2,561,242

  633,550

  1993–94

  19,093,817

  5,487,195

  668,594

  1994–95

  21,442,222

  3,855,768

  779,667

  1995–96

  26,751,672

  4,834,615

  720,712

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce legislation relating to the impounding of illegally operated vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [30489]

  Mr. Norris
  We are currently considering possible schemes for the impounding of illegally operated heavy goods vehicles.

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mrs Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the total running cost budgets for(a) the Vehicle Inspectorate's enforcement activities and (b) the traffic area office network. [30462]

  Mr. Norris
  (a) The budgets agreed with the Vehicle Inspectorate for its enforcement activity in respect of heavy goods and public service vehicle were as follows:

  Total HGV and PSV traffic and roadworthiness enforcement budgets including operator licence support work

  Year

  £ million

  1991–92

  13,492

  1992–93

  13,651

  1993–94

  13,230

  1994–95

  13,109

  1995–96

  13,344

  (b) The traffic area network running costs budgets were:

  £ million

  1991–92

  11.36

  1992–93

  12.385

  1993–94

  13.045

  1994–95

  11.754

  1995–96

  11.125

  Roadside Checks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by police force area the number of roadside checks undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate which have had to be cancelled over the last 12 months due to lack of police resources. [30490]

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on the number of roadside checks cancelled due to lack of police resources.

  425
  The information requested was not collected prior to 1 October 1995.
  However, out of a total of 2113 roadchecks carried out, the number cancelled by police during the period I October 1995 to 31 March 1996—by police force area—was as follows:

  Number of roadchecks

  Staffordshire

  3

  Kent

  14

  Lincolnshire

  5

  West Yorkshire

  3

  South Yorkshire

  1

  North Yorkshire

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  3

  Dorset

  1

  Thames Valley

  7

  Sussex

  3

  Surrey

  4

  Metropolitan

  2

  Essex

  1

  Cumbria

  3

  Cheshire

  2

  Northumbria

  1

  Merseyside

  1

  Dyfed Powys

  1

  West Mercia

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Transport

  1

  Other forces

  nil

  Large Goods Vehicle Licences (Exemptions)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reasons for the prohibition of people with diabetes subject to insulin treatment from holding a large goods vehicle driver's licence. [30538]

  Mr. Norris
  The prohibition is based on authoritative medical advice about the risk of a hypoglycaemic attack, which may occur suddenly and unpredictably and can cause loss of consciousness. A significant proportion of collapses at the wheel have been found to be associated with insulin treatment.

  M1
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when was the last time the central reservation and verges of the M1 in Northamptonshire and Hertfordshire were cleaned; and what is the programme for cleaning and collecting rubbish from motorways. [30682]

  Mr. Watts
  The central reservation and verges of the M1 in Northamptonshire were last cleaned at the junctions and service areas, these being the areas suffering most from litter, in the first week of April 1996. In Hertfordshire, the grassed sections of the central reservation were last cleaned during the winter programme which started in November 1995 and finished in March 1996; the hardened central reservation between junctions 8 and 10 was last cleaned in March; and the verges were cleaned approximately two months ago.

  Cleaning and collecting rubbish on motorways is undertaken as part of the Highways Agency's routine maintenance programme which, in respect of grassed central reservations, includes gully and drain clearing, grass cutting, safety inspection, litter picking and other detailed inspections. In respect of hardened central
  426
  reservation, it involves sweeping, cleaning, channel and gully clearing and detailed inspections. For verges, it involves sweeping the hard shoulder and litter picking.

  The level of funding available for routine maintenance this year has been reduced and all activities have been carefully reviewed to maintain downward pressure on costs. Activities such as cleaning and collecting rubbish are being limited to the minimum necessary for safety.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to widen the M1 from junction 1 to the Luton-Dunstable exit. [30681]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question about plans to widen the M1 from Junction 1 to the Luton/Dunstable exit.
  Proposals to widen the motorway between Junctions 6A and 10 were the subject of a public inquiry towards the end of last year. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are currently considering their decision and will make an announcement in due course.
  The junction serving Luton and Dunstable forms part of the widening scheme between Junctions 10 and 15. This scheme was identified in the recent programme review as having potential for smaller scale improvement. We are currently reviewing the scheme, for which statutory proposals were published in November 1994, with a view to meeting the overall objective of the scheme at a reduced cost. In the meantime the published proposals remain on the table but the proposed public inquiry has been suspended. We expect an announcement later this financial year on the outcome of the scheme review and the way forward.
  There are no plans to widen the M1 from Junction 1 to where it joins the M25 (Junction 6A).

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; which agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30570]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport and its agencies have used detective agencies: Appointed through the Treasury Solicitor's Department, in connection with seeking evidence for possible legal proceedings against trespassers on road construction sites and for processing legal documents.

  1994–95: 344,217

  1995–96: 477,774

  To establish the whereabouts of people believed to have caused damage to the Highways Agency's roads and structures for the purpose of making claims against them. Approximately 300 to 400 cases are pursed each year at an average cost of £50 to £.100 each.

  To assist in the recovery of overpayments of salary to Department of Transport staff.

  1994–96: four cases, total cost £190

  1995–96: nil cases

  427
  To hand serve summonses for unlicensed vehicle use and to carry out a debt collection trial, in unlicensed vehicle use cases, to recover outstanding out of court settlements.

  1994–95: £373,206

  1995–96: £133,953

  To obtain evidence in a personal injury case.

  1994–95: £5,000

  1995—–96: nil

  The names of some of the agencies involved are not available because they are not employed direct, however the following are some of the agencies that have been used:

  Brays Detective Agency

  Abro Watson Ltd.

  Deputron

  Subscription Services Ltd.

  Swift Credit Services

  Disc Services

  Drakes Group

  R. D. Denman Ltd.

  L and C Group Services

  Debt Managers (Scotland Ltd.)

  Financial Collection Agencies (UK) Ltd.

  East of England Trade Protection Society

  Legal and Trade Collection Ltd.

  C. Sharp Investigations and Security Consultants

  M25 (Noise Data Errors)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the reasons for the errors in the noise data presented in the non-technical summary of the environmental statement for the proposed widening of the M25 motorway between junctions 12 and 15; how many(a) of the original leaflets were issued, (b) letters were issued explaining the mistake and (c) of the corrected, environmental effect leaflets issued; what was the cost in each case; and if every objector to the scheme will receive a copy of the corrected leaflet. [30539]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads has asked me to reply to your recent question about the errors in the noise data recently published in the Environmental Statement for our proposals to widen the M25 between Junctions 12 and 15.
  The non-technical summary (NTS) of the Environmental Statement containing the incorrect noise information was issued to approximately 17,000 people and we sent them all a letter explaining and correcting the error. Our consultants delivered 4,500 of these letters on 9 and 10 May to people living close to the motorway. The remaining 12,500 were sent by post. The reason for the errors was an inputting mistake by our consultants into the computerised noise model for the scheme.
  We also made copies of the amended NTS available to everyone who attended the exhibitions held between 10 and 22 May. We have placed copies at 13 deposit points and will send a copy to anyone who requests one. The final costs for correcting the errors have yet to be determined but they will all be met by our consultants. I am sorry if this mistake caused any confusion or inconvenience to anyone with an interest in the proposals, but we took the earliest opportunity to ensure the correct information was available.
  428

  Light Dues
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which types of vessel are obliged to pay light dues and which are not in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Spain, (d) Greece and (e) Germany. [30576]

  Mr. Norris
  Some other European countries charge light dues, but details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In the UK, commercial vessels and pleasure craft over 20 tons and tugs and fishing vessels over 10m in length pay light dues. Full details of all liabilities and exemptions are contained in the light dues regulations.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his policy in respect of light dues on fishing vessels; and what changes he is evaluating; [30575]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the rationale for the light dues system; [30577]

  (3) for what reason fishing vessels are obliged to pay light dues. [30578]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government support the user pays principle and have concluded that the costs of navigation aids to shipping are a proper charge on those who use the services. It would not be acceptable to transfer the costs to the general taxpayer. Fishing vessels make use of all types of navigation aids, so they should contribute to the operating costs. Light dues are reviewed on a regular basis, but we are not currently considering any changes to the charges levied on fishing vessels.

  Ramsgate Harbour Access Road
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he had received the inspectors' report on the public inquiry held into the compulsory purchase orders and side road orders related to the Ramsgate harbour access road. [31037]

  Mr. Norris
  We still await the report.

  Rail Freight Terminal (Central Lancashire)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to bring forward the development of an international rail freight terminal in central Lancashire. [31021]

  Mr. Watts
  None. This is a matter for the private sector.

  Decca Navigator System
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Decca Navigator radio-navigational system. [30597]

  Mr. Norris
  We are currently awaiting formal recommendations from the general lighthouse authorities regarding the future of the Decca Navigator system.

  No decisions have yet been made.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 134, relating to plastic photocard driving licences, who carried out the preliminary and subsequent

  429
  public consultations; how many members of the public were consulted on each occasion; and how many (a) supported and (b) opposed plastic photocard driving licences. [31135]

  Mr. Norris
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency conducted both consultation exercises.

  In the preliminary exercise, 150 consultation documents were issued to organisation representing motorists and interested organisations. Forty-four written responses were received, of which 38 were in favour of proposals to include photographs on driving licences.

  In the subsequent exercise, some 1,500 consultation document were issued. There were 49 written responses, of which 46 support photocard licences.

  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now allow the grandfather rights of current public service vehicle and heavy goods vehicle licence holders to continue until retirement. [30798]

  Mr. Norris
  Following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 25 April,Official Report, column 248, that implementation of certain provisions of the second EC directive on driving licences is to be deferred until 1 January 1997, we are giving consideration to the precise arrangements to be introduced in respect of eyesight requirements for driving lorries and buses.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many registered disabled people are employed by his Department; and what percentage this is of the total figures. [30769]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of registered disabled people in my Department is 143, which is 1.2 per cent. of the total number of staff.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 150, if he will make an announcement on the total costs of the Railtrack flotation including the amounts paid to consultants. [31260]

  Mr. Watts
  The costs to the Government of the Railtrack share offer are estimated to be as follows:

  £ million

  Advisers fees and expenses

  9.4

  Marketing (including prospectus production and distribution)

  4.9

  Receiving bank and share shops

  1.3

  Overseas costs

  2.1

  Commissions

  24.8

  Total (UK and overseas offer)

  42.5

  These costs represent some 2.2 per cent. of the estimated total proceeds due from the sale of shares. The costs exclude stamp duty and VAT on services provided to the Government, which are not net costs to the Exchequer. There will be some further expenditure in respect of the instalment collection and the issue of bonus shares.
  430

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1996,Official Report, column 675, by what date his Department has requested that the costs awarded to it should be paid. [19836]

  Mrs. Browning
  The matter is being pursued by the usual legal means.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have been brought, or are pending, in respect of animals rejected as unfit to travel prior to export in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994, (d) 1995 and (e) the four months of 1996. [30722]

  Mrs. Browning
  This information could be collected centrally from the local authorities only at a disproportionate cost.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 412, when the temporary derogations expire for the 160 slaughterhouses yet to meet the requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene Inspection) Regulations 1992. [27875]

  Mrs. Browning
  Under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, which replaced the 1992 Regulations, the temporary derogations expired on 31 December 1995 for 136 slaughterhouses. The remaining 24 premises were granted extensions to their temporary derogations of between one and 12 months.

  Surplus Calves
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what methods are used to slaughter surplus calves seven to 10 days old; and what checks are made to ensure that these methods are humane. [30245]

  Mrs. Browning
  The welfare of calves at slaughter is protected by the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 731). The permitted methods of slaughter are stunning, by use of a captive bolt, concussion stunner or by electronarcosis—electrical stunning—which must be followed, without delay, by bleeding or pithing. The regulations lay down specific requirements for these operations. Slaughter of surplus calves under the calf processing aid scheme must take place in a licensed slaughterhouse registered under the scheme and under the supervision of the Meat Hygiene Service. An official veterinary surgeon must be at the premises when calves are handled.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the latest statistics available to him of the number of steers infected by BSE in England and Wales. [25576]

  Mrs. Browning
  Since 1986 and up to 2 May 1996, the number of steers confirmed as suffering from BSE in England and Wales is 21.
  431
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the incidence of BSE in other member states of the European Union. [27876]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 29 April 1996,Official Report, column 408.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE there have been in the United Kingdom and in each other European

  Summary of BSE cases in UK and other European countries as at 10 May 1996

  Country

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Denmark1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  France

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  3

  3

  8

  Germany1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  15

  14

  17

  18

  16

  19

  16

  9

  Italy1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Portugal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  12

  14

  5

  Switzerland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  9

  15

  28

  64

  69

  28

  United Kingdom

  7

  439

  2,228

  7,230

  14,394

  25,358

  37,238

  35,119

  24,455

  14,323

  1,832

  1 Cases recorded all in cattle imported from UK. With the exception of the UK and Swiss figures, all figures are based on figures reported to the OIE which may not always be accurate. Statistics given for European countries other than UK should be used as guide only.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure prompt payment of claims for compensation from cattle head deboners who had stocks of meat in store at the time when the ban on cattle head products for human consumption was announced. [31136]

  Mr. Baldry
  Cattle head deboners whose businesses are licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 can apply for financial assistance under the beef stocks transfer scheme which is operated by the Intervention Board executive agency on behalf of the agriculture Departments. The IBEA aims to make payments under this scheme as soon as possible, and in any case within 28 days of the receipt of the necessary verification documentation.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each of his Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30114]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Meat Hygiene Service will reply to the hon. Member through agency chief executive letters. The information for the Department's other agencies is as follows:

  Agricultural Development and Advisory, Service (ADAS)
  ADAS has market tested document creation services, banking services, welfare services and debt recovery services. Contracts have been awarded to private sector firms. ADAS is currently market testing insurance services and has short-listed four brokers. In the normal course of its business ADAS procures a wide range of local and central services from the private sector including, for example, office cleaning, maintenance, security and legal services.
  432
  Union country in each year since the disease was first recognised; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the differences in incidence. [29246]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following number of BSE cases have been recorded in the United Kingdom and other European countries in each year since the disease was first recognised.

  The reason for the difference in incidence is the exposure of cattle in the United Kingdom to infected animal feed which in exported form may have been a factor in some of the countries reporting cases in indigenous animals.

  Central Science Laboratory (CSL)
  Whilst the scientific services provided by CSL have been subject to market testing by the core-Department, CSL has not market tested any of its scientific work with a view to contracting out. In terms of non-scientific work, CSL has not carried out any strategic market testing as such. However, the agency is relocating to a new purpose-built laboratory near York in the late summer and services such as catering, operation of the day nursery and facilities management for the site will all be contracted out and bids are currently being evaluated.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD)
  The directorate market tested a part of its residue monitoring work and awarded a three year contract to a private contractor starting in 1995–96. This was a pilot exercise which if successful would lead to further work being market tested. The successful contractor decided after the first year to withdraw from the contract for commercial reasons. This work and the further work will be market tested in 1996–97.

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA)
  The services of the VLA have been subject to one market test. This was in the area of analysis of samples collected under the national surveillance scheme for the presence of veterinary residues in meat. The work is conducted for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. This market test was won by the in-house team at the VLA following competition with the private section.

  Letter from John FitzGerald to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996.
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on business, the Minister has asked me to reply on behalf of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) to your question about the market testing of services provided by his Department's Agencies.(30114)
  The VMD is responsible for the issue of marketing authorisations for veterinary medicines, for controls on their manufacture and distribution, for post authorisation surveillance of suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines and for the provision and implementation of policy advice to Ministers. The Agency is also responsible for the statutory and non-statutory surveillance for residues in meat and other animal products.

  433
  The analytical work undertaken as part of the statutory National Surveillance Scheme for residues in meat has been market tested and a contract was awarded to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, with an annual cost saving of almost 12 per cent.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 June 1996.
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service, your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the market testing of services has been passed to me for reply with regard to this Executive Agency.(30114)
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was launched on 1 April 1995 as an Executive Agency of MAFF. It took over from local authorities responsibility for the enforcement of the hygiene and welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed fresh meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales. The Government decision to set up the MHS was taken to meet the long-standing requests of a majority of representative organisations in the meat industry, who has criticised the uneven standards and varying costs of the service operated by local authorities.
  In the first year of its operation the MHS created the Hygiene Advice Team (HAT) project to visit and assess animal welfare conditions in all licensed slaughterhouses and hygiene in all fresh meat premises. Each visit was undertaken so as to assess the operation of the plant under normal working conditions. The purposes of the HAT project were to assess the overall character of hygiene and welfare and provide a common criteria of assessment and scoring against which improvements can be judged, but also to plan the optimum use of MHS resources and achieve maximum cost effectiveness in the delivery of its services, and to provide a uniform and equitable service for all customers.
  A considerable proportion of the Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) of the MHS are veterinary practises engaged by contractual arrangements. As a full cost recovery service and in line with government policy towards the extension of competition to public services in the form of tendering and Market Testing, the MHS seeks to ensure that the work of OVSs is conducted at optimum proficiency and price. Furthermore, the MHS undertakes a statutory consultation exercise with all plant operators about its proposed charges for meat inspection. Plant operators have the opportunity under the Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Examination for Residues) (Charges) Regulations 1995 to make representations about the proposed charges.
  In setting up the MHS great care was taken to avoid imposing additional costs on the industry and the agency's organisation, structure and overheads are the minimum consistent with providing an effective service. The MHS is also subject to challenging annual financial and performance targets to ensure that it delivers its services in the most cost effective way.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for Nuneaton will receive a reply to his letter dated 17 April regarding issues raised by his constituent, Mr. M. Hewitt. [30355]

  Mrs. Browning
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 16 May.

  "Rural England" White Paper
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the Government's review of rural training provision referred to on page 54 of the Government's "Rural England" White Paper. [30674]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for reviewing the support for training provided through ATB-Landbase referred to in the "Rural England" White Paper.
  434
  The Ministry has placed a further contract with ATB-Landbase. The contract, worth nearly £2 million, runs to 31 March 1997 and covers strategic industry training organisation, ITO, and lead body activities for the agricultural and commercial horticulture industries, together with funding to maintain a quality-assured training instructor register. The contract also includes funding for projects embracing training promotion and the development of local initiatives. In the longer term, we believe that our funding should be channelled through a competition process to ensure that support meets the industry's training support requirements at a reasonable cost. In deciding how to take matters forward, we shall be taking into consideration the Department for Education and Employment's recent proposals for the ITO network.

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95, which agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30571]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made no use of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff who are women in his Department on 1 April. [30554]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested for permanent non-industrial staff in my Department including executive agencies on 1 April 1996 is as follows:
  (a) Total male staff 5,776; total female staff 4,460.

  (b)

  Grade

  Total officials

  Women employed

  Percentage women

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  1

  25

  3

  20

  1

  5

  4

  13

  0

  0

  5

  102

  12

  12

  6

  185

  22

  12

  7

  831

  168

  20

  SEO

  1,083

  267

  25

  HEO

  1,589

  462

  29

  EO

  2,360

  896

  38

  (c)

  Grade

  Total officials

  Women employed

  Percentage women

  AO

  2,472

  1,607

  65

  AA

  1,550

  998

  64

  435
  These figures are provisional and more precise information will be published later this year in "Civil Service Statistics" copies of which are available in the Library. Information is not separately available for executive agencies. Casual and seasonal staff are excluded. Figures for total numbers at some grades are not directly comparable with 1995 figures because of reorganizations within MAFF.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effects of the routine use of antibiotics in farm animal feed; and if he will make a statement. [30725]

  Mrs. Browning
  The use of additives in animal feedingstuffs is subject to directive 70/524/EEC, as amended. No feed additive is permitted unless, at the level permitted in feedingstuffs, it does not adversely affect human or animal health or the environment. The EC Commission is advised on these matters by the independent Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition—SCAN—and each approval is subject to agreement by the Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs.

  In the UK, the possible development of antibiotic resistance in humans and animals from the use of antibiotics in animals is kept under review by the independent, scientific Veterinary Products Committee. The VPC has consistently followed the principles established in 1969 by the report of the joint committee on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine—the Swann report. The VPC's policy has been that new antimicrobials should not necessarily be precluded from therapeutic use in animals but that their prophylactic use should be discouraged.

  Against this background, the committee continues to consider each case on its merits. The committee reviewed its policy last year and confirmed that it did not require amendment. In doing so, it recognised that many antibiotics are effective against both human and animal disease and a number licensed in human medicine are also authorised for therapeutic use in animals. Their use in human medicine, however, far outweighs any animal use.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the animal feed products into which his Department has conducted research in respect of the spread of BSE; what measures have been undertaken as a result of this research; and what measures he has undertaken to monitor their effectiveness. [29578]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: Epidemiological investigations identified meat and bone meal of ruminant origin as the vehicle of transmission of BSE. Evidence from transmission experiments suggests that meal derived from central nervous tissue presented the greatest risk, although other tissues defined as specified bovine material—SBM—could not be excluded. Experiments recently published tested the effectiveness of the rendering processes within the EU in inactivating the BSE agent. These showed that some rendering systems in use in the 1980s did not inactivate the BSE agent fully.

  As a result of our understanding of BSE, largely resulting from various research programmes, a number of control measures were introduced:
  436
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988 prohibited the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminant animals on 18 July 1988.
  The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No2) Order 1990 extended the ban on the use of specified bovine offals to any animal feed.
  The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991 consolidated existing BSE legislation and introduced new provisions to prevent the use of meat and bone meal produced from SBOs as a fertiliser.
  In June 1994 a procedure of on farm sampling of animal feed from premises visited as a result of reported BSE suspect cases was introduced.
  The Spongiform Miscellaneous Encephalopathy (Amendments) Order 1994 extended the ruminant protein feed ban to include all mammalian protein in ruminant feedingstuffs.
  Validation of all rendering plants handling animal waste by the end of 1994, in accordance with Commission decision 94/382 on the approval of alternative heat treatment systems for processing animal waste of ruminant origin. The requirements of the decision were included in the Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995.
  The Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995 strengthened the controls in rendering plants handling SBOs by requiring them to operate dedicated rendering lines for the processing of SBO.
  The random sampling of animal feed in feed mills commenced in February 1996 in accordance with Commission Decision 95/287.
  The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Amendment) Order 1996 extended the mammalian protein feed ban to the feeding of mammalian protein to all farm animals, including horses and farmed fish.
  The Fertilisers (Mammalian Meat and Bone Meal) Regulations 1996 prohibit the use of meat and bonemeal as, or in, fertiliser used on agricultural land. It is only permitted for use in private gardens, and within greenhouses and glass or plastic structures.

  An enzyme linked immunoassay—ELISA—test has been developed to identify the presence of mammalian protein in animal feed. This has been used to monitor compliance with the ruminant feed ban.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many fishing vessels that were ejected from the register in 1988 are eligible to reapply and how many are not; what gross registered tonnage these vessels represent; and what kilowatts of power they have; [30579]

  (2) under what circumstances fishing vessels ejected from the register in 1988 may be reinstated; and if, following reinstatement, they are eligible for licences to fish for United Kingdom quotas. [30580]

  Mr. Baldry
  Fishing vessels refused registration under the nationality provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 can be admitted to the British register only if they meet the current registration eligibility requirements. In order to be eligible owners must be:

  (a) British citizens or persons who are nationals of a member state other than the United Kingdom and are established, within the meaning of article 52 of the EEC treaty, in the United Kingdom;

  (b) bodies corporate incorporated in a member state with a place of business in the United Kingdom;

  (c) European economic interest groupings, which are groupings formed in pursuance of article 1 of Council regulation (EEC) No. 2137/85 and registered in the United Kingdom;

  437

  (d) a local authority in the United Kingdom.

  Reinstated vessels are granted licences only if they held one prior to deregistration and it has not been used to licence another vessel in the meantime. If the licence has been used in this way, owners of reinstated vessels can obtain licences to fish only by transfer from other licensed vessels. Tonnage and engine power figures for vessels refused registration in 1989 are not readily available.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many notices were issued in respect of animals destined for export under articles 15 and 16 of the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994(a) between 23 January 1995 and 31 December 1995 and (b) in the first four months of 1996; [30720]

  (2) how many notices were issued in respect of animals destined for export under articles 11 and 12 of the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1992 in (a) 1993,(b) 1994 and (c) since 1 January 1995. [30719]

  Mrs. Browning
  Animals may begin journeys to other member states from many locations. Notices may be served for a variety of different circumstances, and there is no collection of information on a central basis. The figures requested could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) cattle, (b) sheep and (c) pigs were rejected as unfit to travel prior to export in each of the first four months of 1996. [30721]

  (b) Mrs. Browning
  The reported number of farm animals inspected prior to export during 1996 and rejected as unfit for transport have been as follows:

  Bovine

  Ovine

  Porcine

  January

  103

  471

  128

  February

  251

  204

  60

  March

  28

  131

  69

  April

  n/a

  n/a = not yet available.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he has issued to(a) his staff of local veterinary inspectors and (b) local authorities as to the bringing of prosecutions in respect of animals rejected as unfit to travel prior to export; and if he will make a statement. [30723]

  Mrs. Browning
  Officials of the Department maintain regular contact with local authorities on enforcement issues. Local authorities are familiar with the considerations pertaining to offences under the order, and will prosecute if they consider the evidence to be strong enough to warrant this. The position relating to LVIs is as set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 13 May 1996,Official Report, columns 379–80.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the Government's policy towards regulation COM (95) 55; [30763]
  438
  (2) what proposals he has for additional payments supplementary to decommissioning awards for shore fishermen who lost their jobs when their vessels were laid up. [30791]

  Mr. Baldry
  Document COM (95) 55 concerned a proposal which has now been adopted as Council Regulation 2719/95. It amends Council Regulation 3699/93 to allow member states to use funds allocated to them from the financial instrument for fisheries guidance to part-fund an early retirement scheme for fishermen and a compensation scheme for fishermen from decommissioned boats. The Government have always made it clear that they consider that such measures should be covered by national social security policies and are not an appropriate use of FIFG funds. The measures have not been included in those introduced in the UK under FIFG. The Government's view is that the needs of the industry are best served by using limited FIFG funds for decommissioning, vessel safety improvements, and improving marketing and processing and port facilities.

  Unlike other self-employed persons, share fishermen have access to contributory unemployment benefits. This gives them special access to unemployment benefit and, from October 1996, to contribution-based jobseeker's allowance.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to ensure that meat and livestock commissioners, Meat Hygiene Service and Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce officials observe his Department's rules on documentation, teeth and ear tags for cattle proposed for the 30-month culling scheme. [30803]

  Mrs. Browning
  Instructions are circulated to all officials involved in the operation of the scheme. Officials are required to observe the rules as they are for any other scheme.

  Fisheries Service
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department last undertook a detailed review of the funding of the fisheries service; and what plans he has for a further review. [31010]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department recently completed a fundamental expenditure review which included expenditure on fisheries. We also regularly examine our requirements for fisheries as part of the Department's financial planning arrangements.

  Cattle Birth Registration
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the British Veterinary Association about vets' signatures on cattle birth registration documents. [28869]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: The British Veterinary Association has made representations to the Chief Veterinary Officer about the role of local veterinary inspectors in facilitating cattle birth record documents which were introduced at the request of the industry after consultation with the British Veterinary Association and the British Cattle Veterinary Association.
  439
  We shall be making some minor changes to the present arrangements following further discussion with the relevant veterinary associations.

  Council of Europe Meetings
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995 have been attended by Ministers or officials of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [29357]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: No Minister from my Department has attended any meeting of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995, but officials have attended 17 meetings over this period.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 578, how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in each of his Department's agencies in each year since 1991. [29834]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]Responsibility for this matter is delegated to agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 4 June 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service, your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the number of professional scientists and engineers employed at each grade in each of the Department's agencies has been passed to me for reply with regard to this Executive Agency. (29834)
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was launched on 1 April 1995 as an Executive Agency of MAFF. It took over from some 300 local authorities responsibility for enforcement of the hygiene and welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales. Consequently the MHS employed no scientists or engineers before that date.
  The MHS headquarters are based in York where Chief Executive and the supporting functions of Operations, Finance, Human Resources and Information Technology are based. MHS services are managed by six regional offices. The Head of Operations as well as two of the regional Managers are qualified Veterinary Surgeons. The MHS also employs Official Veterinary Surgeons to supervise meat inspection staff working in plants. The MHS directly employs 22 Principal Official Veterinary Surgeons and 16 Official Veterinary Surgeons. In addition it contracts out work to 110 full time equivalent vets to supplement them. 5 vets are also utilised on a casual basis.

  Letter from John FitzGerald to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 4 June 1996:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on business, I have been asked by the Minister to reply on behalf of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate to your question about the numbers of professional scientists and engineers employed at the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in each year since 1991 as this is an operational matter for which the Chief Executive is responsible. (29834)
  The number of full time equivalent staff employed as professional software engineers within the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in each year since 1991 is as follows:
  440

  At 1 April

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  The number of full time equivalent staff employed in scientific grades within the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in each year since 1991 is as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Senior Scientific Officer

  3

  5

  5

  5

  5

  66

  Pharmaceutical Officer I

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Research Officer

  4

  8

  7

  7.5

  6.5

  9.4

  Senior Research Officer II

  6

  6

  5

  4

  4

  3

  For open structure grades of grade 7 and above, the following numbers of staff hold scientific degrees or equivalent qualifications and are engaged in the assessment of applications for marketing authorisations for veterinary medicines:

  At 1 April

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Grade 7

  5

  5

  5

  5

  6

  1

  Grade 6

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  The Director of Licensing (Grade 5) and the Chief Executive also hold scientific qualifications.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary question in which you asked how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in each of his Department's agencies in each year since 1991.[29834]
  ADAS was formed as an Executive Agency of MAFF and the Welsh Office in 1992.
  Most of the following posts are held by staff with scientific or engineering qualifications. We are unable to supply figures on a comparable basis before 1994.

  April 1994

  April 1995

  April 1996

  ASO

  145

  145

  148

  Consultant

  587

  449

  409

  Principal Consultant

  —

  —

  1

  Senior consultant

  296

  302

  294

  Grade 5

  15

  11

  11

  Grade 6

  32

  34

  32

  Grade 7

  90

  82

  68

  HSO

  45

  35

  28

  Scientific officer

  102

  84

  71

  Team manager

  93

  88

  83

  441
  Letter from Mr. T. W. A. Little to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on the number of professional scientists employed in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).
  The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service which was part of the State Veterinary Service. The following information therefore includes figures for the former Veterinary Investigation Service from October 1995.

  No engineers are employed at the VLA. Professional scientists, by grade, employed since 1991 are as follows:

  Number

  1 April 1991

  Grade 6

  7

  Grade 7

  6

  SROII

  23

  VRO

  27

  SSO

  38

  HSO

  56

  SO

  66

  ASO

  110

  333

  1 April 1992

  Grade 6

  6

  Grade 7

  7

  SRO II

  19

  VRO

  24

  SSO

  32

  HSO

  57

  SO

  63

  ASO

  126

  334

  1 April 1993

  Grade 6

  7

  Grade 7

  7

  SROII

  21

  VRO

  25

  SSO

  34

  HSO

  56

  SO

  65

  ASO

  135

  350

  1 April 1994

  Grade 6

  6

  Grade 7

  8

  SROII

  20

  VRO

  24

  SSO

  33

  HSO

  56

  SO

  64

  ASO

  140

  351

  1 April 1995

  Grade 6

  7

  Grade 7

  6

  SROII

  15

  VRO

  21

  SSO

  32

  HSO

  52

  SO

  68

  ASO

  141

  342

  442

  Number

  1 April 1996

  Grade 6

  7

  Grade 7

  6

  SROII

  15

  VRO

  24

  SSO

  32

  HSO

  49

  SO

  74

  ASO

  144

  351

  Ex VIS 1 April 1996

  Gd 6 Supt VIOs

  2

  Grade 7

  1

  SROII

  0

  VIO

  45

  SSO

  12

  HSO

  14

  SO

  35

  ASO

  99

  SVIO

  12

  220

  Casuals have been excluded and part-time counted as "whole posts". Staff on temporary promotion have been counted in their substantive grades.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about the number of professional scientists and engineers employed in his Department's Agencies since 1991 in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  CSL was first launched as an executive agency of MAFF on 1 April 1992. Prior to that date staffing numbers were included as part of the departmental total. CSL does not employ engineers. The number of professional scientists employed during the Agency's first year of operation, 1992–93, was not recorded by grade, however the overall average figure for the year was some 312 out of a total of 443 staff. CSL was relaunched as an enlarged agency on 1 April 1994 following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories at Norwich and Aberdeen. The number of professional scientists employed at the start of each subsequent financial year was:

  Grade

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  103

  115

  122

  Scientific Officer

  136

  137

  145

  Higher Scientific Officer

  101

  115

  113

  Senior Scientific Officer

  69

  74

  62

  Principal Scientific Officer

  41

  38

  30

  Grade 6

  10

  11

  13

  Grade 5

  2

  2

  2

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  1

  These figures include those employed on a fixed-term and casual basis.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about how many professional scientists and engineers have been employed in the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) since 1991, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  PSD has only been in existence as an Agency since April 1993. Since 1993 the following number of scientific staff have been employed:
  443

  Grade

  Number in post

  1993

  5

  1

  6

  1

  7

  15

  SSO

  25

  HSO

  49

  SO

  15

  ASO

  1

  1994

  5

  1

  6

  1

  7

  15

  SSO

  27

  HSO

  50

  SO

  20

  ASO

  6

  1995

  5

  1

  6

  1

  7

  15

  SSO

  28

  HSO

  52

  SO

  27

  ASO

  6

  1996

  5

  1

  6

  1

  7

  15

  SSO

  28

  HSO

  52

  SO

  29

  ASO

  8

  All scientific staff within the Agency from Scientific Officer and above hold a bioscience degree or equivalent.

  There are not qualified engineers within the Agency.

  Goosanders
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the published scientific studies evaluated by his Department into damage to fisheries in England caused by Goosanders. [29841]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: We are not aware of any scientific studies on the damage to fisheries by Goosanders in England. Investigations into such damage for selected sites in England are part of the current three-year research and development programme commissioned in 1995 by this Ministry, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency. The results of the research will be published as they become available.

  Food Retail Outlets (Lighting)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures control the use of 444
  artificial light in the display of (a) meat and (b) other foodstuffs in retail outlets; what plans he has for further regulations in this area; and if he will make a statement. [29630]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/1763) require "adequate natural and/or artificial lighting" in all food premises covered by these regulations, to help ensure hygienic handling.

  This Department has no plans to introduce further controls.

  Horticultural Research
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the extent of funding for horticultural research from his Department(a) in each year of the last five years and (b) planned for each of the next two years. [30017]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 22 May 1996]: The Department's expenditure on horticultural research in each of the last five years and planned expenditure for the present year are:

  Year

  £ million

  1991–92

  110.5

  1992–93

  111.1

  1993–94

  111.4

  1994–95

  13.4

  1995–96

  13.6

  1996–97

  13.6

  1 Excludes some work on pesticides for horticultural crops.

  Subject to the usual constraints of public expenditure planning, present expectations are that in 1997–98 expenditure will be at a similar level to 1996–97.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied. [21852]

  Mr. Boswell
  [pursuant to his reply 22 April 1996, Official Report, column 51]: Agriculture Ministers are required, under section 62 (3) of the Medicines Act 1968, to consult the Veterinary Products Committee before making an order and, under section 16(9)(a) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, to consult the Advisory Committee on Pesticides before making an order. There is no requirement to consult our other advisory non-departmental public bodies prior to legislative proposals or to publish our response to advice supplied by them, or the Veterinary Products Committee.

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

Conseil International du Sport Militaire
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the United Kingdom is no longer a member of the CISM (Conseil International du Sport Militaire.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the United Kingdom has not been a member of the Conseil International du Sport Militaire since 1952. Worthwhile membership of the CISM would require the UK to participate in, and on occasion host, a considerable number of formal events. Such a commitment would place a significant strain on manpower and financial resources. In keeping with the "amateur" ethos of sport in the services, the Armed Forces prefer to arrange fixtures with teams from other nations on an informal basis, within manpower and financial restrictions.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that the United Kingdom was a founder member of that council, which was formed at the end of the Second World War to celebrate peace through sport and to bring together the military of previously warring countries to join in sporting activities? Is he further aware that the membership of the council has now grown to over 120 countries? Is it not very sad that this country, whose record in peacekeeping is so superb, should not be involved in an activity of that kind?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I was indeed aware of the facts to which she alludes. Our decision not to participate in the CISM is regularly reviewed, most recently last year. So far, the three services have said that they prefer to allocate their time and their resources, both public and private, to other types of sporting event. Some of those events are international, with a particular emphasis on the Commonwealth. The clear message from the three services is that they would not wish those events to be put in jeopardy on account of any renewed commitment to the CISM.
Lord Howell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is one of those moments in time when professional sport in this country needs to encounter what the Minister quite rightly described as the "amateur ethos of sport"? Does he accept that it would be good for professional sport if the discipline and self-discipline found in Armed Services sport, which has made a great contribution to British sport over the years, were made readily available to some of our professional sports
1152
teams? In that sense, does he feel that the expenditure would be well worth undertaking, both for British sport and in terms of creating international good will and friendship between armed forces throughout the world who are our allies?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is interesting that a member of the party opposite should suggest additional public expenditure. That said, I agree with the noble Lord about the value of sport and international contacts between the military. He may be interested to know that our services have participated in recent sporting events at varying levels with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the West Indies, Thailand, South Africa, Zimbabwe and others. The cost of those events is met mainly from private funds. I recognise the force of some of the noble Lord's remarks, but there is a limit to the extent to which resources, both public and non-public, can be put.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the financial situation in which the Armed Forces find themselves operates against rejoining or participating in that organisation, why cannot they apply to the lottery fund for such purposes? It seems to be a hands-on grab for people in the know in the art world.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is a very interesting suggestion. An approach to the lottery fund would have to be taken forward by individual units rather than by the MoD. I am not in a position to judge how such an approach would be viewed by the lottery board.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that until recently France has not wished to be a full member of NATO—not for some 30 years? Would he welcome France's full participation in NATO? In the light of the Question and in view of the Government's concern to cut the defence budget to ribbons, does he not feel that it would be an excellent gesture to ask France to sponsor our membership of the Conseil International du Sport Militaire?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am willing to appoint the noble Lord as spokesman if he believes that to be a sensible way forward. I believe that a continuing issue of resources is involved. It is not simply a matter of money, though the sums are potentially significant; it is also a matter of manpower. CISM events would require individuals to be released from their units at what may be inconvenient times and the hosting of events would require considerable numbers of personnel to be made available.

Tobacco: Cross-border Shopping and Smuggling
2.43 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the lost revenue in excise receipts due to (a) cross-border shopping and (b) smuggling of tobacco products.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, Customs' estimate of excise duty revenue lost from legitimate personal importation of duty-paid tobacco products for the year ending 30th June 1995 is £120 million. Additionally, VAT receipts of £30 million are estimated to have been lost. Customs do not have an estimate of the extent of excise duty losses due to smuggling of tobacco products. They are working with the tobacco and alcoholic drinks industries with the aim of achieving an objective measurement of smuggling.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that one of the warehouses on the Continent of Europe situated near the ports in one week shipped 19 tonnes of tobacco out of its doors? Around 95 per cent. of that went to the United Kingdom, largely to the north east. Can my noble friend assure us that the statistics which are part of his study take into account the estimates of the retail tobacco trade, which calculate the loss to the Treasury due to smuggling and the evasion of tax on those products as being £1.6 billion?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, there are really two aspects to his Question. One concerns the loss to the revenue from those people who buy products abroad and bring them into this country legitimately under the single market arrangements. In that regard I answered his Question in relation to excise duty and VAT. If one extrapolates that figure, for the same period it comes to around £200 million at off-licence prices for tobacco coming in by that route. Smuggling is much more difficult to ascertain. Smugglers tend not to put up their hands at the port and say that they are smuggling X amount of items into the country. It is a difficult issue and we are discussing with the industry how to quantify it. At the same time, we are attempting to prevent it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord think it wise to have made cuts in the numbers of Customs and Excise officers over the past 10 years, not only on account of this loss that has occurred, but also because of the losses that occur in undetected fraud in the case of export refunds and other matters of that kind?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, deciding how many people should be employed in any agency—Customs and Excise, police or any other organisation—is a balance between the costs and the likely benefit from those costs. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we take seriously excise verification in relation to the single market regulations. We have moved to a situation which is much more intelligence-based for the simple reason that the old-fashioned procedure, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would prefer, of opening cases at random at ports is inefficient, especially when one considers that nearly 20 million people pass through the port of Dover in any given year.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is a serious problem for small
1154
shopkeepers? They are losing a lot of trade because of the smuggling and cross-border transfer of goods. Does he agree that the smuggling takes place at such a rate because the duty on our tobacco is the highest in Europe and equivalent to 4.5p on the standard rate of income tax? Is it not time that we achieved harmonisation of taxation within the Community so that smuggling can be alleviated?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the other countries in the European Union wish to harmonise their tax on tobacco products, I welcome that action. We impose the tax not only as a revenue-raising exercise, which it undoubtedly is, but also as a method of signalling that tobacco is a dangerous product.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a vast trade has developed in the black marketing of tobacco which has been smuggled into the country? Many criminals are thriving on the cross-border trade. With bulk buying on the Continent on a large scale, criminals are selling tobacco in the pubs and clubs of the north at half the UK price. As the noble Lord suggested, small shopkeepers are suffering terribly, some losing up to £20,000 a year. It also takes up a lot of police time. Apart from the Exchequer losses, it is a costly exercise. Apart from consultations with the tobacco industry and Customs and Excise, what positive steps are the Government taking to halt this illegal trade?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we should not get the size of the problem out of proportion in relation to the total amount of sales of tobacco products. The excise revenue from tobacco in this country is about £7.5 billion a year. As I mentioned in my original Answer, the legitimate import comes to around £120 million of lost excise duty. We do not know what smuggling adds to that, but we take it extremely seriously.
In the current year we increased the number of posts available for excise verification by some 20 people, based in the south east of England where the major entry ports of this country are situated. As I explained earlier, we are using all the intelligence methods at our disposal to catch those people who are importing illegally large amounts of tobacco products and alcoholic beverages.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, so far as cross-border shopping is concerned, many thousands of Scandinavians come to Newcastle each year to do their Christmas shopping and the shopkeepers on Tyneside are delighted to have them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am delighted to agree with the noble Lord. Indeed, the last time I answered a question like this, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that cross-border shopping is not all in one direction and is not all about tobacco and alcohol. There is considerable cross-border shopping from those Scandinavian countries into, as the noble Lord said, Newcastle and also into Scotland.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question, speaking as the

1155
chairman of FOREST and something of a student of the phenomenon of smoking. The tobacco trade from all its sources pitches the figure of lost duty and tax at around £600 million, which would imply that around 5 to 10 per cent. of the consumption of tobacco is outside the official channels of retailing and the taxation the Government take when they estimate the proportion of the population who smoke. Therefore, might not their estimate of the proportion of the population who smoke be too low, bearing in mind the avoidance of taxation and also the evasion of taxation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure where that question led me. I suspect the noble Lord wishes to hear me say that we should reduce taxation on tobacco products. However, I think he will he disappointed because I am convinced, as are the Government, that the health reasons for imposing considerable duty on tobacco are unanswerable.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that in the British Medical Journal last year there was a detailed study of tobacco smuggling. The study discovered that most tobacco smuggling was associated with organised crime and concluded that any reduction in smuggling must therefore involve increased co-operation between Customs and police authorities, particularly throughout the European Union. This week the European Union planned to push forward the development of a unified policing policy. The Government have said that they will veto that development. Is that not a free gift to the smugglers and to organised crime?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government's decision on these and other matters at the present time is a defence of British interests, which I know will come as a strange suggestion to the noble Lord—
Lord Eatwell: Smuggling!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords, not smuggling, because even the noble Lord knows that my right honourable friends are taking the view that they are adopting in the Councils of Europe because of the unreasonable attitude Europe is taking over beef. I should have thought that even the noble Lord would have understood that distinction without my having to spell it out to him.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the current major area for smuggling is hand rolling tobacco? If this continues, surely it will move into the area of cigarettes, which will produce a massive drop in the Treasury's takings.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right that the smuggling of hand rolling tobacco is a major problem. Indeed, it is one we watch very carefully. My right honourable friend the Chancellor took action last year by not increasing the duty on hand rolling tobacco in order to try to dampen down that trade.

Forestry Commission: Land Sales
2.55 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Since the inception of the Forestry Commission disposal programme: (a) how many hectares of land have been sold to private investors; (b) how many transactions have taken place; and (c) how many public access agreements have been agreed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, since the inception of the disposals programme in 1981 the Forestry Commission has sold 208,000 hectares of land, including 128,000 hectares of forest land in some 2,700 transactions. Nearly 100 access agreements have been concluded since we introduced the arrangements to protect public access in October 1991.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I welcome the Minister back. He arrived from Brussels only half an hour ago. I am sure I speak in the name of the whole House when I wish him well in the exacting duties he has to carry out in Brussels. Is the Minister aware that the total number of day visitors to the Forestry Commission estate is 50 million and that this represents a considerable contribution to the quality of life of people who enjoy the countryside? Will he give an assurance that there will be limits on the disposal of Forestry Commission land where there are not restrictions on access? Without such limits we shall be denying families the opportunity to enjoy walking and rambling in the countryside.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind remarks offered by the noble Lord. I am glad that he is pleased to see me back from the Continent. The noble Lord makes a very good point. There are indeed 50 million visitor trips to Forestry Commission lands. The Forestry Commission puts a considerable amount of effort and resources into improving the recreational facilities it has within its management.
However, the noble Lord's second point is based on two false assumptions. First, we do not seek to sell Forestry Commission land where public access is a priority or a significant feature. Our disposals programme is concentrated on those forestry sites where there is either no, or low, public access. Secondly, we try to concentrate our disposals programme on those areas of the Forestry Commission estate where, because of legal constraints, there may not be any public access whatever. I would add that when any Forestry Commission land is being disposed of we contact the local authorities and seek to enter public access agreements with them prior to the sale.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I declare an interest which I handed over to my family some years ago. Is my noble friend aware that in south-west Scotland, although the Forestry Commission has provided public access quite successfully, it does not always look after its plantations as well as it should? Will he do all that he can to expedite the opportunity of the owners of the land to

1157
buy back their plantations from the Forestry Commission where they have been leased or where they are held on a long feu?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as my noble friend makes clear, there are examples of good management and bad management in forestry both in the public sector and in the private sector. We are anxious to see the Forestry Commission's estate, which still exceeds 1 million hectares, rationalised. That involves sales of Forestry Commission land to the private sector where very often stronger incentives exist to manage well.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the contribution of the Forestry Commission to employment in the rural areas is significant and important? Can he tell the House how many people are currently employed by the Forestry Commission?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. The employment that forestry generally stimulates, especially in rural areas, is of great significance. Some 35,000 jobs are currently dependent on forestry. About 3,500 to 4,000 jobs are within the Forestry Commission itself. When one takes the current employment statistics, plus the fact that woodland production is up by 50 per cent. since 1980 and is set to double in the next 20 years, one can see a very secure source of employment for many years to come.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there are periods during the cycle of a crop of trees when it is totally appropriate that the public should be given access but that there are other periods when it is inappropriate, particularly during felling and the early stages of the growth of the trees? During the growth period, which is much more than 20 years, there is an opportunity for the public to establish rights of way across the land. Does he agree that it is high time that the Government instituted revisions to the law relating to access to land, particularly forestry land?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we, the Forestry Commission, all the other public sector agencies and the private sector take a very close interest in managing public access. It is of great benefit to many millions of people, although it carries some costs especially in terms of management. There are also costs in terms of the environment itself—to either habitat or species. Generally, the Government believe in encouraging and increasing public access. Now, for the very first time, we are actually increasing woodland access. What is more, we are increasing it in Great Britain in the areas where it is most needed.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be glad to know that the Government are anxious to increase public access. The Minister will be aware of the fact that in Scotland over the years hikers and walkers have had great benefit from access to forestry land and the hills generally. They are also the most fervent protectors of the land. If they see anyone desecrating land in any way they are the first people to
1158
stamp it out. Can the Minister say whether there is easy access to the places where forestry land has been sold off? Can he say how many points of access have been preserved? The people with whom I am associated are very keen on walking and hiking. They know their ordnance maps very well. If there is an easy way for them to transfer information, through their clubs, as regards places where they cannot go, that would be a great help. Can the Minister say whether there is access to the land which is for sale?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we are currently in discussions with the ordnance survey organisation to identify as usefully as possible those areas of Forestry Commission land where access is available and encouraged. The access agreements for the areas being disposed of are arranged through the local authority. That is a ready source of information. I remind the noble Lord and the House that the private sector is a huge source of access. Over 4,000 private woodland owners have taken benefit of the grants we supply to help them manage better their public access facilities.

Animal Feedstuffs: Listing of Ingredients
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Gage Viscount Gage asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will require fuller disclosure of the ingredients used in the manufacture of animal feedstuffs.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government welcome the recent announcement that the major feed compounders are to switch to full ingredient listing for most compound feeds. The position is being monitored and further action will be taken, if necessary.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I believe that UKASTA, which represents the majority of the major compounders, after many years of pleading from the National Farmers Union has agreed to list the ingredients fully on feedstuff packages. But I have learnt since tabling my Question, as the Minister will be aware, that it will shortly become a criminal offence for farmers to possess feedstuffs which contain suspect feed. While this voluntary agreement reached with UKASTA is welcome, does my noble friend agree that it is now time to make the listing of ingredients mandatory?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble kinsman is right. It is an event due to happen once we have put arrangements in place for removing all suspect feed from farms and enabling farmers to clean out their feed stores properly. Whether it will be right to insist on mandatory total ingredient listing at that time or whether we shall rely on farmers wishing to purchase only feeds that list the ingredients or when they can receive satisfactory assurances are matters that we are looking at very carefully.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that farmers and their organisations have been seeking full

1159
feed ingredient listing for a very long time? Is he further aware that it has been resisted by a number of the feed manufacturers and that it is only the BSE crisis which has forced a change of heart? Does the Minister agree that if full feed ingredient listing had been in place we would have been able to trace the source and use of the infected feed and deal with the BSE crisis much more quickly and effectively?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that it would have made any difference.
Lord Carter: My Lords, then why are they doing it now?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, looking back, farmers were quite happy with the practice of feeding meat and bonemeal to cattle before it was discovered to be dangerous. Once it was discovered to be dangerous, it was banned. Therefore, I do not believe that there is anything that farmers would have gained from knowing what the feed contained. Nonetheless, this is a positive step. It represents at last a recognition by the supermarkets and others that they have a responsibility for the history of the food that ends up on their shelves. I believe that it will encourage them to be much more supportive of the farmers who supply them and to develop a much more co-operative, rather than a confrontational, relationship with them. That will be all to the better for farming and for food in this country.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is believed, as far as it is understood, that scrapie-infected feedstuffs are the principal cause of BSE? Does he also agree that many of the cattle which it is now anticipated will be slaughtered in fact became infected after the bail on scrapie-infected feedstuffs had been imposed? The crux of the matter is that cattle have been infected since the ban and this is the key area. Does the Minister further agree that it would be a strong weapon in the armoury of the British Government in their martial exploits in Brussels if this issue were thoroughly understood? Therefore, I support my noble friend in his Question. I shall be interested to hear the answer.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as doubtless the House knows, we have published our plan for eradicating BSE. I believe that that plan is available in the Library, from the Ministry of Agriculture and in the Printed Paper Office. Clearly, part of it includes the total elimination of mammalian products from mammalian feed. The reason why that has become necessary and was enforced this year is that it became apparent that the original ban, which was just on feeding such products to ruminants, was not effective because of cross-contamination occurring in mills and farms and other problems. It took a while for us to find out that that was a problem because there is a five-year incubation period with the
1160
disease. Now we know that there is that problem, we have taken all the necessary action to make sure that there is no further infection from this source.

Party Wall etc. Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Deregulation (Gun Barrel Proving) Order 1996
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th April be approved [22nd Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft order is concerned with removing the burden imposed by the price control mechanism procedures, maximum charges and time limits currently imposed by gun barrel proving legislation. The proposal has completed the preliminary scrutiny procedures for deregulation orders under the 1994 Act. The Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers of your Lordships' House and the Deregulation Committee of the other place have separately assessed and reported on the proposal. Both committees have indicated that they are content with the draft order as it stands.
The purpose of this order is to amend the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 to 1978 in order to relieve the two proof houses in London and Birmingham of the obligation to seek the agreement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the alteration of the maximum prices they can charge for proofing or testing of gun barrels. Save in exceptional circumstances, at present such alterations can be made only every five years.
The main effect of the measure will therefore be to give the proof houses the freedom to set their own level of charges. In doing so it will relieve them of the procedural costs associated with applying every five years for a change in the maximum prices they can charge for proofing and the financial exposure they would face if market circumstances changed significantly before they could obtain the necessary approval.
The Government are satisfied that the measure will not reduce the necessary protection for consumers. There is no question of safety standards being affected because those provisions of the Act remain unaltered. As to the possibility of overcharging for gun proving, we consider that the competition which exists between the two proof houses in the United Kingdom, and the further competition represented by proof houses overseas, is sufficient to safeguard against any risk of overcharging. In the light of those factors, it is no surprise that when the department consulted more than 90 bodies about the draft order, all respondents either welcomed the proposal or offered no comments or objections.
This is a modest and sensible measure which reduces a burden without removing necessary protection. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 29th April be approved [22nd Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drinking Water: ECC Report
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Drinking Water (Fourth Report, HL Paper 31).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, some time last year the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the European Communities began an examination of the new draft directive on drinking water. Initially, the sub-committee was under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, who I am delighted to say has rearranged his commitments and is with us today. I am very much aware that his knowledge of chemistry far exceeds my own and I am therefore delighted that he is here to give us his expert knowledge of parts of the draft directive.
The proposed new directive sets out to amend the 1980 directive and sets mandatory standards for drinking water. Through its various measures the original 1980 directive considerably improved the quality of drinking water throughout the Community. Good quality drinking water is essential to high standards of health protection. Since then scientific knowledge and techniques have advanced and some ambiguities in the original directive have been realised. In addition, public awareness of the importance of drinking water has been increasing and there has been an increased use of bottled water because of concerns about the water that comes out of our taps. It was therefore thought necessary to have a revised directive.
The main change in the proposed directive relates to the permitted quantity of lead in drinking water which, in line with the World Health Organisation recommendation, would reduce the permitted level of lead from 50 micrograms per litre to 10 micrograms per litre. Lead is a constituent in both water and in the atmosphere—the air which we breathe—which has serious consequences for human health. It is important for the protection of infants and young children, for pregnant women and for women past the menopause that the quantity of lead in water should be reduced. Lead has neuro-toxic effects on the brain and can lead to reduced intelligence and behavioural problems in children. My noble friend Lord Dubs will deal with that important topic at greater length.
Other changes in the proposed directive require compliance with micro-biological and chemical parameters. There were 67 in the original directive, but
1162
they are to be simplified in the new directive and the number of parameters with which drinking water will have to comply is to be reduced to 48. That is a welcome simplification to take account of only those elements which are essential to a high level of health protection.
The level of pesticides in water also causes concern. The Commission's own Scientific Advisory Committee recommended more stringent limits than the World Health Organisation in that it felt that the precautionary principle should apply and that a limit of one-tenth of a microgram per litre should apply to each pesticide rather than individual limits for each, which would be difficult to assess and administer. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, will discuss that topic at greater length in due course.
In relation to polyaromatic hydrocarbons, some of which are known to be carcinogenic, we support the recommendation in the draft directive in relation to benzo-alpha-pyrene. In relation to the other PAHs, we recommend the retention of a group limit until further research has established their individual toxicity. I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, will be dealing at greater length with boron and copper, where my knowledge of chemistry deserts me. Provisional new limits were proposed for those metals. The sub-committee was of the opinion that those limits should be based on public health risks as evidenced by the best scientific evidence. Alas, however, the Commission is still awaiting further opinion from its Scientific Advisory Committee.
As in relation to our examination of the bathing water directive, we are again concerned about the lack of information which the Commission supplies about the nature and extent of scientific evidence in bringing forward recommendations on such important matters as drinking water. Often we are not provided with the scientific evidence which underpins some of its recommendations. We feel that that is a considerable failure in the important principle of transparency.
In relation to the disinfection of water and the by-products of disinfection, the use of chlorine and ozone as disinfectants produces a number of by-products, some of which are potentially carcinogenic. We in the sub-committee were convinced that their concentration in drinking water should be the minimum consistent with effective disinfection and that water should be tested for them at the household tap, not where the water leaves the treatment works.
We also recommend that more research should be carried out by the water suppliers into membrane filtration which will provide the same level of micro-biological safety but produce fewer by-products.
The proposed directive requires that where water for human consumption has become dangerous to human health, its use should be restricted and consumers should be informed immediately and given appropriate advice. We commend the Commission for proposing that the public should have a legal right to information. We agree that in an emergency water suppliers have a first responsibility for informing the public. We are also of the opinion, however, that the Government continue to have a duty to see that the public are informed of health

1163
risks and that the privatisation of the water companies has not absolved them of their responsibility in that respect. That is particularly relevant in relation to the level of lead in water.
Overall, we welcome the Commission's proposals and believe that they are well justified and draw proper distinctions between matters for action by member states.
We were, however, disappointed by the response that we received from the Department of the Environment. The department's response to our report was complacent and grudging in tone and saw no need to change current practices nor to alert the public generally as to the dangers of lead plumbing. We would in particular now welcome clarification from the Minister—I have given him advance warning of these questions—first, as to whether the Government accept the proposed new lower limit for lead in water as justified on public health grounds and, secondly, if the new lower limit is justified, as to whether they believe that that can be achieved for all domestic customers without replacing all lead plumbing, as they appear to believe.
The draft directive allows 15 years for compliance with the new lower lead levels. We believe that that timespan allows time for a comprehensive national strategy to be developed by the DoE, local authorities, the water companies and private householders so that the problem of lead in water and the future health and behaviour of our children can be taken care of. I commend the report to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Drinking Water (Fourth Report, HL Paper 31).—(Baroness Hilton of Eggardon.)
3.18 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, for initiating the debate and for the skill and sensitivity with which she and her predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, have chaired Sub-Committee C. I pay tribute also to our Clerks, successively Mr. John Goddard and Mr. Tom Radice, and to our special adviser, Professor Frank Jones.
I was brought up to believe, like many of your Lordships I am sure, that it was safe to drink water out of a tap anywhere in Great Britain but, in broad terms, nowhere abroad. It is a measure of the success of the EEC (as it then was) water directive in 1980 that standards throughout the European Union are now on a par with those of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the pendulum may be said to have swung perhaps not the whole way but certainly to a point where there is now a widely held perception that it is safe only to drink bottled water in this country—a notion that I daresay is in no way discouraged by the bottled water industry.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said, the 1980 directive was based on research carried out in the 1970s. Since then, things have moved on. The result is a document which in many ways is a model of its kind and upon which there has been widespread consultation throughout the Community.
1164
I shall trespass on the question of lead. The proposed reduction from 50 micrograms per litre to 10 micrograms per litre is of paramount importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the possible effect of high lead concentrations on children and on women in pregnancy and in the post menopause. It can have a half-life in bones of 27 years. That is how long it takes, I am informed, for the concentration to reduce by one half. Lead does not naturally occur in water and the water that leaves treatment plants is virtually lead-free. All of the contamination occurs during transport to the consumer in the pipes of the water undertaking, the pipes connecting the mains to the consumer and in the consumer's own system. Only a small amount of elimination of lead can be achieved by water treatment.
In reality, there is no effective substitute for the renewal of all lead piping. The sub-committee felt that insufficient urgency was being shown by the Government. At the present rate of substitution it will take 60 years to eliminate the problem. A much higher profile should be given to the dangers of lead in drinking water. There should be a statutory obligation on the supplier to notify the consumer in clear, simple language should the lead content in his water be above the statutory maximum. The regulations for the drawing of samples should also be clearer; they should avoid giving the impression—as they do now—that sampling is carried out only when the water undertaking believes it is a good thing to do. Since 1989 the consumer has had the right when renewing his own lead pipes to require the water suppliers to renew theirs at the same time. That right should be much better known and publicised.
We must be under no illusion that the cost of replacing lead piping will be horrendous. No doubt the subject will he expanded upon by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The figure of £8 billion for the consumer and £2 billion for the undertakings is the kind of cost we face. The problem will not go away. I urge the Government to give serious thought to implementing a solution. Grants for the replacement of lead pipes should be more generous and should be widely publicised. I hope that the Government will give thought to targeting vulnerable sections, groups and areas. It is to be hoped that some of the burden of cost can be alleviated by the development of water treatment techniques.
Freedom of access to environment information is a prime concern of the sub-committee on which I have the privilege to sit. It so happens that water supply in the United Kingdom provides an interesting comparison since in England and Wales water undertakings have been privatised while in Scotland they remain in the public sector. Under the Environment Information Regulations 1992 the public may have right of access to most environment information held by public authorities. However, information can be withheld on grounds of personal confidentiality or, more significantly, on grounds of commercial or industrial sensitivity. In the course of hearing evidence the sub-committee came across cases, admittedly isolated, where the commercial sensitivity card had been enthusiastically played by one or two water companies

1165
in England and Wales. This contrasts with the position in Scotland where, for structural reasons, the issue of commercial interest is, by virtue of ownership, less likely to arise in the public sector undertakings there.
A consistent strain running through the deliberations and findings of the sub-committee is that where public health is involved there should be a presumption in favour of disclosure. I express no political view for or against privatisation. However, I urge the Government to take steps to ensure that, in matters of public health, commercial considerations are not permitted to stand in the way of full disclosure and access by the public to all information which should properly be in the public domain in the interests of the health of the nation.
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, on introducing the report so clearly and comprehensively, and the sub-committee on an excellent report. I was not then a member of the sub-committee but I have since become one. In my short speech I intend to deal with only one of the major points in the report.
I agree with the noble Baroness that the 1980 directive has been responsible for great improvements in the quality of drinking water across the Community. Since then advances have been made which have had an enormous impact from the point of view of public health. First, I agree with the Commission that the most important change in the proposed directive is the reduction in the maximum permitted level of lead in drinking water from 50 micrograms to 10 micrograms. Secondly, under the 1980 directive there was no uniformity between Community countries as to where testing for lead should take place. I am assured that in some countries it took place at the point of supply, which in most cases would bear no resemblance to what finally came out of the tap in the average house. In contrast, the testing in this country—here I congratulate the Government on past performance—took place at the point of supply and such testing had to be based on an unflushed sample at the tap. Water that has been standing in lead pipes is likely to have much higher concentrations of lead than water newly run from the mains supply.
The British regulations were stricter than those required by the 1980 directive. Therefore, I am concerned that the new directive simply requires the sample to be taken from a flushed pipe. Both the Government in their response to the directive and the sub-committee have accepted this. Do they believe that in the interim period—the 15 years during which we will still be drinking water with a certain amount of lead in it until it has been eliminated—the flushing of water before drinking is likely to become regular practice in households which have lead piping and lead supply pipes? Should we not continue with our old system irrespective of the new directive? Surely, we could do that under the principle of subsidiarity. I agree with former speakers that the only long-term answer is the ultimate elimination of lead from drinking water by the removal of lead pipes.
1166
The urgency is also much greater in some parts of the United Kingdom than in others. In those parts which have soft water the plumbosolvency is much greater than in those areas where the water is hard. Therefore, places like Scotland and Wales, which are well-known for their soft water, must be at greater risk than parts of the country with hard water. It is worrying to learn that in Scotland of 2.1 million homes as many as 589,000 still have lead piping.
The Government have introduced certain grants for the replacement of lead pipes. In particular, they are available to people on income support and lower incomes. That is to be welcomed. But I believe that they must extend the grant system to cover many more families. One may not need to be on income support to find it very difficult to meet the cost of replacing one's lead pipes if income is limited.
I also welcome the Government's insistence that where a household replaces its lead pipes the water companies now have a statutory duty to replace the supply pipes so that the system will be clean.
It is worrying that, despite those government grants, the replacement of lead pipes has been so slow. The slow response of consumers must be attributed to the lack of an effective publicity campaign to bring home to people the danger to human health, especially to young children. The committee calls for such a campaign to include the use of television.
In their response to the report, the Government state that they have publicised the issue in the form of a leaflet from the Drinking Water Inspectorate. How has the leaflet been distributed? If it has been available only on request it will not have had much effect. One has not been delivered to my household. If one wants a publicity campaign to alert everyone, the leaflet needs to be freely available and distributed among the population.
The new directive gives us the opportunity dramatically to improve across the Community the quality of drinking water as related to human health. We welcome it. We sincerely hope that the Government will do all that they can to have it implemented before the 15 years are up.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, first, I compliment the committee on this important report and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, for her chairmanship. I must declare my involvement as minimal. It is only fair to pay a tribute to the noble Baroness for her expertise in this area.
I welcome the directive. As has been said, it gives us an opportunity to update the present position on water quality and to recognise the most recent assessments of water quality which emphasise the WHO's latest thinking. I commend the point made about the removal of 19 parameters. I am a great believer in trying to reduce the complexity of these directives. This was an admirable opportunity and it is commendable that it is an opportunity that has been taken without in any way affecting the safeguards relating to water safety.

1167
One of the main problems in any discussion of water quality is the large variability of the source: 30 per cent. of the water used in this country comes from groundwater sites, and in certain areas such as the south east it is as high as 70 per cent. It is an aspect which is often difficult to monitor. It is fair on this occasion to compliment the water companies on their effectiveness in achieving that objective. It is a difficult one because groundwater can be quickly and easily contaminated.
One of the main problems that has been discussed in the report has already been touched on: contamination by lead. That is a major problem with children and, as has been reported, relates primarily to absorption into the bone structure, which is I believe eight times more effective weight for weight for children than it is for adults. There is a potential hazard. The contamination may be eroded from the bone over a long time. I am pleased to hear that that is a point that will be discussed subsequently.
One of the ambiguities in the initial 1980 report related to sampling. The point was that the water sampling was defined as being:
"at the point it is made available to the user".
That may be interpreted as when it left the treatment works. That was commonly the procedure used in Europe, and so I have sympathy with the point made by the noble Viscount about the dangers involved in drinking some European water as opposed to UK water. In addition, there is sampling at the tap, which I believe is the process laid down by this Government, and I hope that is what we shall continue to do.
The other warning relates to timing. The timing has been questioned. As a young boy I was taught to run the tap before drinking the water from it. That reflects the fact that I came from a part of the country where soft water was prevalent. These old ideas often contain a great deal of scientific truth. The present system of using a flushed sample increases the problem of obtaining a consistent figure for the lead content.
The other important point which is barely touched upon in the report is the frequency of sampling. I should like to see a report on how frequently samples are taken and whether any judgment is made as to where and how the sampling should be done. It would be delightful to see comparable figures from the Continent.
I turn now to one aspect which worries me more than any other—the chemistry of the problem. With a concentration of 50 micrograms per litre it is possible to deal with the problem by the use of orthophosphate or by varying the acidity of the water. We have been told that by the time we get down to 10 micrograms per litre that approach is no longer appropriate. There seems to be only one alternative, which is completely to remove lead from the system.
The position is even more complicated. We are told in the WRC report which was commissioned by the DoE that levels can be affected to the extent that even brass fittings are sufficient to give us that 10 micrograms of lead per litre. One does not associate brass fittings with lead. This involves a major reassessment of the whole area. It is a nightmare when one considers it in terms of the domestic water supply—and worse: if one thinks of
1168
a hotel or similar establishment that must also conform with the directive. I believe that the costings are optimistic. The figures of £2 billion and £8 billion seem to be a relatively minimal assessment.
The proposed timing for this operation is 25 micrograms after five years and 10 micrograms after 15 years. If this is indeed a problem—it is a cumulative problem—why are we waiting 15 years to solve it? If, as I believe to be the case, it will be governed, understandably, by monetary considerations, other alternatives should be available if there is in the 10 micrograms the danger that we have been assured there is.
That brings me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, about the availability of scientific data so that we can assess it. With so many EC regulations we often find that the scientific evidence is not given to us. It is hidden away in a cupboard, so that we do not have the information available.
Perhaps I may just put the situation in perspective. The daily usage of water per person in a home is about 150 to 200 litres. Of that, about 3 to 6 litres per person is used for drinking and cooking. Of the bulk of the water that we are purifying, 50 litres is used for the garden and car washing and 83 litres for flushing toilets and in bathing. If we are concerned with 5 litres out of 200 litres per person it is ludicrous that we are purifying the whole lot. As was suggested by the WRC, if I were a parent with small children I should use a filter system to try to solve the problem in the short term.
Finally, I turn to the issue of copper and boron. Recommendations on both appeared as guidelines rather than as obligatory quantities in the initial 1980 directive. The amount of copper has been changed from 100 micrograms per litre to 2 milligrams per litre. We are given no reason for that; we are merely given a bold figure. I should like to see a reason for that change. Certainly copper is not a simple metal because it has certain toxic problems. Of course, it is often present in copper piping and so forth. May I say immediately that the solubility of copper from copper piping is not great and I do not believe there to be a major hazard, but I believe that explanations should be given in the directive.
I find most difficult to understand the boron issue. We are told that the amount was 1,000 micrograms per litre but it is now being reduced to 300 micrograms per litre. Boron is a particularly difficult element to detect. To my knowledge, there is no reason why the stipulation should be in the directive and I should like to know the reasoning. It is a major obligation because it is not an easy element to remove in this particular set of circumstances.
All that is involved in what is a good directive, but it exemplifies the problem of so many EC directives when we address the science issue: transparency is certainly not to the fore.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hilton not only on the way in which she introduced the debate but also the able way in which

1169
she steered the sub-committee to its conclusions. I was privileged to be a member of the sub-committee, and I began by knowing very little indeed about the problems of our water supply. Frankly, I became quite alarmed as the evidence was gathered. More of that in due course.
In my childhood I was told that British water was always safe to drink. I do not wish to sound xenophobic, but I was told that if one goes abroad one ought to be careful and that in many countries one could not drink tap water. For a long time there was no market for bottled water in this country. Who would have thought that bottled water would have been such a significant seller in our supermarkets? Almost every household drinks bottled water at some time or another. That is a sign that public confidence has disappeared or has at least weakened. For many years we have not been sufficiently careful about what goes into our drinking water, as the evidence of the report spells out.
As the Committee gathered its evidence I became increasingly alarmed about our water. I examined the pipes in my house and told my family about the dangers. The difficulty is that none of us wants to be so alarmist as to reduce the confidence of people in this country in the water supply. On the other hand, we are doing them an ill service if we do not point out the dangers or argue that there should be changes, as the sub-committee stated. It is not always easy to strike the right balance between keeping quiet and perhaps endangering public health and between saying so much that one causes panic, which would be undesirable given that all the solutions must be fairly long term. The committee tried very hard to strike the right balance between those extremes.
During my childhood I was always told to run the tap before filling the kettle. I had no idea what that was about and it was not until I sat on the committee that I had an explanation. Of course, it was to get rid of the residual lead in the water. It is surprising that as a child I accepted that the need to run the tap was important. Argumentative as I was in my childhood—of course, I am not these days—I never questioned that, but the reason became clear only when I sat on the committee.
Some 10 or 15 years ago public concern was focused on lead in petrol. When that concern was expressed it did not take the Government long to introduce measures to reduce over a period of time the amount of lead in our petrol. We have a similar challenge regarding our drinking water. After all, there is no dispute about the health risks of lead in water. It can adversely affect the blood, the nervous system, normal growth and development, the kidneys, the reproductive system and the cardiovascular system.
The evidence is that there are no clearly discernible thresholds for those effects. There is no minimum safe level below which lead does not matter. I came across no scientific evidence to support the view that there are safe levels. Of course, it is easy enough to argue that there are safe levels because it is a handy way of approaching the problem. The committee was right to talk about the level of 10 micrograms per litre but, in fact, there is no scientific evidence that it is safe below that level but dangerous above it.
1170
Certainly, the World Health Organisation has made it clear that lead is toxic to the central and peripheral nervous systems and can cause serious neurological damage, in particular among infants, children and pregnant women. However, the point is that the effects may well be long term and are not as dramatic as the public health consequences of other problems in our food supply. As a result, the relationship between having taken too much lead in drinking water and the eventual effects on health are not sufficiently discernible for it to be obvious without investigating it in some detail. In 1988 the United States Environmental Protection Agency stated that the aim should be a zero level of lead in drinking water.
What is the scale of the problem? In England and Wales in 1992 8.9 million properties had lead pipes within their system and 8.2 million properties were supplied by lead pipes from water companies. In Scotland, of 2.1 million households nearly 600,000 have lead pipes. Therefore, the problem is partly one of pipes in people's homes and partly one of the water companies' pipes which supply water through the mains system.
It is clear that the problem is much less serious in hard water areas. Although the Government made the suggestion in their response to the Select Committee's report, that is no reason for saying that the problem is small because many of us live in hard water areas. The problem arises only in soft water areas. I have seen no figures indicating which of the 8.9 million and 8.2 million properties which have lead pipes in their system or lead pipes supplied by water companies are in soft water and hard water areas. Perhaps the Government have such figures. However, we should not sit back and say simply that hard water makes it all right. It does not because if repair work is done to pipes the lead particles which are safeguarded through hard water can re-enter the water system.
An alternative suggestion is that we can treat the water to lower the lead content either by dosing the water with orthophosphates or by lifting the pH levels of low alkalinity waters. According to our evidence, there are problems in respect of both those approaches, attractive as they may seem at first sight. First, by adding one or other of those elements we might destabilise the existing pipe deposits and release particles of lead into the supply. In any case, there might be discolouration of the water supply. I understand that other possible effects are increased mould and algae growth. In any event, I find it an uneasy solution to say that we should eliminate one dangerous chemical in our water by adding other chemicals. At a simple level, that does not appear to be the right way forward. Indeed, I understand that 90 per cent. of the water companies believed that there would be benefits in ceasing the orthophosphate treatment.
I believe that the ideal policy objective should be the total elimination of lead from drinking water. However, I understand that there are difficulties in doing so other than in the long term. Any policy which states that it is all right to have a certain amount of lead is not acceptable in the fullness of time. I appreciate that the costs of doing anything quickly are high. We were given

1171
figures showing that the average cost of dealing with lead pipes within a house could cost an average of £1,000 per household.
There is an added difficulty. Many of us were brought up to drink water only from the main kitchen tap which came straight from the mains. But, of course, there are other taps in houses and it may cost more to make those pipes quite safe. Therefore, we arrive at a total figure of £8.5 billion. I appreciate that that is a lot of money but we must set it against the long-term effects on public health.
Therefore, I am disappointed that the Government's response to the Select Committee's report said that it should not be necessary to remove all lead pipes for water to achieve the guideline value—the 10 micrograms per litre suggested—partly because there are many hard water areas where the water is not plumbosolvent. For the reasons that I gave earlier, I feel that that is an unsatisfactory response. It seems to me that the Government wanted to agree with the thrust of the report but did not wish to accept the tougher conclusions implicit in it.
Therefore, I believe that we need to increase the level of public awareness about the safety of pipes and about the problems of lead pipes bringing water. That needs to be done without being alarmist and I believe that that is possible. We need some publicity to achieve that. The public needs to be informed more fully about water quality.
We need from the Government a national strategy for dealing with lead in our water supply which goes beyond the rather inadequate response to the Select Committee report. Yes, grants are available at present but they are limited in terms of the people who benefit. The Government need to look at that and we need clear target dates for the removal of lead from our water supply. I commend the Select Committee's report to the House.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I echo most warmly the tributes justly paid to our two chairmen and clerks. I particularly enjoyed working with the committee and serving under its chairman.
I wish to address briefly the European Commission aspects of the report on which other noble Lords have already touched. The report makes clear that the committee considers that the Commission's proposals and the revision of the 1980 directive were justified and that subsidiarity has been respected. The Commission has drawn proper distinction between matters for action by member states and those by the Community.
Moreover, in this case the Commission is recognised by all interested groups to have consulted widely, notably at the Euro-conference attended by European water suppliers as well as by member states and the Commission in September 1993 and at subsequent workshops in 1994. They produced valuable insights which helped to produce the new draft directive. That process of wide and deep consultation is a model which other parts of the Commission could copy.
1172
Less satisfactory is the fact that, not for the first time in our experience of the Commission's operations, there has been difficulty in obtaining the information forming the basis of Commission decisions. Much work undoubtedly went into the process of consultation with member states but many of the Commission's assessments and decisions, made on scientific grounds, remain obstinately opaque. It is possible to learn the decisions and recommendations of, in this case, the Commission's own scientific advisory committee on the toxicity and eco-toxicity of chemical compounds—CSTE for short—but not the scientific basis for those decisions. Incidentally, it is very difficult even for officials of member states to establish the membership of the committee. It is a very curious position. As decisions in several cases differ in important respects from those of the WHO, it is extremely unsatisfactory that where directives are based on scientific data, that data should not be available for scrutiny.
The scientific advice given by the CSTE to the Commission was addressed exclusively to the question of public health. Although cost compliance was bound to become a relevant factor in applying the directive, the committee was not required to consider costs and benefits. Therefore, it is all the more desirable that there should be transparency, as advocated strongly by the relevant EC Commissioner when it came to requiring the competent authority,
"to plan their water management activity in an integrated fashion and to do so in a transparent manner with public consultation".
The Commission itself regards its requirement for annual reports from member states as likely to make a significant contribution to that transparency. I hope that it does.
Another aspect of the European Commission's work which concerned the committee was compliance with the directive across the EU and the vexed question of monitoring. The committee agreed strongly with the view of the Public Health Laboratory Service that external assessment of the performance of laboratories engaged in monitoring, sampling and analysis should be required by the directive. Our experience to date of securing adequate machinery to ensure comparability of measurements in assessing the state of the environment in a European context has been, to say the least, discouraging. In reporting on the European Environment Agency, we recommended a uniform protocol for the sampling, measurement and interpretation of environmental data and a training programme. We found that a pilot project for creating some sort of uniform scientific approach to testing bathing water had only recently been set up. We recommended that laboratories in the European Union should create a quality assurance programme.
The committee believes that there is the same need throughout the EU for comparable data on compliance with the drinking water directive. It believes too that there should be an externally validated quality assessment and assurance programme. I need hardly add that its reports would, unlike the proceedings of the CSTE so far, need to be available to all member states. I hope that the Government will urge the need for those measures of monitoring and comparable assessment and

1173
also the need for transparency. Comparability, transparency and subsidiarity are all vital aspects of European Union legislation.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to follow other members of the committee. I have been a member now for just over six months. As with all my experiences in this House, it has been extremely educative. I am particularly grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and her predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, chaired the committee. I believe that we bring to our work an approach which, as is evidenced by this debate, is a combination of expertise and lively interest in all the public policy aspects. We have what may be a unique way of approaching the implementation of policy and analysing its implementation.
I wish to deal briefly with some of the issues concerned with research and information before turning to and supporting some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Dubs on the issue of lead. As we have already seen in two other major areas of public policy in recent weeks, issues of scientific research and public health cause tremendous public concern and, indeed, have direct market—big and small "M", I suppose—consequences and effects well beyond any particular scientific debate. Therefore, it is appropriate for me to underline the plea which we make in this report on the draft directive on drinking water for an adequate level of research to be undertaken.
Without a basis of adequate scientific research, both at UK and European levels, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, put forward so clearly, it is not possible for mere politicians or mere administrators to make public policy decisions which can be seen to be valid. That is why the committee stressed at paragraph 68 of the report and subsequently in our opinion at paragraph 70 what we see as the inadequacy of the level of funding. A figure was quoted by the Water Services Association of an investment of £¾ million each year to establish a toxicological database. It seems to us that the level of research undertaken by the water companies and by the Department of Environment and the Department of Health does not meet the real need in this whole area.
In their response to our report, the Government stated that together they and the water industry spend over £2 million each year on research on drinking water supply, quality and health issues. They emphasised that there was an avoidance of duplication of effort and that value for money was enhanced. However, as we conducted our investigation, it seemed to us that it would be appropriate for the Government to look again at the whole issue of research priorities in the area to ensure that there is adequate fundamental research to provide the underpinning required for directives for European legislation or for UK policy.
That leads me on to the issue of information. In the evidence that the committee heard, Friends of the Earth stated in its oral evidence on page 43 that it had been trying to establish a comparable basis of data as between
1174
the various drinking water companies and had failed to do so. According to the evidence that we received, Friends of the Earth had written to the drinking water companies asking for information and requesting that such information be provided in a standard form on disk. There was a positive response from some companies, but from the company that serves the area in which I live, Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water), came the suggestion that Friends of the Earth would be charged several thousands of pounds for such information.
I have since pursued that issue with Dr. Brian Charles, the Chair of Welsh Water. He has raised what I believe to be an important point. Whereas he emphasised that the company prides itself on being an open company, committed to sharing information with customers, and ensures that it meets all its responsibilities to publish and make available detailed information, he expressed the view that, although it has always previously sought to respond to inquiries from Friends of the Earth and other organisations, it is impossible for it to guarantee an open-ended provision of information in a format required by one specific organisation, especially where that differs from the format used both for internal management purposes and for satisfying the other statutory responsibilities of the company.
It appears that there may be an issue here relating to the standardisation of the supply of data as between the water companies. We seem to be in a position where informed, environmental bodies and voluntary bodies such as Friends of the Earth are unable to undertake studies because of the lack of standardisation of systems of information among water companies. But again that may be a matter which could be looked at in relation to the level of research and public information that is available.
My final point follows on what has been said on the issue of lead. Again, I took up the issue with my own water supplier, Dwr Cymru. It seems to me that the action of Welsh Water highlights the point made in the report that there appears to be some complacency on the part of the Government in tackling the whole question of lead. My noble friend Lord Dubs outlined the pollution problems very clearly, so I shall not repeat them. However, what I shall give in evidence in support of the committee's emphasis on the importance of the issue is the level of work already achieved by Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water). The company is well on the way towards implementing the recommendations set out in our report. The position may be similar with other water companies and, if that is the case, I shall be reassured.
However, it is worth putting on record briefly the position of Dwr Cymru. Since 1991 the company has replaced 63,000 lead communication pipes which are part of its own infrastructure—and we are talking here about what is now a privatised utility, so clearly it must be a matter of concern for the company; otherwise it would not be expending capital on such investment—and is planning to achieve total elimination of lead pipework by 2010. Within the lead pipe replacement programme, the company has specifically targeted schools, nurseries and so on; and, indeed, has totally

1175
eliminated lead communication pipes from all those establishments that it has been able to identify. That is a priority for the company.
In addition, Dwr Cymru has provided extra water treatment to reduce further the content of lead in drinking water. The improved treatment of 26 key water supplies now provides extra safeguards for 80 per cent. of all customers, including those living in areas where lead pipework is still prevalent. Moreover, the company has been offering a grant scheme to customers of financial assistance to replace the internal lead pipework. Of course, that is not the responsibility of the water utilities; it is the responsibility of customers. To date, about 15,000 customers have benefited from that grant scheme.
I can only conclude from that information that at least one of the privatised utilities with which I am familiar is taking the issue far more seriously than the Government. I should like to emphasise to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate that we need to ensure that there are adequate safeguards and that adequate priority is given to the removal of lead from the water supply in the way that has already been pioneered by Welsh Water. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will be able to take the committee's recommendations more seriously than they have so far in their initial response.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like other members of the committee, it has been a privilege for me to serve under the chairman whose name is on the report, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and also under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis. I welcome both the attempt to revise the directive and the directive in its new form. I am glad about the outcome. However, I wish also to introduce a note of caution. The report itself applies on occasion the precautionary principle. What I want to do in the main is to apply the precautionary principle to the precautionary principle.
We are not talking about pure water; we are talking about potable water. The caution that I wish to apply arises from just that distinction. It arose for me as an acute issue at the point where we were discussing the disinfection of water with chlorine. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, mentioned the problems of chlorine as an additive to water. In fact, if one was considering chlorine in isolation, one would not add it to water for a host of very good reasons, not the least of which would be the precautionary principle. However, there is no argument about the addition of chlorine to water because it is an essential part of the water purification process—or disinfection process, dare one say—without which an urban area like London could not function.
Therefore, we have a problem. We need to ensure—and this has been mentioned by a number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Lewis and Lord Elis-Thomas—that adequate data are available. Not only do we need adequate data; we also need an assessment of risk and of the real dangers involved. If one considers the question of nitrates in water, it will be realised that there is a distinction between the guidelines
1176
of the World Health Organisation, which are set at 50 micrograms per litre as an average on the run over a period of time, and the new European standard which is set as a maximum advisable concentration of 50 micrograms per litre. I should remind noble Lords that a microgram is one millionth part of a gram. Therefore we are dealing with small quantities. I shall refer later to even smaller quantities. If one has a maximum advisable concentration, as opposed to a guideline maximum, it implies that the water companies must work to a higher quality standard in order never to exceed that maximum.
The data are in the report. The report indicates that it would cost £160 million to achieve a maximum standard of 30 micrograms per litre, which would imply that now and again there would be fluctuations up and down, and the "up" never went over 50. The health problem being tackled by this massive expenditure is the "blue baby" syndrome. A small number of cases will be prevented as a result. We need to think about that. As I said, science and risk assessment are involved. I do not wish in any way to diminish the significance of the debate about lead, but the fact is that lead in plumbing is an historic material. It occurs in older houses. It has been there for a long time. Amid all the health problems we face today—and there are many—I do not recall hearing that there is a significant incidence of lead poisoning, albeit many people live in houses with lead plumbing. I may have missed something somewhere and I do not wish to diminish the problem or diminish the need to get rid of lead because, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the water companies are concerned about the matter. The concern is long-standing and steps have been taken. I merely make the point that I have not heard that lead constitutes a major health problem at the present time.
I now turn to agricultural products and particularly residues which occur in water. Here, of course, we are dealing with severe standards. We are talking of a standard for these residues of 0.1 micrograms per litre; in other words, a tenth of a millionth of a gram per litre of water. There is debate about the standard. We in the committee accept that it is a sensible standard to set. However, the scientific evidence suggests otherwise. The World Health Organisation has a list of some of the materials—it is of course by no means comprehensive—which suggests that more relaxed standards could be applied. Again, that is mentioned in the report. There are 24 substances listed in the report by the scientific and technical advisory committee to the European Commission, which has been guiding the Commission. The advisory committee sets water quality objectives for those substances which are much more severe than one-tenth of a microgram per litre. For instance, DDT is set at two-thousandths of a microgram per litre. We need to be careful as regards the science and the precautionary principle because those are difficult matters.
Agricultural practice is remarkably good in this area. I pay tribute to my colleagues who are involved in agriculture because by and large they do not splash these materials around in a random way. Thank heavens the number of incidents of chemical pollution has

1177
diminished. Compared to gardeners, farmers are remarkably responsible. However, we need help from the agricultural chemicals industry in dealing with this particular problem. Already immense difficulties are being experienced in getting new materials approved, but clearly it will help everyone if, in the course of that approval, we know what the breakdown period is for these materials which we all use in farming. We need materials that have a shorter life and we need to know about the breakdown of those products. Equally, we need to know what the cocktail effects are. There is immense scope here for increasing the information in this whole area, bearing in mind the risks involved and the need to have potable water at the end of it all. I wish to enunciate a slightly different version of the precautionary principle; namely, if we do not know, we had better move heaven and earth to find out as soon as possible.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I say, as one farmer following another, that there is a great deal in what has just been said. I congratulate the Minister as being the only person on today's list of speakers who did not serve on the committee. As a new member of the committee I particularly wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, for her excellent chairmanship and for bringing forward this report.
I welcome the new directive, as we all do. It comes 15 years after the first one. Following on from what has just been said, I think it is absolutely essential that these reports and directives are produced in the light of new scientific knowledge as it is gleaned. Indeed these updates are absolutely essential.
I wish to touch on two topics. The Minister may well be surprised that there are any topics left to discuss. I wish to touch on the matter of lead from a personal point of view. There is no doubt that there is danger in drinking the amounts of lead that are in lead piped water supplies if people are old, young or pregnant. I am not quite clear which I am. Sometimes I think that drinking lead in the water in London, as I do, is making me prematurely senile. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lewis will tell me that I am totally wrong and that if I make coffee—putting the water through a filter with a certain amount of coffee in it—I may be spared some of the lead. Perhaps I am wrong. I think all members of the committee were concerned about themselves at one stage during the inquiry and rushed off to discover where their water came from.
When I am in London I live in a block of flats in a conservation area. The flats were built in 1900. I have discovered that the mains water and the whole of the internal distribution of water, right up to the drinking tap, flows through lead. Of course, to rectify the problem would be incredibly expensive and extremely disruptive, but I think on the whole it ought to be done. I asked in the committee—at Question 95—about lead pipes. I was told that the removal of lead pipes over a 15-year period could provide considerable employment
1178
to people in areas where there is older housing and, possibly inevitably—as was suggested by Friends of the Earth—higher unemployment.
When I am in Norfolk—as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, indicated—my water is drawn from aquifers several hundred feet down. This produces as good a water as one will get out of any bottle. Not long ago the matter of chlorination was raised. I found that our water was becoming undrinkable. An analysis was carried out. The water comes from a deep bore hole. As far as I know, it flows into a concrete tank and comes all the way to us in plastic piping—I remember it being laid only recently—and reaches our house and the tap from which the sample was taken. The tap is copper. The lead content was 1.5 micrograms per litre. I am not clear where the lead comes from—I suspect from a little piece of solder used when joining pipes together. The moral is this. To achieve a nil level of lead would be absolutely impossible. But we must do better than we are doing.
I hardly dare touch upon the next subject, with the noble Countess, Lady Mar, speaking later. I refer to pesticides. However, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, touched on one point about which I can enlighten the House. It is an issue on which I have always felt strongly. Noble Lords will read in the report that chemicals getting into water courses, by which we mean streams, is not a problem provided that we have good agricultural practice—by having buffer zones, and, quite simply, by being careful. I am more concerned about chemicals of all kinds percolating down into the aquifers upon which a large percentage of water consumers in East Anglia depend.
Some 30 years ago when I began farming, I undertook a considerable amount of work with a firm—I suppose it is fair to say that it was ICI—on direct drilling. Its scientists—I am sure they were absolutely genuine—were totally convinced that most chemical sprays became deactivated before anything passed through the topsoil. In other words, all those nasty things that one sprayed on disappeared within the top nine to 12 inches of the soil. They were either killed by ultraviolet light because they remained on the top, or the microflora and fauna of the sod (if one may so put it) dealt with the nasty things as they went down.
I am afraid that that is patently not true. Many chemicals used from the war onwards, and certainly from some 30 years ago, are beginning to appear in aquifers in East Anglia not far below plough depth. I shall refer to nothing that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will say. But in the report we are assured by the Ministry of Agriculture that the concentrations about which we speak are very low and there is no cocktail effect. That is possibly true now; but we had better watch it in the future.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and her committee for the opportunity to debate their report on this proposed Drinking Water

1179
Directive, although I trust that the noble Baroness and her colleagues will forgive me if I reach rather different conclusions from those contained in the report.
I start by quoting from the report itself, where in paragraph 8 on page 6 the problem is put just about as tactfully as it is possible to put it. It states:
"In recent years there has been growing criticism of the multiplicity and incoherence of the Community's many directives concerning different aspects of water policy".
Part of that criticism, in the UK at least, is the doubt as to whether any of these directives were necessary in the first place and whether they have even vaguely achieved what they set out to achieve in the Community as a whole. I should say at once that I understand the theory that surely any European environmental legislation is better than nothing; that European environmental legislation has at least pushed the Community countries into doing something which otherwise they might not have done; that we take our Community responsibilities seriously; and we hope that by setting a good example the other countries will do likewise over the next century or so. I understand that theory, but I do not agree with it.
Instead I would point out that this country had a high standard of water quality before ever the first European water directive raised its very expensive head. If I am wrong about this I should be grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench could tell me, first, the statistics which show that the health of the British people has been improved by any European water directive and, secondly, whether any such improvement (the existence of which I doubt) could not just as easily, far more cheaply, and with far greater scientific legitimacy, have been achieved by the British Government responding unilaterally to the wishes of the British people through the well-tried system of British democracy? Or are we to he told that the British people are so careless and ignorant that genuinely harmful water would not soon have become an election issue in this country and that we therefore needed correction from Brussels?
I was interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who, although he supports the directive, went so far as to admit that it is very difficult to define a clear level of lead in water where the damage envisaged by the directive actually occurs. Of course it would be nice to have a zero level of lead and other harmful things, but are such provisions really necessary? Are they essential, and at what price? How many people have died or have been made seriously ill by lead in our water, and at what level of lead? I am afraid the answer is that we simply do not know.
What is true, of course, is that if the quality of our water is not about to be an election issue, the shortage of water is becoming just such an issue—or it will this summer. But that is because we have dutifully wasted many thousands of millions of pounds on European water directives instead of spending a fraction of those vast sums on our infrastructure and supply.
Here, of course, it would be nice to be able to be precise about figures, but as with all things European, the subject is clouded by secrecy, dishonesty, incompetence and lack of compliance by our so-called partners.
1180
Perhaps the clearest views we have been given in your Lordships' House as to the cost of these water directives came in a Written Answer to me from my noble friend Lord Ferrers on 3rd April of this year and in an Oral Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, from my noble friend Lord Lucas on 18th April at col. 785 of the Official Report. The first point to note from those answers is that we are simply not aware, and apparently are not able to discover, how much money we spent on the many European water directives of the 1970s and 1980s. These included the original drinking water directive whose revision we are discussing today. However, I imagine that we can safely say that our expenditure ran into many thousands of millions of pounds. Since 1991, according to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, we are on for around a further £22,000 million, which figure would include some £10,000 million for the proposed new drinking water directive, as estimated by your Lordships' committee.
This is the sort of figure which was confirmed by my noble friend Lord Lucas on 18th April when (and this is the question that I am trying to pursue) he also confirmed that only £1 billion has been spent on infrastructure and supply. I really must ask the Government to look again at this figure. Are we really saying that since 1991 we have spent, or are committed to spend, at least £21,000 million on what many would regard as superfluous or at least uncertain water quality and only £1,000 million on infrastructure and supply? I cannot believe it, but whatever the proportions turn out to be, I should have thought that it is pretty obvious that we have our priorities the wrong way round and the sooner we reverse them the better.
The best way to do this, of course, would be to refuse to obey any further water directives, at least until they correspond with the Treaty of Rome. As many of your Lordships may know, I am among the fast growing number of British people who are now convinced that we would be better off outside that treaty altogether. But for the purposes of this debate we do not have to go as far as that. We merely have to insist that the water directives follow the treaty, and decline to obey them until they do. Indeed, I would have hoped that such action might even resonate with present government action, or lack of it, towards European proposals in general (although of course all environmental legislation from Europe is, alas, subject to the qualified majority vote, so we would not be able legally to block it).
This directive, in common with the other water directives and, indeed, all European environmental legislation, fails to meet the treaty in two vital respects, in my submission. First, it clearly fails under Article 3b, the test of subsidiarity, and, secondly, it fails under at least two sections of Section 3 of Article 130r.
As to subsidiarity, I notice that the Government merely note our committee's endorsement of the directive's proposals as being compatible with the principle of subsidiarity and our committee's consequent support for revising the existing directive. Well, I do not know what being compatible with the principle of subsidiarity may mean, but the directive

1181
clearly contravenes Article 3b. To prove this point, I regret that I have to quote an extract from the unfortunate Article 3b itself:
"the Community shall take action … only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
What evidence is there that the member states cannot clean up their water as individual sovereign states? None, I would submit. What evidence is there that the "scale or effects" of all these water directives, after more than 25 years, is being better achieved by the Community? To answer this question we would need to be told honestly what each of the other countries has spent on each of the directives, including the Drinking Water Directive, and with what true effect. I should have thought that the likelihood of getting honest answers from the Commission and from the countries concerned to these questions is so remote that I hardly dare suggest that my noble friend on the Front Bench should ask them.
There is, of course, more that one could say about subsidiarity, but in the interest of time I shall move on to Article 130r, Section 3. An extract of it states:
"In preparing its policy on the environment, the Community shall take account of: available scientific and technical data
— environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community
— the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action".
Other noble Lords have cast doubt on the scientific and technical adequacy of the Commission's performance on this directive. I would just mention that the scientific basis for the Commission's environmental decisions is usually almost entirely lacking. We saw that with the Bathing Water Directive, the Habitats Directive and other directives. That may be why the Commission has set up the new Environment Agency in Copenhagen. Of course, one has to wish it well, even with some misgivings.
Be that as it may, I am not aware that the Commission has carried out any accurate analysis of the environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community. I should have thought that for any directive to do with water that was pretty important, given that the clouds drop their fatness somewhat unequally between Scotland and, shall we say, Greece.
Furthermore, may I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government are satisfied with the quality of the Commission's cost-benefit analysis of this and other water directives? I notice that the directive itself admits:
"The estimate of compliance cost resulting from the proposal is based on the limited information available to the Commission".
I see that on page 12 of the directive 80,000 million ecu are estimated as the entire cost of the directive, or about £60,000 million, of which the UK share is estimated as 16,000 million ecu, or rather more than £10,000 million. But we have no substantiating evidence from the Commission for those figures.
1182
If the Government are not satisfied on all these points, may I ask whether they will decline to follow the directive until they are indeed met, in accordance with the Treaty of Rome itself?
We could thus re-direct many thousands of millions of pounds away from yet another piece of expensive and irrelevant interference from Brussels, towards repairing our water infrastructure and improving our water supply. We could no doubt in the process put those several thousand million pounds to other far more worthy causes.
4.34 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, as another relatively new member of the committee, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, very much for her guidance and leadership and also for her introduction to the debate, as other speakers have done. Noble Lords will be aware of my interest in pesticides, and organophosphates in particular. I propose to restrict what I have to say to those paragraphs in the report which refer to the standards which the draft directive sets for pesticide residues in drinking water.
I recently read a report from the World Resources Institute which details the effects on the immune system of exposure to pesticides used principally in agriculture. This made me realise just how fortunate we are in the developed countries. I read with horror reports of farmers using pesticides, some of which have long been banned in this country, from containers with inadequate labels and in quantities far greater than would be recommended here. Tins and plastic cans are a valuable resource in the third world. They are often rinsed out in irrigation channels which provide drinking and bathing water for the community and, in some cases, are also used to breed fish which are later eaten by the farmers and their families. The cans are used to contain substances, like vegetable oil, which are eaten and drunk.
There are now indications that the immune systems of people exposed repeatedly to low levels of pesticides, especially organochlorines and organophosphates, are becoming severely compromised. This applies particularly to the young and the old and to those adults suffering from malnutrition. There are instances of infectious diseases which were thought to be almost eradicated reappearing and vaccines which used to be effective no longer work because they require a healthy immune system to be effective. With that knowledge, it is essential that we remain vigilant and that we do not allow unnecessary toxic contaminants to appear in our drinking water.
I found it interesting that only the British Agrochemicals Association gave evidence to the effect that the limits for pesticide residues in water should be relaxed, to the extent that there should be individual health-based standards for each pesticide. This would mean that for some pesticides the limit would be greater than the current one part per 10 billion. Personally, I should be unhappy about that as we do not know enough about the long-term effects on human health of the vast majority of chemicals used in agriculture,

1183
horticulture and forestry. We know very little about their breakdown products or their synergistic effects. In this country, we rely entirely upon toxicity data produced by the manufacturers and there are frequently huge gaps in the data. I echo the plea of the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Dixon-Smith, for more research.
I live in the Severn Trent Water catchment area and I am impressed by the care the company takes to ensure that its customers' water is supplied to the highest standards. It works closely with the agrochemicals industry, with farmers and other users of pesticides and herbicides. Using the Soil Survey of Great Britain and MAFF figures of pesticide use, Severn Trent assesses the tonnages of chemicals used in its area and calculates the risks of those products leaching into watercourses. It has a "Spray Safe" campaign under which farmers are advised on the best times and methods of spraying and are also given good housekeeping advice—to avoid spillages, how to deal with them if they occur, and not to rinse out containers in watercourses, for example. Severn Trent has had an excellent response from local authorities to its advice about the use of herbicides on roadsides and pavements where chemicals run off rapidly into drains and thence into watercourses.
At a cost of about £800,000 a year, Severn Trent monitors for 95 different pesticides and herbicides which it knows are used regularly. Its main problems are with the cereal herbicides such as Mecoprop and Isoproturon. Both raw and drinking water are regularly monitored, with increased frequency at times when higher levels might be expected, for example, after heavy rainfall. Removal of pesticides has required a huge investment by water companies in treatment plants.
I understand that as little as 5 per cent. of many of the pesticides and herbicides currently used actually reach their targets. The rest goes on to the soil or into the atmosphere. In either case, it could eventually contaminate water supplies. The agrochemical industry is developing new products which have improved surficants (which make pesticides stick to leaves), lower toxicity and require lower application rates. Some of the modern products still present a serious leaching problem and there is a need for farmers, foresters and horticulturalists to develop a better understanding of integrated crop management and other sustainable farming practices.
Some interesting work has been done with rice farmers in Sri Lanka and cotton farmers in Dominica. In both those countries there is heavy use of toxic chemicals on crops. There is considerable pesticide resistance and the natural tendency is to use more toxic products in an attempt to kill the insects. On the experimental plots, pesticide use has been stopped altogether. Though the yield of both crops is slightly lower than previously, because inputs are reduced growth margins are increased and the farmers are beginning to be able to pay off the loans that they had taken out in previous years to buy pesticides.
While Severn Trent is a good example of how a water company should operate, not all the companies in the United Kingdom operate to quite the same high
1184
standards. For example, the group with whom I work closely in the South-West—OP Information Network—is currently looking at OP residues in the River Dart, where there is a wool processing plant. Wool processors have recently publicised a request to farmers to use fewer OP products on their sheep because the residues in the fleeces are causing them major problems with their effluent discharges after processing. They will have to install expensive purification equipment to meet water quality standards. I must confess that I am pleased that such requirements are a priority with drinking water suppliers.
If we look to Europe for comparisons, we compare favourably with most of the northern countries where water quality is regularly monitored and the results made available to the general public. On the other hand, we are much better than our southern European counterparts, who do not seem to be so concerned about quality and from whom information is difficult to obtain. We should rightly be proud of the high standards that the UK water industry has achieved, often higher than those required by the directive. However, I ask Her Majesty's Government to ensure that those are not compromised for financial or bureaucratic reasons.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for speaking in the gap. I could not be sure of being here this afternoon and was unable to put my name on the list of speakers. I too thank my noble friend Lady Hilton for introducing the debate and for the manner in which she did so. My only qualification for speaking is that I was a founder member of the Thames Valley Water Board and indeed chairman of its Land and Works Committee for a number of years. In common with many other water suppliers up and down the country in the 1960s, long before we joined the Common Market, we were supplying good, wholesome, sweet and potable water to our water consumers. Furthermore, I was able to boast that we supplied it at sixpence per ton, which is rather less than is paid by present consumers.
I want to talk about only one item in the report; namely, lead. I shall concentrate on the report about lead in water. I do so because I must warn the House not to be taken for a ride on this issue. I am old enough to have a long memory and I remember the campaign against lead in petrol. I remember it very well indeed. I recall the national campaign against lead in petrol. It seemed that children's intelligence was impaired in urban areas with high traffic density. Now we are beginning to realise that such was not the case and probably teaching methods and a failure to recognise children's abilities rather than lead in petrol were causing the problem.
The Government and Parliament were hooked on that propaganda campaign, which is what it was, and the oil companies spent huge sums of money in extra refining costs to obtain the octane rating that was obtained by adding lead. What was the result? The result was that extra energy was used, with additional depletion of fossil fuel reserves. It threw out into the atmosphere additional CO2 emissions and perhaps sulphur dioxide

1185
as well. What is more, which was very dangerous, there was an increase in the benzine content of petrol, which apparently is much more harmful to health than lead and is, so I understand, a carcinogen. So we must be careful of what we do.
At the same time, the latest reports that I have heard say that there has been no improvement in children's intelligence where the surveys were undertaken, although since the first report was made the use of lead in petrol has declined by over 50 per cent. One would have imagined that there would have been some increase in children's intelligence after a reduction of that order, but apparently that has not been the case.
So we must be very careful before we impose a further £10 billion in costs on our water consumers. They are the ones who will pay—not the water companies, which will pass on the costs to their consumers. We should make no mistake about that. In the end, it is the householders who will pay. We should not impose those costs unless we are very confident that there will be large and tangible health benefits and no side effects.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this has been a most entertaining debate and, apart from a small contribution by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, one of the least rancorous to which I have had the pleasure of replying. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and to the other members of the committee, many of whom have spoken today, for the report, which will be read with great care in Brussels and form an important buttress for the Government's negotiating position on the Commission's proposals.
Drinking water quality in the United Kingdom is very high: 99.3 per cent. of the 3.5 million tests conducted in England and Wales in 1994 complied with the relevant standard. There have been clear and significant improvements in quality since privatisation in 1989.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, wondered why we drank so much bottled water these days. I believe that it is a reflection of the fact that it tastes better; and, now that we are all so much better off under this Conservative Government, we can afford to pay a little extra for the taste.
Water from taps was and is safe to drink. I am happy to drink it. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, clearly has benefited greatly from his presence on the committee. I am glad to say that he has asked me a number of questions about the water supply industry since the report has been in preparation. I am delighted that over the past two weeks it has rained so hard that it has discouraged him from asking any more. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, we compare extremely well with Europe. We do not have any reason to be distracted from what we were told in our childhood; namely, that it is safe to drink water in this country. By and large, we should welcome the fact that it is now a great deal safer to drink the water on the Continent than it once was.
1186
The European Commission's proposals must be seen in the context of our already excellent standards. A test of their acceptability is whether they provide a satisfactory framework within which our quality can be maintained and whether the proposals take proper account of changes in scientific thinking since the 1980 directive.
There is a great deal in the structure of the Commission's proposals that we can welcome, particularly the more workable and flexible framework for dealing with breaches and any necessary remedial work. We also welcome the recognition that it is necessary to ensure a continuing supply of water during the course of a programme of remedial action.
We are pleased that the proposal follows British practice, both in requiring that monitoring to establish quality should be undertaken at the tap and in respect of the reporting requirements. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was particularly concerned that monitoring should be undertaken at the tap. That is important. That is where the consumer obtains the water. As she pointed out, it is equally important that the samples should be taken as the tap is turned on and not after it has flushed, which is probably erroneously suggested in paragraph 87 of the committee's report. The Commission is producing further proposals on that and we look forward to whatever it produces. However, we will stick by our position that it is what the consumer is likely to drink that must be tested.
A less satisfactory approach has been adopted to the setting of proposed standards. The Government consider that standards should be set in the light of up-to-date scientific and medical knowledge. We also consider that additional costs which have to be incurred as a result of the directive should be proportional to the benefits. It is clearly important that scientific evidence on which the Commission's proposals are based should be made available. That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, and my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. It is clearly indefensible that that evidence should not be made available. It becomes impossible to criticise or improve upon the Commission's recommendations if that continues to be the case.
The Commission's proposal does not consistently meet the criteria for being based on scientific evidence. If standards are not set at the appropriate level, priorities are distorted by pre-empting resources. Those resources may better be used either for other aspects of drinking water improvement or on other matters offering greater environmental or health protection benefits.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch entertained us for a long time on the question of subsidiarity and legality. I do not propose to follow him down that road except to say that we could have and would have done what the Commission proposed, but perhaps slightly differently. The directive is very much a road down which we wish to go because the quality of water is such a fundamental aspect of the health of people in this country and the prime aspect of health on which we must concentrate to provide a good basis for the health of the nation. However, we share my noble friend's

1187
concerns about the Commission's cost-benefit analysis of water proposals. That is a point that we regularly press with the Commission. We endorse my noble friend's—albeit limited—welcome for the European Environment Agency which should go a long way towards improving databases, on which several noble Lords have pressed us today.
Turning briefly to the question of pesticides—visited briefly by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar—the Commission proposes retaining the current arbitrary standards for pesticides of 0.1 micrograms per litre. We would prefer a standard based on a proper toxicological assessment of the risk to health from a specific pesticide. At the moment 98.8 per cent. of all samples taken in the UK already meet the 0.1 micrograms per litre standard. When looking at whether or not we should treat water to obtain that standard, we must bear in mind, as was drawn to our attention by several noble Lords today, that there are always consequences to the actions we take. The removing of pesticides can result in the water containing bromate, which is a genotoxic carcinogen. It makes no sense to produce such a substance in pursuit of an arbitrary standard for a pesticide which is stricter than the levels which have been assessed as safe.
We share with the noble Countess her ambition that we should take an extremely precautionary approach to the presence of pesticides in water. They are bioactive chemicals which have unknown effects after long-term low level exposure. We should put a lot of effort into making sure that those chemicals do not enter the water course and the water supplies in the first place and that that is not a risk which we run, whatever that risk may be.
In relation to the costs of implementing the Commission's proposals as a whole, it would be expensive for the United Kingdom and the Community. We estimate the capital cost in this country to be of the order of £2.5 billion, with the main compliance costs falling on the water industry principally from the proposed new standard for lead, with that expenditure being spread over 15 years from the adoption of the directive.
The Commission's proposal for lead is for a standard of 25 micrograms per litre to be achieved within five years of the directive being adopted. A more stringent standard of 10 micrograms per litre would have to be achieved within a further 10 years. We view those standards as obtainable. We are not unduly worried about the problem of brass fittings, certainly not in the vast majority of situations. We regard them as reasonable. The WHO may express the limit as the,
"tolerable weekly intake for infants".
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, the science on lead is inexact. But we are aware that it is a poison and it is something that we wish to eliminate from our systems. However, it is a poison with which we have lived for a long time and in the case of the noble Lord without any noticeable impairment of his intellectual facilities.
We are looking to improve a reasonable situation into an excellent situation and making that improvement at potentially a great cost—a lot of money which may well
1188
be spent on other things. One can easily think of things within the health area on which it may be spent. We are looking at spending it on something where the health benefits are at best uncertain. In those circumstances it is important that we maintain a sense of proportion; that we do not rush about saying that we have to spend £10 billion tomorrow; that we look at the most reasonable way in which action can be taken and do it over the most reasonable timescale.
It is unclear how the Commission's standards should be interpreted and whether they are intended as limit values or whether a degree of averaging is acceptable. The form of the standards makes a significant difference to the measures which would have to be taken and their cost. The figure of 10 micrograms per litre comes from the World Health Organisation guideline value for lead which can be interpreted as a weekly average intake of lead. We see no grounds for adopting a more stringent standard than that, as would be the case if the number were interpreted as a limit value. We understand that the European Commission is undertaking research on the way in which the lead standard could be expressed and the associated monitoring protocol. We will need to study its further proposals when they are published.
Action by water suppliers in the UK has already substantially reduced lead levels in our drinking water. Over 80 per cent. of samples already comply with the 10 microgram per litre standard. Where elevated levels of lead have been found, water suppliers install treatment to reduce the ability of the water to dissolve lead. Most of those programmes have been completed and the United Kingdom may already comply with the proposed interim standard, at least if it is interpreted as an average. The UK has a good record of reducing exposure to lead and the measures that we have already taken have ensured that lead levels are now lower than ever before.
We think that consistently achieving the more stringent long-term standards in water supply systems will require lead pipes to be replaced in many, but not all, cases. Water suppliers already have in hand programmes to replace their lead pipes. We see no reason why those programmes cannot be completed within the 15 years proposed by the Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, Dwr Cymru has already shown the way in that.
Turning to the question of lead domestic plumbing, the Commission's proposal provides that member states would,
"have fulfilled their obligations if it can be established that non-compliance … is due to the domestic distribution system".
We welcome that provision which recognises that responsibility for domestic plumbing is first and foremost for the householder. However, it must be recognised that lead domestic pipes pose a problem which will have to be tackled. We agree with the thrust of a number of the committee's recommendations in that area, but it is particularly important for there to be a proper understanding of the issues and of what householders themselves can and should do. In that connection I commend the House's attention to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill which will, if enacted, amend the present grant regime

1189
in that area. The new system will enable local authorities to adopt a more strategic approach to private sector housing renewal and assist targeting of grant aid on those with genuine need. Home owners in priority groups such as those receiving an income-related benefit and elderly or disabled people will be eligible to apply for discretionary grant which will be available for lead pipe replacement. I hope that that is good news for my noble friend Lord Bridgeman.
The central issue on lead domestic plumbing is how best to ensure that people are able to establish whether they have lead pipes and to take informed decisions on whether those pipes need to be replaced. I can give some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, in that if the lead pipes are in London, the water is so hard that it is unlikely that any noticeable amount of lead will come out of the pipes unless for some reason he is pouring acid into the water tank to enable it to be dissolved.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I am also assured by my noble friend that if I put it into coffee through a filter, that will help as well.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the coffee may do a lot of other damage of course.
The Government have a good record in providing information on the risks from lead, most recently in the leaflet produced last year by the Drinking Water Inspectorate called Have you got lead pipes? More than 100,000 copies of that leaflet were made available. I hope that is some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. They were distributed to local authorities, water companies, libraries and in response to any requests that were made. Such leaflets make a valuable contribution but we are considering what more we can do both to make information available and to ensure that it actually reaches those who need it.
There is a role for other sources of information as well; for example, through partnerships with local authorities and others to provide better information or better targeted messages to particular groups; through the water suppliers; through publicising the obligation on water suppliers to replace their lead pipes if household lead pipes are replaced; and through encouraging better take-up of grants or other assistance. Those are all options to be explored and we will welcome other suggestions. However, it is important in doing this that we do not create a scare where none is justified. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, it is a question of balance and good sense and doing good over a period of time.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman raised the question of access to information. Ensuring a right of access to environmental information continues to be government policy. The results of all analyses carried out by water companies must be on the public record and freely available. That is something we shall hold them to.
While measures are being taken to replace domestic lead pipes, the Government intend to ensure that water suppliers continue to treat water to reduce its ability to dissolve lead. This will ensure that, even where all the necessary work has not yet been completed inside
1190
houses, the lead levels in water will be kept as low as possible. We expect that the maximum values for most samples at the tap will be below 30 micrograms per litre, with average lead levels much lower.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, asked about standardisation of data reporting. The Government have limited influence on this but have imposed a standard approach for the data they collect which will, we hope, influence the way in which companies themselves hold data. If the noble Lord has any views on the way in which the Government should collect information, perhaps he will communicate them to us.
I am conscious that I will not have responded to all the points made during the debate. I shall look at the record and write to noble Lords where that is appropriate.
In conclusion, perhaps I may summarise the Government's position as one of welcome for much in the Commission's proposal for a revised directive. However, there is scope for improvement, particularly in relation to certain standards. We shall be pressing for those improvements as negotiations on the proposal get under way.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what was a positive and encouraging response to our report; in fact, very much more positive than the written response that we originally had from the Department of the Environment. I thank all those who took part in the debate today, both past and present members of the committee. I wish to make only two observations to our Eurosceptics. The first is to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I feel that the attitude that no foreigner can be trusted should be consigned to the same era which said that no foreigner's water could be trusted. I spent last week in Sicily and was able to drink the water without fear or doubt.
I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Stoddart that studies on the effects of lead on children date back to the beginning of this century. That was why lead in paint was abolished—because children who chewed radiators and pipes ended up as mentally defective and with hyperactivity and other behaviour problems. There are extensive psychological studies to that effect.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, since the noble Baroness has been good enough to mention me, I should perhaps inform her that what I was trying to suggest was that our foreign competitors' record on compliance with Community directives and other legislation stands to be judged on its merits. Secondly, I have to tell her that both this year and last year I was foolish enough to drink the water in a well-known French skiing resort. On both occasions, I was incapacitated for two days. So far as I am concerned, it is still Ne buvez jamais l'eau.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I cannot cap that. I thank all noble Lords for taking part in the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transfer of Undertakings (Acquired Rights): ECC Report
5.5 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Slynn of Hadley rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Transfer of Undertakings: Acquired Rights (Fifth Report, HL Paper 38).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that the debate on drinking water had been the most entertaining that he had attended. I have no aspiration to vie with his record in the debate which follows.
The report with which this debate is concerned, if not dealing with a subject which attracts the headlines, is one which deals with issues of considerable importance to employees and of considerable importance in difficult economic times to employers. I can mention the background very briefly. In 1977 the Community adopted a directive to approximate the laws of the member states dealing with the safeguarding of employees' rights on the transfer of a business or part of a business. There was a general agreement that steps should be taken throughout the Community to protect employees' rights on a change of employer. So the broad structure of the directive was that employees' rights would be transferred from the first employer to the transferee employer and the transfer was not to be regarded as a justification for dismissal except where economic or organisational reasons justified a change in the workforce. It was provided in an important provision that there should be consultation with workers before such transfers took place.
In this country the directive was given effect to by regulations called the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, as amended. They are normally known as TUPE. Since that time there have been some important changes. Internal frontiers have been removed between member states as part of the creation of the single market. That has inevitably led to an increase in the number of mergers, takeovers and transfers of businesses on a trans-national basis within the Community. It therefore became more and more necessary in this context to ensure that workers' rights were preserved.
In addition, over the years the European Court of Justice has decided many cases in which it has sought to lay down an appropriate test. The Commission has come to the view—I believe it is a view shared by all the member states and certainly by both sides of industry—that amendments are now due to the 1977 directive. But the directive cannot be seen in isolation. There are two other directives which are linked with it: the collective redundancies directive, which provides for consultation with workers, and the insolvency directive, which requires that there shall be a guaranteed fund if insolvency results. Indeed, it is the latter directive which is currently under investigation by Sub-Committee E of the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann.
I propose merely to underline four of the main points which have arisen for consideration by the Select Committee and its conclusions. These points have led to
1192
very considerable discussion and we may yet be some way from the adoption of the final directive. I do not regard that as a disadvantage. On the contrary, it is good that both the committee and the speakers in the debate in your Lordships' House should be able to make comments which may have influence on the final decision.
The first of the four points I want to make is this: what should be "an undertaking", or "a part of the business" for the purpose of this directive? The European Court has laid down a test which many find very satisfactory. It says that the decisive criterion is whether the business retains its identity. One looks at all the facts to see whether the operation of the entity has actually continued, or been resumed, in the hands of the new employer. That test appears to have been a manageable one.
The Commission wants to change that. It wants to go further and add that the transfer of an activity, accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity, is to be a transfer, but the transfer of only an activity of an undertaking is not to constitute a transfer. The Commission believes that this new definition clarifies the position. The evidence which the committee received pointed very much in the other direction. Representatives of both employers and employees thought that this was not a helpful distinction to introduce between "activity" and "economic entity" particularly as it was thought that some activities could themselves constitute an economic entity.
Why is this important? It is particularly important in relation to contracting-out where a body, be it a public authority or a private authority, decides to tender competitively and to contract-out particular activities. The question which both sides of industry are concerned with is whether this kind of contracting-out should ever be capable of being a transfer of an undertaking so as to give workers rights on the transfer. For example, we had evidence from the DTI that to include contracting-out in the directive would be restrictive of business freedom. Others thought very strongly that to exclude contracting-out altogether might lead to a lack of employee protection, redundancy, discrimination against older workers and cuts in wages.
We considered in the committee that the Commission's proposal departs from the law as it has been laid down by the Court. We are not satisfied that this proposal is one that should be accepted. We believe that some contracting-out may well justify worker protection in the way contemplated by the directive. It seems to us that the European Court's test as to whether a business retained its identity, looking at all the activities, all the employees and all the transfer of assets, is a safer test to adopt. Therefore, we have come to the view that we should recommend that the Commission's proposal in this particular should not be accepted.
Linked to part of this first question is whether the mere transfer of shareholding could amount to the transfer of an undertaking. It might seem very odd that it should even be considered that it is because, clearly, to transfer the shareholding in a limited company does not of itself change the employee's employer. The

1193
company which was his employer remains his employer. Yet we had much evidence that employees' rights can be affected whatever the legal form of reorganisation or transfer. There is little practical difference for the worker however the change is done, particularly on a trans-national transfer. We considered at the end of the day, as did the Select Committee on an earlier occasion, that protection of employees' rights should not depend on the legal mechanics of the transfer. We recognise that it may be very difficult to define what share transfers do constitute a transfer of an undertaking, but we believe that that is something that should be looked at.
So much for the undertaking. What about the employees who should be entitled to rely on this kind of directive? There is no definition of "employee" in the 1977 directive. The European Court has said that whether someone is an employee should depend on national employment law. The Commission accepts this, but it wishes to ensure that employees who work on a part-time basis, those who have temporary employment or who have contracts of no fixed duration, should be included within the protection of the directives. Most of our witnesses accepted that, with the large increase in the number of part-time workers and temporary workers, this was a proper course to adopt, but we believe that it would be quite wrong to include within the protection, as may be intended, agency workers who are employed by agencies and who are contracted-out to particular companies for work. It is quite right that they should be covered by the health and safety legislation, but it seemed to the committee that to bring them within the context of this directive would be going too far.
However, we have come to the view that the time has probably come when there should be a Community definition of "employee" for this purpose. That does not mean that "employee" should take on a Community meaning in all contexts. Just as the word "worker" in the treaty has a Community definition, so we believe that, when dealing with the transfer of undertakings, collective redundancy and the insolvency directives, it is right that the test of "employee" should be the same in all member states.
My third point deals with the situation where companies are insolvent. Perhaps the most difficult situation to deal with is when the workers' rights have to be balanced against the desirability of preserving the company and the business—indeed, of continuing and securing jobs. The European Court has so far ruled that where the insolvency procedures aim at ensuring the continuation of a business the directive should apply and that if the insolvency proceedings intend to do no more than liquidate the company and not to keep it going then the directive should not apply.
We find this distinction, which is proposed to be introduced now by the Commission, is a complicated and difficult one. The Commission proposes that the rights of a worker need not be safeguarded if the transfer is of a business subject to bankruptcy or an analogous procedure, with a view to the liquidation of the assets. But in other areas member states may provide that transfer debts arising from an employment contract shall
1194
not be transferred as long as workers' rights are given protection equal to that required by the insolvency directive.
We accept that this is a very important question as to how far workers' rights can be protected. We believe that some protection is needed for workers and that this probably in the long run should be included in the insolvency directive. But until that happens this directive should specify clearly what kind of insolvency procedures do result in the worker receiving the protection and what are the criteria. The Commission proposal does not do that. It makes it very difficult, particularly in the context of different legal procedures in the member states, to know what is and what is not included.
We had considerable reservations about whether, particularly in the United Kingdom, it would be right to give judicial bodies the power to impose new terms and employment contracts on the workers and employers going through an insolvency process. We are not persuaded that it would work for the employers and employees or the employers' and the employees' representatives to be given the power to impose new terms and conditions on the workers.
My penultimate point concerns the question of joint liability. Under the 1977 directive, member states were given the power to provide that both the transferor and the transferee employer should be jointly liable for debts to the employees and for the satisfaction of the workers' rights on the transfer. Seven member states took advantage of that and adopted a procedure by which there was joint liability on the part of the transferor and the transferee employers. We did not do that in this country. The Commission now thinks that there should be minimum joint liability in respect of obligations which arose from an employment contract, but that the transferor should be liable only for the period up to the date of the transfer. The Commission would like to take that proposal forward. We in the sub-committee are not persuaded that that is needed. Liabilities can, by contract, where desirable or needed, be apportioned between the transferor and the transferee. It did not seem to us that there was any real evidence of difficulties having been caused by the failure to adopt joint liability in the United Kingdom pursuant to the 1977 directive.
Finally, among the most controversial proposals which we had to consider were those involving employers being obliged to consult with and to inform workers where a transfer was intended. The Commission has made two proposals. The content of the first is not absolutely clear, but we think that we could accept it. The Commission proposes that consultation should be held with a view to reaching an agreement between an employer and an employee rather than simply to seek an agreement. That is not controversial.
The controversial proposal is that the Commission suggests that the obligation to consult and to inform workers should apply only to employers with 50 or more workers or where the worker threshold is such that a works council exists. This is a very difficult question. We realise that a balance has to be struck between reducing burdens on small firms and giving protection

1195
to the workers in those firms. We concluded that the burden imposed on small employers in this proposal is not a heavy one. Moreover, we were impressed by the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry told us that 90 per cent. of transfers involve establishments with fewer than 50 workers and that if the figure of 50 is maintained, something like 35 per cent. of the United Kingdom's workers would be excluded from the protection of the directive. It is probably impossible to arrive scientifically at an exact figure which is the right figure, but on the statistics that we had, and taking into account the level of the burden imposed on the small employer, we came to the view that the right course would be that the obligation should be imposed on employers who employ 20 or more—not 50 or more—workers. We realise that that will not he acceptable to everybody, but it seemed to us to be a fair compromise.
There are many other points of detail in the report—none of them as entertaining as those which I have outlined so far. On that basis I commend the report to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Transfer of Undertakings: Acquired Rights (Fifth Report, HL Paper 38).—(Lord Slynn of Hadley.)
5.24 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I must confess that I have not read the report in question, but I have listened very carefully to the introduction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, which was delivered with his usual accuracy and lucidity—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is in order—
Noble Lords: This is the gap.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sorry.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but I cleared that point before I started.
However, it is clear that the committee has some real doubts about the revised directive and, if I am not mistaken, the existing directive has already been received with some doubt in commercial and industrial circles in this country. Much Community law which is intended to protect employment appears to have had rather the opposite effect. Indeed, unemployment has reached, and is continuing to reach, all-time highs in the Community. It is for that reason that the British Government have wisely done their best to avoid the conditions of the social chapter.
I do not know whether this directive is being taken under the single market provisions of the Treaty of Rome, but I imagine that it is; and, even if it is not, I imagine that it is subject to the qualified majority vote when the time comes. Nor do I know how my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will respond to the doubts which have been expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and the extent to which the Government may agree with the committee's doubts.
1196
My purpose in intervening is to ask my noble and learned friend whether he can give any indication as to the amount of support that we may expect from other European countries when the matter comes to a vote, and therefore any indication of the prospect of avoiding what appears to be some unusually unhelpful European legislation.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have had the pleasure and privilege of serving on Sub-Committee E of the Select Committee on the European Communities under the firm and, if I may say so, entertaining and enlightened chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, during its inquiry into this important subject. As has been said, it is important for workers and employers throughout the European Union. The noble and learned Lord explained the main issues clearly and I shall do my best to add to what he said rather than to repeat exactly the same points.
The closer integration of Europe has led to a significant increase in the number of trans-national company takeovers and mergers. The proposed acquired rights directive specifically addresses the social consequences of such takeovers. The directive is aimed at ensuring that with regard to their contract of employment and their rights, the employees of a business which has been transferred are in exactly the same position after the transfer as they were before. The transfer must not be used as an excuse to dismiss them.
With the important aims of the directive in mind, I shall concentrate on just two of the many issues raised in the report: first, on the scope of the directive and, secondly, on its application to share transfers.
First, as regards the scope of the directive, the sub-committee was concerned about the confused wording of Article 1 which governs the type of transactions to which the directive would apply. The new and perplexing wording of Article 1 would remove the clarity and certainty from—if I dare mention this in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—the well-established case law of the European Court of Justice in this area. The interpretation of this unsatisfactory language would be a fertile source of lengthy and expensive legal challenge in the future. Its uncertainty would be open to abuse as those bidding to acquire companies sought to manipulate the description of the transaction to remove it, and the employees concerned, from the important protection given by the directive. Surely, the text of the directive should be amended and clarified to reflect the simple, practical test already laid down in the case law of the Luxembourg court. Whether or not a transfer comes within the scope of the directive should continue to depend on whether the business transferred retains its identity after the transfer.
Speaking for myself, I am glad that the sub-committee felt able to support Article 2(2) of the proposed directive which would prevent member states, including the United Kingdom, from excluding part-time, temporary and other so-called atypical

1197
workers from the definition of "employee" and consequently from the protection of the directive. The number of people employed in such posts in the European Community has greatly increased in recent years. In this country the growth in part-time and temporary employment has been greatest among women, who now constitute 86 per cent. of all part-time employees. The principle of equal treatment for men and women enshrined in Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome increasingly requires equal rights for part-time and atypical workers. It is partly for this reason that it is important that the directive should apply not only when an entire business is transferred but also when an activity carried out by that business is merely contracted out for another firm to perform. Women are employed predominantly in cleaning, catering and the other ancillary services which are commonly contracted out. Experience of the operation of compulsory tendering without employee protection, such as that offered by the proposed directive, shows that the greatest cuts in conditions, hours and pay have occurred in those areas where the staff are predominantly female. The exclusion of contracting out from the directive can have indirectly discriminatory and severe adverse consequences for women.
Experience of the operation of compulsory tendering and contracting out in the UK has also shown that it tends to lead to disproportionately high levels of redundancy among workers with health problems, those nearing retirement age or those with a disability. It is clear from the case law of the Luxembourg court that the existing directive applies to contracting-out activities. The sub-committee concluded that the test of whether or not the business in question retained its identity—stated by the Court of Justice to determine the scope of the directive, and consequently used to determine the applicability to contracting-out—constituted a suitable, workable approach. We thought that that test should be expressly incorporated in the text of the directive in place of the strained and confused language of the current Commission proposal.
I turn finally and briefly to the application of the directive to takeovers by way of share transfer. The proposed directive is silent on the issue, yet a change in the control of a business resulting from the transfer of shares is likely to affect the employees of that company just as much as a change in control resulting from the sale of the business and its assets to a new employer. As the directive currently stands, employees in the former situation would not be entitled to protection against dismissal and the right to consultation which the directive would currently accord to workers in the latter position. We concluded that the question of affording protection to employees should depend upon the substance rather than the legal mechanics of an operation. To exclude takeovers by way of share transfer from the protection offered by the directive would arbitrarily and disproportionately affect the rights of a significant section of the labour force. It would distort competition, giving those bidding who acquire control of a business by way of share transfer an unfair advantage because they could avoid the indirect cost of
1198
protecting the acquired rights of employees. It would be inconsistent with developments in other Community legislation in this area.
I have mentioned just a few of the many aspects of the sub-committee's detailed report. I favour the rest of the sub-committee's conclusions. Noble Lords who have read it will see that the sub-committee would like to see European legislation strengthening the right of employees to information and consultation during the takeover process. That would entitle an additional 10 per cent. of workers in the United Kingdom, along with those employed on seagoing vessels, to consultation and information without imposing unreasonable or excessive burdens. We looked at other Community legislation in this field and made recommendations on consolidation and harmonisation. We also looked more widely at employment issues and suggested that the directive, which was silent on the matter, might additionally protect employee pension rights.
This is a wide-ranging, enlightened and positive report which should provide a practical contribution to further work on this important and complicated subject. I hope that the Brussels Commission and the Government will take note of our conclusions when any new proposals are brought forward. They may be cheered up by the fact that, although the sub-committee was critical of some of the Commission's proposals, it was untouched by europhobia, little Englandism or mad cow disease of the kind that one sometimes hears, even in your Lordships' Chamber.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I congratulate the sub-committee on the report which is today before the House. The issue is a somewhat complicated one. The issue of the protection of employees' rights in the event of mergers and transfers is one that has been discussed in this House on previous occasions as a result of regulations introduced by the Government to comply with EU directives. However, the present report sets out the issues with admirable clarity, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, in his presentation this afternoon.
Until relatively recently, when a business was transferred and thus the identity of the employer changed, the employment contract was automatically terminated. Employees then had no right to protest and had no protection against dismissal, other than any redundancy rights to which they might already have been entitled. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (commonly known as TUPE) were intended to put into effect the EU Acquired Rights Directive 1977, the purpose of which was to protect the rights of employees when the undertakings for which they were working were transferred to other employers. The noble and learned Lord has already said this afternoon that there are two other related directives.
Matters have moved on since then. Mergers and takeovers have become very common, some of them trans-national. In this country in particular there has for

1199
a number of years been a greater takeover culture than in some other EU countries. Therefore, there is an even greater need for employees to be assured that they will have some protection against arbitrary actions should the firms they work for be taken over by someone else. Moreover, the pattern of employment has changed. For these reasons, it is only right that the provisions of the existing directives should be reconsidered and perhaps strengthened.
In general, therefore, I welcome the Commission's new proposals, although I have some reservations which I will spell out this afternoon. On the positive side, I very much welcome the proposition that part-time and temporary workers should be covered by the directive. We have seen profound changes in the labour scene. It is fashionable to talk about flexible working as though it is an enormously positive development. Some employers may think so, and certainly that appears to be the view of the Government. It is not the view of all employees. It is largely responsible for the general feeling of lack of security which is prevalent today even among those who are in employment. Much of the new employment that has been created is part time, mainly of women and much of it poorly paid. A significant minority of part-time employees earn well below £4 an hour, and some as little as £2 an hour. Many such workers have little sense of security.
Many employers have turned away from offering continuous employment, and offer short-term contracts—often for only two years. Again, that adds to the general feeling of insecurity. It adds to the feeling that many employees have that, so far as their employers are concerned, they are just disposable items. It is therefore right and proper in my view that such employees should have the protection of the directive. I am glad to see that the committee, too, supports that.
I see that the committee does not however believe that agency workers should be included. I am not altogether happy about that. More and more companies are seeking to cut down on their labour costs by employing people who are not part of their own workforce but hired from outside—often for quite long periods. I know that there could be complications, but I think that that is worth looking at again. I am not certain that the committee is entirely happy with its own view on that, as the report says:
"we do not believe that agency workers should necessarily be included in the definition of 'employee'".
The committee goes on to suggest that in the longer term the directive should attempt a definition of the term "employee". I agree entirely with that.
As to the definition of an undertaking, I am inclined to the views expressed by the TUC and the ETUC that the attempt, as they put it, to drive a wedge between "activity" and "economic entity" could lead to confusion. That view seems to be shared by the committee. In particular, I should not like to see that used as a means of exempting some forms of contracting out. The EOC has drawn attention to the impact that that could have on the employment of women in the public sector, where compulsory competitive tendering has made the contracting out of services very common. As the EOC points out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lester,
1200
said this afternoon, that will affect more women than men. The EOC therefore believes that the protection of the directive and of the TUPE regulations must apply, otherwise the effect could well be discriminatory.
I welcome the committee's finding that employees should be protected under the directive where there is a change of control of a business resulting from a transfer of shares. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, dealt with that in some detail. It is also important, in my view, that employees should be protected in insolvency situations. While it is of course right that nothing should be placed in the way of the continuation of a business, with the resulting continuation of employment for the employees concerned—no one suggests that—employees do have rights in insolvency situations, and those should of course be protected. I know that it is a complicated and difficult issue, but it is something which should be considered properly.
On the issue of joint liability, I note that differing views were expressed by a number of witnesses. I believe that the proposal is intended to provide for extra security for workers caught up in a takeover situation, but it does, as the committee says, lack clarity, and I am inclined to agree with that. I note also that the TUC does not particularly favour the proposition. There seems to be general agreement that in British circumstances it will not produce anything very much in the way of additional security for employees.
On the issue of information and consultation, I can see no reason at all to limit information and consultation obligations to undertakings employing 50 or more employees. The result of such a provision would leave very many employees with no protection whatsoever: 9.2 million employees work in undertakings where there are fewer than 50 employees.
I agree entirely with the TUC, which made a submission along those lines to the committee, that that provision is quite unacceptable. I hope that it does not continue to be part of the directive. I am pleased to see that the committee is in agreement with that, although I cannot see why 20 employees should be the threshold either. That still leaves about 25 per cent. of workers with no protection. I am glad that the committee has agreed with the TUC and the union concerned (the NURMT) that the directive should be extended to sea-going vessels, and that it also does not agree that member states should have the option of excluding the information and consultation provisions.
I shall say a word about pensions. I have been under the impression for some time—largely as a result of Ministers' statements—that it was accepted that in takeover situations it was necessary to provide that pensions provision would be comparable. No one believes that it is possible in a takeover, where entirely new pension arrangements may be intended for the merged company, to provide exactly the same pensions. But there are decisions on record which would appear to confirm the view of pensions as deferred pay.
It seems entirely proper therefore that comparable pension provision should be available for employees after a takeover. I would expect the Government to agree with that in the light of some of the statements

1201
made in the past, and, in particular, in the light of the advice the Government have given, I understand, to local authorities. However, it does seem that as things stand, the issue is not entirely free of ambiguity, and therefore it is appropriate that it should be dealt with in the directive.
Finally, I of course agree that rationalising and harmonising these directives would be a good idea. So, a very good report. In the main, this is a set of propositions that is worthy of support, with the few reservations to which I have referred.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, one of the attractions of the offer that the Prime Minister made to me to leave the role of Lord Advocate and to return to the mainstream of politics was that never again should I have to offer an opinion on the acquired rights directive. It is accordingly with some dismay that I rise to respond to this debate.
We have had an interesting, albeit short, debate. I wish to join in the expressions of thanks to the committee for the detailed work undertaken in a short period of time on a subject widely recognised as being one of the more difficult and contentious areas of European employment law. It says much for the committee also that it has been able to reach such a consensus on so many important issues.
The Government have in recent years received many representations about the working of the 1977 acquired rights directive. It would be wrong of me to suggest that we do not have serious misgivings about the way it is now being applied to situations not envisaged at the time of its adoption. That is why we welcomed the opportunity afforded by the Commission's proposal to reopen discussion about the proper scope of the directive and the way it operates. Our concerns are shared by others who also wish to see a sensible revision to the directive. In short we wish to ensure that the directive is fit for its purpose and applies only to those situations to which it is suited.
However, while we welcome the opportunity afforded by the proposal to discuss these matters, that does not mean that we welcome all of its detailed provisions. Many aspects of the proposal have been rightly criticised as unclear, uncertain in their effect, or simply unwelcome. We do not wish to see a revised text which would add to the wealth of litigation which has so bedevilled the existing directive. The report rightly draws attention to many of those issues.
Both the Commission's proposal and the report address a wide range of complex issues. I am sure the House will understand that in the time available to me today it may not be possible to do full justice to all of them. However, in responding perhaps I may put on record the Governments' views. I shall also attempt to respond to specific points that have been raised in the course of the debate.
Of the main issues raised in the report, I think it would be fair to say that more than half deal, in one way or another, with the scope of the proposal. By that
1202
I mean they concern either the situations to which the revised directive would apply—or not apply—or to which categories of employees would be covered by it. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with amendments to a directive which has been in place for nearly 20 years, I find it significant that it is thought necessary to address such basic issues.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, referred to the definition of an undertaking. Noble Lords will be aware that perhaps the key element of the proposal, to which we and the committee attach considerable importance, concerns the question of what constitutes an undertaking or part of one. When is there a transfer of an undertaking—and when is there not?
The report took the view that the present text of the directive is open to criticism because it had given rise to a substantial amount of litigation both in our national courts and before the Court of Justice. Reference was also made to the need to amend Article 1 of the directive and to the unsatisfactory nature of the Commission's proposal. It was stated that this was only likely to create greater uncertainty. Again, I welcome your Lordships' findings on those points. They are views which the Government share and which we have been stating for some time now.
There are, of course, those who have said that it is unnecessary to amend the directive at all on this point as the case law of the Court of Justice has put matters beyond doubt. I was attracted by the observation in the report by Mr. Paul Goulding of the Employment Lawyers Association. The report states:
"The problem with the new text of Article 1 of the directive is that, as Mr. Goulding of the ELA puts it, 'it removes such clarity and certainty as has crept into the law to date".
That appears to me to sum it up admirably. I am not personally satisfied that a state of absolute clarity or certainty has yet been reached. It is clear that even though the directive has been in existence for nearly 20 years there are still cases concerning its scope to be determined by the Court of Justice. We cannot be certain what direction the court will take in those or in future cases. I therefore welcome the support which the report gives to our call for changes to clarify what constitutes the transfer of an undertaking.
As to where the line should be drawn in respect of the contracting out of services, I may have misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, but I thought that he was recording the Government's position as being that all contracting out should be excluded. Perhaps I may make it clear that that is not our position. We recognise that contracting out covers a wide range of situations, some of which will necessarily involve the legitimate transfer of an undertaking. However, that is certainly not true of all contracting out or of all transfers of a contract from one contractor to another. Often such changes would not entail the transfer of an organisational framework or any of those other matters on which any common sense understanding of the term "undertaking" is founded. Inevitably, as the report has recognised, no two factual situations are alike. But what is needed is a clear definition which will enable employers, employees and national courts to assess whether or not there has been

1203
the transfer to which the directive applies. In that respect, I believe that there is common ground between the Government and the committee. It is what we are seeking in negotiations on the proposal.
It may be helpful if I comment here on developments concerning this aspect of the Commission's proposal. The European Parliament has not yet given its formal opinion on the proposal. I understand that it is expected to be given later this year. However, I also understand that Commissioner Flynn has advised Parliament that following receipt of that opinion the Commission proposes to withdraw the present proposal and substitute a new one. The new proposal which may be put forward would not include changes to Article 1 of the directive. We have had no formal communications from the Commission on this matter so I cannot enlighten the House further at the moment. We shall need to consider any revised proposal when it is made, and we shall ensure that the House is informed in the normal way. However, it follows from my earlier remarks that the Government remain convinced of the need for clear limits to be placed on the scope of the directive and for any revised text to be made as transparent as possible.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Pearson that there is a considerable degree of agreement among member countries of the European Union that there should he a change here. I cannot claim that the desire for change points in the same direction. However, countries such as Germany and France, for example, which he might assume are not in favour of any change to the directive, would like to see some change brought about as the indications of the ECJ's more recent decisions start to become clear. If this particular directive is to be amended it would be amended under Article 100 and in those circumstances it would be necessary for unanimity rather than QMV.
Perhaps I may turn to a number of the more specific issues which were raised, one of which was share transfers. The committee commented that the directive should be extended to cover changes of control by share transfers. I shall dwell on that issue only briefly because I believe that our position is clear from the evidence that we gave in the course of the inquiry.
The aim of the directive is to safeguard employees' rights in the event of a change in the legal identity of their employer. The provisions were drafted with that in mind. They make sense in that context. However, in the case of a share transfer there is no change in the legal identity of the employer. The employer remains the same and the employees' contractual and statutory rights are unaffected. To extend the scope of the directive to cover such transfers would, in our view, alter its whole rationale.
Of course, no one would deny that a change in the effective control of a company can have implications for its employees, although it would not necessarily do so. However, there are many situations which can have as many, or greater, implications for employees. For example, changes to the senior management or the direction of the company may take place without any change in share control. That does not mean to say that we can or should legislate for all these situations, still less so at a European level.
1204
Our existing framework of employment legislation provides proper protection where there is no change in the legal identity of the employer. It is right that it should be so. While I recognise the concerns which led the committee to this conclusion in the report, I regret to say that it is one issue at least on which we do not see eye to eye.
Perhaps I may turn to the definition of "employees". The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, may be interested to know that I agree with her. I welcome and share the report's conclusions that member states should not be allowed to exclude part-time and temporary workers from the definition of employees for these purposes. It is important to recall that the basic purpose of the directive is to ensure that employees continue to enjoy the same legal rights against their new employer as they enjoyed against their former employer. It should not matter that individuals concerned were part-time or employed on a temporary basis. Whatever rights they had before the transfer should transfer and our law already provides for that.
However, I cannot agree that there should in the longer term be a definition of an employee for this purpose. In practice it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to maintain one definition for this purpose and certain other directives without extending the definition more generally to other areas of our domestic law. I believe that that would be unwelcome and ultimately damaging to our national interest. However, I disagree with the noble Baroness in so far as I welcome the recognition in the report that the proposal goes too far in respect of agency workers.
As regards insolvency, I believe that the report rightly identifies the fact that the key issue is to find the best means by which the interests of employees affected by insolvency situations can be properly safeguarded. Its conclusion that the directive should not provide an obstacle to effective corporate rescues and the saving of jobs must surely be right. That is why we are of the view that insolvency situations should be taken outside the scope of the directive. We believe that to be the simplest and most effective solution and one which is supported by those who know best the problems which can arise—the practitioners themselves. As I read the report, their evidence was clear that the application of the directive in insolvency situations was damaging and that the Commission's proposed distinction between liquidation and non-liquidation proceedings was unhelpful. However, while the total removal of such situations from the scope of the directive would be our preferred option we are fully prepared to explore other options which would ease those problems.
Another issue, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was the issue of joint liability. The report did not support the Commission's proposal for mandatory joint liability of the transferor and transferee employers. I welcome that conclusion. We have long said that that is a prime example of the Commission's desire to harmonise for the sake of it. That is a tendency we resist. We do not object to harmonisation when there

1205
is a clear case for it, but, in our view, no such case has been made here and we are pleased and relieved that your Lordships' committee came to the same conclusion.
Finally, I turn to the matter of information and consultation. I welcome the recognition that there is a balance to be struck between the burdens on businesses, and small businesses in particular, and the protection of employees. We are all in favour of employers properly informing and consulting their workforce. That is nothing less than good business practice. However, I need not remind your Lordships of the importance that we attach to allowing employers and employees to develop arrangements which best suit their particular business. An obligation on all businesses to inform and consult through representatives, as exists at present, may simply ignore the realities of small business life where direct communication with employees will often be more practical and effective.
Therefore, it is important to be clear that the Commission's proposal is not to exclude firms below a certain threshold from all information and consultation rights but to limit the specific obligation to consult through representatives. Employers in those excluded businesses would still be under an obligation to provide information direct to the affected employees. Clearly, there will be room for discussion as regards the precise information which should be provided. That will be consistent with our wish to have the lightest possible legislative burden on small firms.
Quite where the threshold should be drawn is a matter for negotiation. Your Lordships will have noted that there was disagreement in the course of our short debate because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, reflected the committee's view that the threshold should be at 20 employees while the noble Baroness indicated that she considers that figure to be still too high. I stress that it is a matter of representation and not whether or not information should be required.
The subject of pensions is difficult, and I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to attempt to comment further on that.
I conclude by thanking all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who contributed. In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, I offer my views with some trepidation, given their expertise and the expertise of others in your Lordships' Chamber. But I hope that in spelling out in some detail the Government's response to this extremely worthwhile report, it will be helpful to those who have a particular interest in this most difficult area of employment law.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships who have been present for the debate and who have participated in it. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his extremely detailed response to our report.
On contracting out, I was summarising the evidence of the DTI which said that,
1206
"the application of the Directive to contracting for services restricts entrepreneurial freedom, may inhibit quality improvements as well as denying the client the benefit of substantial cost reductions, is damaging to competition and thus inhibits the prospects for enterprises within the EU to compete and prosper in increasingly global markets".
Despite that I am glad the Minister feels that there is room for some contracting out to be included with the directive.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has not read our report. As the inquiry went on, it became evident how important is this whole subject. If the noble Lord now reads the report, he will see an area, as in so many areas, where the European Court of Justice has been extremely cautious and constructive. He will see in the report that we commended much, pointed out many drafting inadequacies, and sought to make constructive suggestions. I am most grateful to your Lordships for this debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) (Amendment) Order 1996
6.4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order amends Article 10 of, and the schedule to, the Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) Order 1994. Article 10 of the 1994 order identifies the regulated markets which are "regulated in the United Kingdom" for the purposes of the territorial scope of the offence of insider dealing. The schedule to the 1994 order identifies which markets are "regulated markets" for the purposes of insider dealing.
The 1994 order now requires amendment to take account of a number of developments in the UK's securities markets and certain overseas markets. Thus the amending order updates Article 10 of the 1994 order to reflect the separation of the London and Irish stock exchanges and the recognition of Tradepoint Financial Networks plc as a UK investment exchange. It also revises the schedule to the 1994 order to take account of the changes to the UK's exchanges and to reflect the creation of two new overseas exchanges—France's Nouveau Marché and the Iceland Stock Exchange. In addition, the amending order deletes seven obsolete overseas trading facilities from the list of regulated markets. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this order. It is an order which both sides of the House will find unexceptionable. It seems that this is a slightly cumbersome way in which to change the list of different regulated markets. I wonder

1207
whether there is an easier way in which to achieve that. Must each of the investment exchanges be listed under a new statutory instrument? If somebody has dealt in inside information on, for example, the exchange known as the Nouveau Marché since its creation but before this order came into effect, will he get away with that insider dealing?
The Minister has explained that the Icelandic Stock Exchange is being added to the list of investment exchanges and, hence, regulated markets. Will he confirm that it is therefore correct to leave in the Securities Exchange of Iceland? These Benches acknowledge the manifold virtues of competition but we are certainly impressed that the Icelandic capital markets can support competing securities exchanges. These Benches are not in favour generally of increasing the discretionary powers of the Executive but as I said, we wonder whether it would be possible to add and subtract exchanges other than by means of specific statutory instrument.
At the same time, will the Minister confirm that the proposed pan-European junior stock market, which fashionably should be known as EASDAQ, is covered under this order? Furthermore, in the United Kingdom the junior market, the alternative investment market, has been established under the broad rules of the Stock Exchange but very specifically with the Stock Exchange not taking responsibility for, for example, the accuracy of documents used to support the introduction of a new company to the AIM. That is the responsibility of the nominated adviser or broker. Will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding that, the Stock Exchange will monitor secondary dealing and hence, potential insider dealing at least as vigorously for companies on the AIM as is done for companies on the main market?
In saying "at least as vigorously", that brings me to the central question which is perhaps not directly addressed by this order. Is the Minister really satisfied with the current level of identification of insider dealing and prosecution of the cases which are identified?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for his approval of the order. I shall try to answer the questions that he put to me. The noble Viscount asked initially whether we need to do it this way; indeed, I asked the exact same question myself. Although I did not receive a proper answer, I suspect that a Minister at this Dispatch Box, at some stage in the past when the original Act was going through the House, under pressure from the Benches opposite—and perhaps even from the Benches behind me—conceded that it should be done by this method and not by executive order.
I make that assumption because I have suffered from the same pressures on a number of occasions regarding pieces of legislation that I have put through the House. On such occasions I have one thought. It seems to me that someone in 10 years' time may ask, "What clot of a Minister ever suggested that we should do this by such a laborious method?" Therefore, I have some sympathy with the noble Viscount who rather more delicately asked exactly the same question about the legislation now before us. Nevertheless, we have to do it this way.
1208
That was the way it was framed in the original Act. It was done, presumably, because—and here I am being slightly serious—Parliament took the view at that stage that these were serious matters and that changes ought to come before the House for its approval and not be done at the whim or even in the wisdom of the executive.
So far as concerns Iceland, it is true that the Securities Exchange of Iceland is still there and still operating. I would be content to accompany the noble Viscount to Iceland on a fact finding mission to check the position. However, I suspect that the Treasury would not sanction my expenses in that respect, nor indeed those of the noble Viscount. Therefore, the answer to that question is, yes.
As regards the question about the Stock Exchange vigorously pursuing insider dealing, I can confirm that it certainly does so over the many parts of the exchange for which it is responsible. So far as concerns the oddly named EASDAQ, it has not been included in the list of regulated markets because it has not yet started trading. We understand that it may do so later this year. I am afraid that we cannot add something to the list unless it has actually started.
I believe that that leads me to another of the noble Viscount's questions; namely, what happens in the interim between coming into being and being added to the list? I have to say that I shall have to check the position. However, logic suggests to me that the noble Viscount is probably right. It needs to be added to the list but, of course, any insider dealing on that market would be regulated by that market. Therefore, I do not believe that the problem to which the noble Viscount referred really exists.
All those markets in the EU—and they are, of course, all markets in the EU or the EEA—have their own regulatory system which would operate if anyone was doing insider trading on their markets. That allows us to deal with them almost as one to the effect that we can act against insider traders who are here and doing insider trading on those markets. I believe that I am right in that respect. However, if I am not, I shall certainly write to the noble Viscount on the matter.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I believe that the position of EASDAQ is, perhaps, sensitive because it is a pan-European exchange and, therefore, probably not covered by a domestic regulator.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall certainly look into that aspect of the matter. It is supposedly going to be pan-European, but, so far, it has only been approved by Belgium. I understand that EC law assumes that the same competent authority will approve prospectuses intended to be used to make public offers in other member states as it is responsible for admitting the securities to the official list. I do not believe that there is a problem in that respect, but I shall certainly check the position so far as concerns EASDAQ. At present, it is not on the list because it does not yet operate. With those remarks, I hope that the House will accept the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Uncertificated Securities) (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1996
6.14 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 16th May 1996 be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving that the above order be approved, I shall speak also to the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1996.
I hope that the House will find it sensible to consider these instruments together, as they both relate to the introduction of CREST. That is why I am introducing the second of the instruments and not my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie from the Department of Trade and Industry.
Perhaps I may, first, say a few words about CREST in case some noble Lords think that I have suddenly come before the House to advocate a brand of dairy product, toothpaste, or whatever.
CREST is the new computerised securities settlement system being built for the City by a project team on loan from the Bank of England. Some noble Lords will recall the debate on the main CREST regulations which took place last December, and which my noble friend Lord Chesham introduced on behalf of the Government. During that debate the importance of CREST to London's international competitive position was explained. I am pleased to say that CREST remains on target for inauguration on 15th July of this year.
Inevitably, with such a significant project, there are all sorts of bits of legislation which need amending for one reason or another. Having brought the main CREST regulations into effect last year, the Government have since been preparing the remaining pieces of secondary legislation for consideration by Parliament. The instruments that we are considering today are two such items.
The extension of scope order is an investor protection measure. The Government announced last October that people who input instructions to CREST on behalf of CREST members and sponsors will need to be authorised under the Financial Services Act. To ensure that this happens, the definition of "investment business" set out in Schedule 1 to the Act needs to be extended. That is what the order does.
It does it by inserting a new category of investment business into Schedule 1 to the Financial Services Act. The new category focuses on the acts of sending, or causing the sending of, CREST instructions on behalf of another person.
I turn now to the second instrument, the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations. They will ensure that stocklenders are not subject to additional burdens of disclosure following the introduction of CREST next month.
Stocklending is a standard market practice under which stock is lent to a professional dealer to enable an order to buy stock to be met while demand for that stock
1210
temporarily exceeds supply. The stocklender, who is typically a large institutional shareholder, receives what I will term "collateral" for his loan. Stocklending plays an important part in maintaining the liquidity and efficiency of the London market.
Under CREST, a collection of different stocks of the necessary total market value will be used as collateral for stockloans. CREST will select the stock from the borrower's accounts which are at that time in surplus and provide for the stock to be returned at the start of the following day. As a result, the stocklender will not know in advance which types of stocks he will receive as collateral, and will only hold the stocks overnight.
The collateral may well include shares in public companies. Where that is the case, the shares, when added to those already held by the stocklender, could have the effect of taking the stocklender's shareholding through one of the disclosure thresholds specified in the Companies Act 1985. Where a threshold is passed, the Act requires the shareholder to disclose to the company his interests in its shares. That is to enable the company to know who is in a position to influence its affairs through the control of substantial shareholdings.
Clearly it would be very burdensome for stocklenders to be required to notify companies of the overnight shareholdings that they happen to acquire by accepting collateral for a stockloan. It is likely that by the time notification of receipt of the shares had reached the company, the shares would already have been returned to their previous owner. This, together with the fact that the stocklender is not seeking to use the shares to influence the company's activities, means that the disclosures would be of very little interest to the company. They are more likely to confuse than to inform.
The burden would not be limited to stocklenders. The companies and the Stock Exchange which received the notifications would need to record them. That would lead to additional expense which would not be balanced by any significant benefits from receiving the information.
The draft regulations would ensure that those unnecessary burdens are not imposed on stocklenders, companies or the Stock Exchange. The draft regulations amend the Companies Act 1985 to provide a specific exemption from the disclosure requirements where a person receives shares selected by CREST and those shares are returned the following day.
With that explanation, I commend both instruments to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 16th May 1996 be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, again we wish to thank the Minister for introducing these two orders, and we acknowledge that the belated introduction of a paperless settlement system is central to the continued success of London as a financial centre. There has been a long history of abortive attempts to do this, and 10 years ago when exchanges such as Milan in Italy were seen as hugely inefficient the project in London

1211
started. Now we have a highly efficient, automated, paperless system in markets throughout Europe, including the previously reviled Italian markets.
The introduction of CREST and the efficient operation of participants in it is entirely welcomed by noble Lords on these Benches. At the same time we acknowledge that it is absolutely proper to ensure that any entity that is inputting instructions to CREST should be brought under the provisions of the Financial Services Act, and thereby add this activity to the list of investment businesses. We have noted after a long list of unhappy incidents—most recently the collapse of Barings—the paramount importance of efficient and properly run settlements and of protecting investors from any abuse of that. Will the Minister confirm that he believes that the exceptions to the definitions under Notes 1(a) and (b) of the order still leave investors adequately protected in the circumstances of both a takeover offer and a new issue?
As regards disclosure of interests in shares, we would agree absolutely that there would be no advantage in unnecessary information being provided as to the routine operation of CREST which may stop lenders being put over the 3 per cent. or any of the other normal limits for disclosure provided under the Companies Act. We would be concerned about a risk of inadvertently opening new loopholes whereby companies can build stakes in other companies without immediately disclosing the level of their shareholding. For instance, at the moment when a company offers a rights issue a predator can build a stake through buying the nil paid rights in the shares when they are separately traded and delay disclosing the effective interest that that entity has until after the rights issue is completed. There are exemptions for market makers and their requirement to disclose stakes above 3 per cent. I think the Minister confirmed that it is only through the automatic operation of CREST that this exemption can occur, but can he confirm that when a gap of one business day might quite possibly cover four or five calendar days over a holiday weekend there is not a way that this exemption can be used to enable an undisclosed stake to be built in a target company?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his support for the orders before us. Coming from the background he does, he knows a good deal more about these matters than I. He echoes what the Government feel strongly; namely, that a paperless system is essential to the success of London as a financial centre. He pointed to Italy, which has progressed from a market which I think he described as chaotic to one which is now a paperless system. That suggests that we have to keep looking to our laurels. I am pleased that the noble Viscount echoed the point I made in my introductory remarks that it is absolutely right to ensure that those people and companies inputting information into CREST via terminals are registered under the Financial Services Act.
As regards exceptions to the definitions, we do not believe this diminishes security in any way. We are confident about that.
1212
On the point about an undisclosed stake, I believe I said at the end of my speech that this concerns only the electronic system, as the noble Viscount, rightly pointed out. I explained the reasons why we needed to bring forward this order as regards stock lending. The regulations will provide an exemption from the disclosure requirements which, as the noble Viscount rightly pointed out, are important where a person receives shares selected by CREST and those shares are returned the following day. The noble Viscount made an interesting point as regards the following day and the weekend.
Viscount Chandos: The following business day.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was about to come to that. The noble Viscount asked how a holiday weekend would affect that. As regards a holiday weekend, a transaction could be carried out on Friday and the next business day would be Tuesday. He asked whether someone could therefore use the system in a way that we do not intend. I shall consider that matter and write to him, although I am confident that we have dealt with it. However, it is a point that I should consider.
I believe that we are in total agreement about the importance of the introduction of the CREST system to the City and about the various regulations and orders which will be needed to run it effectively and efficiently. As regards my assurance that I shall consider the point about holidays, I did not think that important money-men took holidays. However, I accept that they do. I shall consider that point and write to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Administration of Civil Service Pension Schemes) Order 1996
6.27 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order is being introduced as part of the Government's drive to improve the quality of public services and to develop better, more efficient methods of delivering those services. The Government's Competing for Quality programme has produced a sea-change in the way public services are delivered.
Competition has led to better value for money for the taxpayer. In the three years since the Competing for Quality programme has been operating, departments have reviewed, in all, £2.6 billion worth of activities. If managed well and performance matches expectations, the annual cost savings should be around £540 million. Competition has also produced higher standards of service for the customer.
The order is to be made under Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It specifies administration of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and associated schemes as a function which contractors may be authorised to undertake. At present under the Superannuation Act 1972 only public servants may undertake the administration function.
Section 1(1) of the Superannuation Act 1972 provides that the Minister of the Civil Service may make, maintain and administer superannuation schemes for persons employed in the Civil Service and related organisations. Administration covers such activities as scheme induction, answering inquiries, maintenance of personnel data, processing applications to buy added years or pay additional voluntary contributions, the calculation of benefits and paying pensions. The administration of the PCSPS and associated schemes is largely decentralised as far as serving members are concerned.
Responsibility for day-to-day administration of Civil Service pension and compensation arrangements is formally delegated under the 1972 Act to employing departments and agencies. They can either perform the full administration function in-house or buy in services from providers within government. The administration of the pension entitlements of retired members of the PCSPS, including those whose pensions are deferred, is undertaken centrally. The Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service) buys the pensioner payroll and associated customer care and banking services from the Paymaster Agency at Crawley.
Lest there he any doubt on the point, I confirm that the order will have application to the Paymaster Agency's role in pensions administration, as this point may not be indisputably clear from the course of the debate in another place.
The order will enable private sector providers as well as existing service providers to compete for the business, and thus extend the choice available to employing departments and agencies. The Civil Service unions and the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance have been formally consulted over the terms of the draft order.
An efficiency scrutiny of the administration of the Civil Service pension schemes recommended that departments should be encouraged to market test their pension administration operations. Approval of this order will permit departments to test this area of activity against alternative sources in the market. The aim is to give improved quality of service to scheme members and to provide better value for money for the taxpayer.
Decisions on the timing and other arrangements for market tests will be the responsibility of individual departments. It will be open to existing service providers to compete on a value for money basis. Such bids will be
1214
on a full cost basis and considered rigorously. If after a market test it is found that the arrangements in place offer the best service and the best value for money, those arrangements will continue.
I invite noble Lords particularly to note that the order relates solely to administration of the Civil Service schemes. Concern has been expressed in the Civil Service community, including local branches of the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance, over the implications of this order for both the active and retired membership of the schemes. Perhaps I may reassure your Lordships on this point.
Occupational pension arrangements for civil servants will continue to be provided through the Civil Service pension scheme. The pensions of scheme members will not be affected. Competitive tendering of the administration function involves no changes in the benefits provided by the scheme, and the pensions of retired members will continue to be increased annually in accordance with the Pensions (Increase) Acts. The Minister for the Civil Service will remain responsible for the development of the scheme and also for the rules setting out the benefits and entitlements of scheme members. There is no pension fund—so there are no fund assets which could be put at risk. Cabinet Office Ministers will continue to account to Parliament for expenditure on the Civil Superannuation Vote.
A contractor would not be allowed to advise civil servants whether to join or leave the scheme or on the merits of individuals making additional voluntary contributions or buying added years. Explanatory booklets for scheme members would continue to be published by the OPS. Steps would be taken to maintain the confidentiality of personnel records. Computerised records would, of course, be covered by the Data Protection Act.
In any market test appropriate service standards for scheme administration of the PCSPS would be set. Any contract would require a standard of service that will be at least as high as that under existing arrangements. Those standards will apply from the outset.
A new pensions administration software package, tailored to the requirements of the Civil Service schemes, is being procured by the Office of Public Service. It will initially become available later in the summer. The new software will enable more efficient and innovative approaches to scheme administration to be adopted—for example, a one-stop shop for serving scheme members. It will enable service levels to scheme members to be raised while significantly reducing costs. The software will be portable between providers, enabling new players, including small businesses, to enter the market place. It will make market testing particularly effective.
A series of competitive tendering exercises will offer the work in manageable parcels. This will encourage new and existing third party administrators to compete effectively for the business and so offer departments and agencies a number of alternative suppliers from which to

1215
choose. I would remind your Lordships that in its fifth report the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee stated:
"The quest for greater effectiveness and efficiency in the Civil Service is an unending one: the requirement to maximise the return from finite resources will not go away".
I believe that, by exposing administration of Civil Service pension and compensation arrangements to competition, it will be possible to raise service standards to scheme members and secure best value for money in the delivery of the administration function. The pension entitlements of scheme members will not be affected. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the arguments for this change. I am bound to say that my initial reaction was, "Here we go again".
The Government have been informed that I proposed at the outset to say something about the Recruitment and Assessment Services. The Chief Whip on the other side was so informed by my noble friend the Chief Whip on this side this morning. I do so in view of the evidence given yesterday by the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Freeman to the Select Committee set up by this House following the debate on the RAS. It is no doubt much in the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The Government were roundly defeated. After that defeat the Select Committee was set up. It was agreed that the RAS would be one of the first issues that it should consider. Considerable pressure was put upon Ministers—I am sure that the noble Earl will remember this too—to give an assurance that they would delay a decision on the RAS until after that committee had reported and the House had had a chance to consider the report. Clearly that was the view of the House. But if one reads the words that the noble Earl uttered, there was no commitment to that effect. I accept that; I checked Hansard again today. But clearly that was the impression left, certainly on this side of the House and I suspect on many of those who voted against the Government on that Friday afternoon.
What has happened? Despite the setting up of that Select Committee, the Government have proceeded. In the debate which took place in the other place on 22nd May, a portmanteau resolution on the Civil Service was put down. It was the very last day of the parliamentary Session. Included in that Motion, among a number of other matters, were the words:
"That this House … also welcomes the Government's policy with regard to the privatisation of the Recruitment and Assessment Services, with the proposed safeguards to protect the quality of Civil Service recruitment".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/96; col. 293.]
The Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Freeman spoke in that debate. The issue of the relationship between the Government taking a decision and the setting up of a Select Committee of this House was raised. At col. 300 Mr. Freeman said this:
"Any conclusions of the Committee that are relevant to the privatisation of RAS will be carefully considered. I give the House and the Committee an assurance that I shall treat the deliberations seriously".
1216
Later my right honourable friend Mr. Derek Foster, speaking for the Opposition, asked:
"Would it not be sensible to defer any progress on the privatisation until the Select Committee has given the Chancellor the benefit of its full deliberations?"
Mr. Freeman replied:
"It depends what the right honourable Gentleman means by `progress'. I assume that the relevant Select Committee will report before the summer recess and that I shall have the opportunity to study its recommendations and perhaps even discuss the matter again. Therefore, we shall not conclude the process until that has occurred".
Later on he said at col. 302:
"When that Committee reports, I shall consider its recommendations with care and respond in due course".
However, in the next sentence, he said:
"Meanwhile, we are adhering to the privatisation timetable, which is aimed at a successful completion later in the summer".
As I understand the evidence that he gave yesterday in public to the Select Committee, tenders have been put out; 12 offers have so far been received and the Government are drawing up a short list of three. How, with one breath, the Government can do that and with the other breath say that they will consider the recommendations of the committee with care and respond in due course is frankly beyond me. The Government clearly gave the House the impression that they would wait. Now it is clear that they have not waited and they will not wait. The argument that they will give proper consideration to the Select Committee report, while at the same time behaving as they are in proceeding with the process to the extent that they have, is disingenuous, and frankly, treating this House with contempt.
I look to the Minister to try to clear the matter up tonight. Are the Government prepared to give the Select Committee's report proper consideration? By "proper consideration", I do not merely mean, "Yes, of course we won't conclude everything in the sense of dotting every T and crossing every 't' until the report has been received". I mean give it proper consideration on the merits of the issue. So far, I see nothing in the Government's statements to show that they are prepared to do that.
I turn to the regulation before us. It is yet one more example of the Government's intense commitment—intensity almost to the point of passion, it seems to me—to a dogma of privatisation which seems to be accepted by no one else. Who is dissatisfied with the present arrangements? Certainly not the consumers. The people who are subject to the Civil Service pension scheme seem to be unanimously against the proposed changes. The reactions of the Council of Civil Service Unions and the Civil Service Pensions Alliance show that they are both vehemently opposed to the order. The truth is that there is no support for the order from civil servants, Civil Service pensioners or deferred Civil Service pensioners. It is not often that I am in the position of praying in aid the words of a former Conservative Prime Minister, but I commend people to read what

1217
Sir Edward Heath said on the issue in another place. He concluded by saying that he thought the Government were making a grave mistake and he used the word "dogma" on a number of occasions in relation to government policy. The only people who favour this are the Government.
Why do I say it is wrong? First, Civil Service morale is low and is getting lower. There is a deep sense of insecurity now felt in Civil Service ranks and the proposal adds to the feeling of insecurity. Civil servants want their Civil Service pensions to be administered by civil servants. There is no reason at all why they should not have it. Secondly, I say that it is wrong because the existing system works well. In another context, one hears a great deal of the American phrase which I do not like: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I wish that the Government would take that to heart in this context as firmly as they appear to do in relation to another one.
Is the scheme working properly? It has been examined, there has been an efficiency scrutiny report. What did it say? Paragraph 23 states that the present scheme, because of its size, achieves great economies of scale. Paragraph 24 points out that the PGO's unit costs are currently around £16, which is broadly in line with what the private sector would charge for a large-scale pension paying service. It costs no more than an equivalent private scheme.
The report goes on to state that most large employers with above, say, 1,000 staff run their own employees' scheme and administer it in-house. The pension, consulting and insurance firms manage many schemes for employers but most of these are schemes of less than 1,000 members, a few are between 1,000 and 2,000 members and a small number are larger than that. Where larger schemes are contracted-out—and there is a handful of examples—it tends to be for particular reasons reflecting a strategic decision on the part of management. The report goes on, in paragraph 52, to produce a draft which suggests that above about 20,000 staff, in-house operations are actually cheaper than contracting out.
Finally, paragraph 56 states that it is thought that the efficiency of contracted-out pensions and administration is likely to improve significantly over the next few years as new technology is introduced. That is the current position. It works well and the people affected by it are on the whole remarkably satisfied with it.
Thirdly, the proposal is wrong because there is still confusion as to its scope. The noble Earl put right the confusion that was left by his honourable friend Mr. Willetts in another place, who ended the debate by contradicting what he said at the beginning of it. As I understand it, the order relates to the administration of the Civil Service scheme. Administration covers such activities such as scheme induction, calculation of benefits, answering inquiries, maintenance of personnel data, processing applications to buy added years or pay additional voluntary contributions and paying pensions. So let there be no doubt about it, the Minister has confirmed tonight—and I am grateful for it—that the Paymaster is included within the scope of the order.
1218
The only thing that still causes me confusion is a Written Answer given by the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Freeman in another place on 25th March 1996. He was asked by Mr. Peter Luff whether, when he expected to make the order, he would make a Statement. Mr. Freeman said:
"Approval of the order by Parliament will enable Departments to market test their day-to-day administration of the principal civil service pension scheme, and associated schemes. Occupational pension arrangements for civil servants will continue to be provided through the PCSPS".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/96; col. WA 449.]
I am not sure what that means in the context of the speech that we have just heard from the noble Earl. The Written Answer continues:
"Market testing of the administration function will not affect pension benefits in any way".
There we have the ritual genuflection to Conservative Party dogma: "Competition will ensure value for money, the focus on performance outputs will help raise the quality of service to scheme members". We have heard that before.
The Written Answer continues:
"Decisions on the timing and method of competitive tendering will be for each employing Department to take".
Is that still true or will they now be taken by the Government?
"It will be open to existing service providers, such as the Paymaster agency, to compete on a value for money basis".
Then occurs the sentence which I do not understand:
"Responsibility for management of the PCSPS—and associated schemes—including setting the rules, will remain within government".
Responsibility for management? What is the difference between "management" and "administration"? Is there some distinction which I do not quite appreciate? I do not see how the Government can at one time privatise the administration of the scheme and at the same time claim that the responsibility for management of the scheme will remain within government. If it is intended that the management will remain within government, then what is to be privatised? If it is intended that management should go with administration, how could Mr. Freeman make the statement that he did?
Doing the best I can, for the life of me I cannot see the purpose of the proposal. It seems to me to fly in the face of logic, administrative good practice, good man management and the wishes of the people who are most affected by it—namely, the pensioners. Why on earth are the Government doing it?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I would like to add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. I agree with him on both points of substance that he made. First, this is another piece of doctrinaire nonsense coming from a Government who have clearly lost the confidence of the people of this country and are clinging to office with one of the smallest majorities one can recall of any recent British government. As their grip on power lessens, their enthusiasm to proceed with doctrinaire absurdities of the kind we are discussing this evening becomes even greater. When, in his introductory statement, the noble

1219
Earl referred to the unions being consulted, he did not find it necessary to tell us that the unions had been consulted but had indicated their strong opposition to what the Government proposed. It might have been a little better if he had indicated that when he made his speech.
I turn to the other issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, at the beginning of his speech; namely, the extraordinary way in which the Government are treating the Select Committee set up to discuss the RAS. The noble Earl will recall our debate in this House when the Government were decisively defeated, a number of senior figures in his own party being among those voting against.
From what Ministers said on that occasion and subsequently, we understood that the Government would take seriously into account the views of this House. They have chosen not to do so. Instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out, there was a debate in the other place on the last day before the Whitsun Recess at which, according to press reports, there were half a dozen MPs on one side of the House and eight on the other. That contrasts with this crowded House on the occasion of our debate on RAS. At the end of the Commons debate, the Government secured their majority. In the meantime, a Motion had been passed in this House—a Motion with which the Government themselves were associated—asking a Select Committee of this House to consider the RAS issue and submit an interim report.
I am a member of that committee. I have no intention of referring to its private discussions. I shall comment only on what has been said in public session. It was made quite clear to us by Mr. Freeman that the Government's decision on principle was clear, unmistakable and unyielding. Mr. Freeman indicated the position to us in the clearest terms. I do not believe that anybody who was present yesterday afternoon could have had the slightest doubt about what he was saying. He went on to add that, of course, the Government would consider what the Select Committee said. Then—I hope that I do not do him an injustice in quoting him, but I believe that I remember his words correctly—he said that the Government would "respond within days" to our report. What does "within days" mean? Does it mean that there will be any serious discussion among Ministers collectively on a serious report from what I hope is a serious Select Committee, which is, and will he, devoting a substantial amount of time to discussing the major issues involved and raised during our debate in this House?
As I indicated, speaking for myself, I was astonished that the Government chose to table this Motion in the Commons which, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, so far as the other place was concerned, had had RAS slipped into the middle of it. The Motion was not solely about RAS. Obviously, RAS was inserted deliberately by Ministers, so that they would obtain their majority on this particular question in the other place before the Select Committee started its work.
I do not wish to be disagreeable about this matter, but I find it inconceivable that, had the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, still been Leader of this House, the
1220
House would have been treated in such a fashion. A Select Committee was set up to look into the Government's proposals to privatise RAS. It is outrageous not only to have in reality that decision questioned but to have a government Motion put down in the other place on the fundamental issue of principle and then for the Minister's colleague, Mr. Freeman, to use the decision in the other place to justify the Government's decision to proceed in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, indicated.
I find it extraordinary, at a time when Ministers are queuing up to proclaim their enthusiasm for this House as at present constituted, in order to prevent significant constitutional change in terms of its composition, that they have behaved in this manner. They have testified enthusiastically to our almost unique qualities. But when their own interests are involved, they are prepared to be involved in an episode of this kind, which indicates a degree of contempt for this House which is truly remarkable.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the speeches that have already been made. I was appointed to the committee which met yesterday and considered this matter in public. I was delighted to be invited to serve on that committee because I felt that it was to consider a matter of great importance.
The noble Earl will recall the circumstances of the appointment of the committee and the overwhelming expression of view in this House—initiated from the Cross Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, with the support of his own side and indeed all parts of the House—to reject this particular proposition. I thought that was one of the occasions when this House was performing its responsible job. It was examining a proposition initiated by the Cross Benches and considered on its merits.
The Government responded by setting up a committee. I always assumed that when a Select Committee was formed in this House, it would produce a report which would be discussed in the House before a judgment or decision was formulated. It is quite obvious to me that that will not happen. First, there will be no time to consider the report. Secondly, consideration of these matters will be rushed into a few weeks before the Recess.
The House of Lords has always prided itself on the quality of the reports from its Select Committees. I suggest that in the timescale now made available, it will be impossible to produce a balanced and sensible report on this matter. Let us consider the situation. A group of fairly experienced individuals sit on the committee and examine this matter. They hear evidence from various experts who are commanded to attend. But at the end of the day the report will be of no significance whatsoever because on the last day before the Recess the Government announced that they were now going to proceed with the privatisation of the RAS. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the announcement has been made and an invitation published in the Financial Times for proposals to be submitted for the scheme. The Government are in the process of selecting and shortly

1221
will give their final conclusions on this matter; and at the same time a committee in the House of Lords is considering that same matter but with no relevance whatsoever.
If anything is a matter of contempt of the House of Lords, that is contempt. It is also wasting the time of a lot of people who have a contribution to make to these matters. It is a rather surprising coincidence that the piece of legislation which is before us tonight enables us to express these anxieties. In the Order Paper for tomorrow is printed a Question for reply on Thursday. It invites the Government to delay the proposals in connection with the privatisation of the RAS until the committee of the House of Lords has made its report. Perhaps between now and Thursday the Minister will influence his colleagues to accept that perfectly reasonable request. I look forward to a positive response on Thursday.
7 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Harris and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, have taken this opportunity to raise the question of the possible privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services. With the leave of the House, I shall gladly respond to their points.
Let me state the position on this issue as it affects your Lordships' House and your Lordships' Select Committee. Your Lordships will be aware, as has been mentioned, that this matter was debated and approved in another place—incidentally, it was approved by a majority of 75. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested that it was quite wrong that another place should have been debating this issue. I put the question to him: why should not the other place be allowed to discuss this matter? If the position had been reversed and another place had discussed it first, does he believe that this House should have been prevented from discussing it?
By allowing debate in the other place it was not our intention to place in jeopardy the recommendations of the Select Committee. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated that we expect to be able to give careful consideration to its report, assuming that it is available as expected before the Summer Recess. He indicated yesterday that there were areas where he hoped the committee could provide advice, including safeguards. Therefore to suggest that this House has been ill-treated is misplaced.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. Shall I tell the noble Earl what is wrong? If we look at the terms of the Motion moved by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 22nd May, it was not that the House,
"[notes] the Government's policy with regard to the privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services";
but that it,
"welcomes the Government's policy with regard to the privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services".
What is wrong is the use of the word "welcomes" and the use of the Whips to obtain a majority behind that at the very time when the Government are saying to us,
1222
"Yes, we wish to have the examination of the Select Committee; we wish to look at it before reaching a final conclusion".
Earl Howe: My Lords, I fail to see the noble Lord's point and must take issue with him. The future of Recruitment and Assessment Services has been under consideration since early 1994, when the three-year review was announced. As a result of debates in your Lordships' House, your Lordships are aware that we believe privatisation to be the best way forward. That view was endorsed by the other place.
We shall look carefully at the committee's proposals on specific points related to the sale. However, it is important that we stay with the broad timetable that we set because further uncertainty for staff, customers and bidders should be kept to a minimum.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, with regard to the timetable, does the Minister realise that contracts with the successful bidders will need to be made? Presumably the contracts will run for anything from three to five years. Is it responsible for the Government, with only a few months to run by any standards, to make contracts of that kind three to five years ahead which will be inherited by a subsequent government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, this Government were elected for a full term and I do not see any reason why we should not pursue our policies during the time allotted to us. My noble friend the Leader of the House indicated in the Written Answer which appeared in Hansard on 22nd May that the timetable that we have set will allow us to study the Select Committee's report—assuming it is available; it will enable us to make a response before the House rises for the summer. Clearly the timing will be tight but with goodwill on both sides, which I am sure will exist, it can be achieved.
To say that the committee's report, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested, is of no significance whatever and that the Government's actions amount to contempt of the House, is completely wrong. We have every intention of considering the report with the seriousness that it deserves. I would make the simple point that the main purpose of the committee established in your Lordships' House was to consider the public service. Consideration of Recruitment and Assessment Services is merely a part of that activity—an important part, I concede, but only a part.
I hope that the House will accept the assurances that I have given not only to the letter, but in the spirit in which I give them. We shall take due note of the committee's conclusions. The debate in another place has not affected the undertakings given to your Lordships and I hope that on reflection noble Lords opposite will see that there is no reason for them to be exercised in the way that they now appear to be.
Perhaps I may proceed to the Motion on the Order Paper. I noted with care the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, regarding the Motion. He spoke of the opinion that is current among the Civil Service unions particularly. We have taken fully into account the representations made against market testing of PCSPS

1223
administration. The central point, however, is that competition will ensure value for money and the focus on performance output will help to improve the quality of service to scheme members. That encapsulates the reason for the order.
The Government fully understand that civil servants value their pensions highly and that is entirely right and natural. But the changes being made in the way that the scheme is run will help to improve the quality of service to scheme members. The noble Lord referred to morale within the Civil Service. Morale is best maintained by allowing staff to perform to the best of their abilities in their chosen career. The reforms that the Government are enacting enable the staff to do just that; that is, to focus their attention on delivering high quality public service. That is surely the best way of satisfying both them and the users of the service.
The remarks made by my right honourable friend Sir Edward Heath were referred to, and again I noted with all seriousness what was said. But I re-emphasise that it is scheme administration that is being opened up to competition. The Civil Service pension arrangements will continue to be managed and controlled by the Office of the Public Service. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked what the difference was between management and administration. As I said earlier, administration encompasses such activities as operating the scheme in respect of individual scheme members; keeping files and so forth in relation to those scheme members serving in departments and agencies as well as retired members. Management of the scheme involves fixing the scheme rules; it involves the control of benefits that are available under the scheme; the resolution of disputes; accounting to Parliament for expenditure under the Civil Service Superannuation Vote. Those activities, as I stressed, will not be contracted out.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned the efficiency scrutiny and said that it found no evidence to suggest that outside contractors could do the work any better. Neither was there evidence that they could not. Under the Competing for Quality programme, departments and agencies are required to test areas of activity to see whether alternative sources in the market give better service and value for money. If after a market test it is found that the arrangements already in place offer the best service and the best value for money, those arrangements will continue. Therefore it is not a case of the Government ignoring the maxim of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"; if it ain't broke it will not need to be fixed.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister say why, in this order, he has taken such comprehensive powers as opposed to powers just to market test? Why does he not simply take those powers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the order enables departments and agencies to do precisely that—to market test.
Lord Richard: And a lot more.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is referring to. The central point of the order
1224
is to enable those departments to see whether better value for money and a better service can be provided outside. That is what market testing means.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl again. In the light of what he has just said, can we be told about the timescale? How long will this procedure take? Will it be during the time that the present Parliament is in existence, or will it conclude before then?
Earl Howe: My Lords, this is an enabling order only. It enables Ministers in departments and agency chief executives to take a look at the whole question for themselves. It will be up to them whether they proceed in short order or whether they decide that it is a matter better left for the medium term. But it is of course incumbent on both Ministers and chief executives to pursue the market testing route at some point. That is government policy. Therefore, it is impossible to answer the noble Lord's question. It will remain a decision for Ministers and chief executives as to how long the process will take.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the private sector. In fact quite a number of employers in the private sector contract out their pensions administration work to specialist advisers. The National Association of Pension Funds and other organisations hold regular conferences for delegates to discuss the pros and cons of outsourcing, and a number of employers with in-house services are actively considering their options. That indicates that the private sector as well as government believe that in certain circumstances there is better value to be found outside.
As I have stressed, the order is about securing value for money for the taxpayer and a better service to scheme members. I am surprised and a little disappointed that the Benches opposite do not embrace those aspirations. Perhaps I should not be. However, on that somewhat melancholy note, I trust that the House will nevertheless agree to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Damages Bill [H.L.]
7.12 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Assumed rate of return on investment of damages]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("general").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Amendment No. 1 is a minor amendment to subsection (1) to recognise the fact that it may be appropriate for the court to apply a discount to reflect accelerated payment of damages for future pecuniary loss, whether those damages might fall under the classification of "general" damages, or some

1225
other classification, for other purposes. The word "general" therefore appears to be superfluous. The next three amendments are consequential drafting amendments, removing separate references to "damages" in Scotland. It seems to me that for the purposes of this Bill any distinction between general or special damages is of no importance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("and the Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I raised this very small amendment in Committee. It seeks to take out "and the Treasury" from subsection (3) of Clause 1. It arises in these circumstances. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, under the heading "Financial and manpower effects of the Bill", provided:
"The Bill's only likely effects on public expenditure are that any exercise of the power in clause 1 could affect the size of awards of personal injury damages against government departments, and that, under clause 6, ministers may accept secondary liability to support the primary obligations of public sector bodies".
It is subsection (3) to which this amendment is directed. It states:
"Before making an order under subsection (1) … the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Government Actuary and the Treasury; and any order under that subsection shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
Subsection (1) deals with the determination of,
"the return to be expected from the investment of a sum awarded as general damages for future pecuniary loss".
I raise this amendment on the simple basis that it seemed to me quite wrong that a potential defendant should be allowed to advise on a factor that affects the amount of damages he must pay. That is indeed a startling position. The Treasury has a vested interest in the level of damages and accordingly should not be involved unnecessarily in providing advice in this area. The question really is: is the Treasury being unnecessarily involved?
I submitted to your Lordships in Committee that the Government Actuary is well able to undertake without assistance from the Treasury his actuarial task, which is somewhat similar to that undertaken by actuaries in insurance companies which issue life and pension policies. I submitted that we are not in a field of forecasting; we are not looking into the future; the actual rate of return at the moment of the calculation is what is required. That is what is done day in and day out when there is, for instance, a purchase of an annuity.
I promised to consider the observations made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Committee and I therefore obtained through Sir Michael Ogden, who your Lordships may remember was the chairman of the committee set up to consider these issues of damages and whose report was accepted by the Law Commission, the views of a very experienced actuary who sat on the committee that produced the report. The recommendation which the Law Commission made was that legislation should be
1226
introduced inter alia to direct courts to take into account the net return on an index-linked government security when determining the return expected on investment of damages but to leave it open for any party to show in individual cases that a different rate of return was more appropriate. By relying upon index-linked government securities there would be no danger of the kind that arises when one bases one's figures on a basket of Treasury and other stock.
In fact, Clause 1 refers to the court taking into account,
"such rate of return as may from time to time be prescribed by an order made by the Lord Chancellor",
and not the net rate of return on an index-linked government security. Of course, if the Lord Chancellor ultimately decides that the rate of return should be prescribed by reference to index-linked government securities, then clearly the Government Actuary's Department can provide the necessary information without reference to the Treasury. But Mr. Prevett, the actuary to whom I have made reference, has gone on to advise that even if the Lord Chancellor decides that the rate of return should be prescribed by reference to some other portfolio of investments, the Government Actuary's Department has all the expertise required to provide the necessary advice without reference to the Treasury. He says that the department is involved daily in the consultation and determination of rates of return on invested funds in relation to its work on occupational pension schemes and insurance companies.
Therefore, the mention of the Treasury in Clause 1(3) is quite unnecessary. It is wrong as a matter of principle because of the vested interest which the Treasury has in the level of damages. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the sentiment which underlies this amendment is the scepticism which has just been expressed about the propriety of consulting the Treasury, given that the Government are often a potential defendant in personal injuries litigation, so that the Treasury may be said to have a vested interest in the rate of return prescribed. We understand that, but on this side of the House we also appreciate the importance of drawing on all the available expertise when deciding on the most appropriate rate of return. We believe that the Treasury may well have useful advice to contribute.
Provided that the noble and learned Lord consults widely—as he has assured us, and I accept, that he will—before determining the prescribed rate, then we are not convinced that it would be wrong to draw on the expertise of the Treasury. Also the decision in relation to the prescribed rate will not lie with the Treasury but with the noble and learned Lord. Therefore, we do not believe that the principle requiring justice to be seen to be done will be infringed. For those reasons we are not persuaded to support this amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I intervene only because what I said in Committee apparently misled my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor into thinking that my contention was inconsistent with that of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. That is not so: they were perfectly consistent. There are two

1227
separate situations. Either my noble and learned friend is entitled in the circumstances of this clause to consult the Treasury, which is his contention, or he is not, because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner points out and as it is accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, the Treasury is an interested party. If the Treasury can, with propriety, be consulted, it is absolutely unnecessary to have these words in the Bill. They occur time after time in Bill after Bill and in Session after Session. It is small wonder then that the statute book continues to increase in size, format, bulk, the number of statutes and the number of pages to the immense cost of the taxpayer.
If the Treasury is properly consulted the internal machinery of government takes care of that. I do not believe that anyone has controverted that point. The Treasury is in close contact with all the spending departments and with all departments in so far as they have the power to influence spending. It has special officials who liaise particularly with each department. So if the Treasury is entitled to be consulted, and if it is to be properly consulted, it is quite unnecessary to have these words. It is against the Treasury's own interests that money should be wasted by having this formula in statute after statute. It is in fact a sort of "draftsman's tick"; the words come up on the computer in this sort of context. That is one situation.
The other is that put forward and defended by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He says that it is right in these circumstances to consult the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is perfectly right when he says that the Treasury has expertise, and so it has. But that is expertise that should not be tapped in the context of this clause because the Treasury is an interested party. I hope that I shall not myself be thought in any way inimical to the interests of the Treasury; on the contrary, I freeze with horror whenever I hear the word "Treasury" hissed out in tones of hatred, which is the general mode of expression. But here it seems to me that my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. The Treasury is an interested party and therefore these words are not merely unnecessary but malign because they direct my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to do something that he should not do merely because the Treasury has expertise. As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said, it should not be consulted because that expertise is put to an interested use. Therefore, I support the amendment of my noble and learned friend.
Lord Meston: My Lords, it has to be said that the reference to the Treasury originates from the Law Commission's draft Bill. But it is certainly correct that the reference to the Treasury can only be said to be very necessary because the Government have departed from the recommendations of the Law Commission. Its considered view was that it was preferable to discount by reference to returns of ILGS, which was considered to be both realistic and fair. The Bill does not adopt that recommendation, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the previous stage said expressly that he wished to be able to consider other rates.
1228
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I have had the benefit of a very interesting paper from Sir Michael Ogden. There has to be great force in his point that there would be no need for the forecasts of the Treasury if in fact the Bill had simply said, as the Law Commission Bill said, that the normal rate should be based on ILGS. Another way of looking at it is to say that by adopting ILGS rates the Treasury would have had an input already because it decides on the rate.
The more I think about this matter the more I feel that there is force in the point that the Treasury's involvement should be minimal as it underwrites the awards against government departments when they are defendants to actions for personal injuries and death.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in my submission, if and when the Lord Chancellor is minded to make an order fixing a rate, it would be right for him to consult widely and certainly to consult the insurance industry as well as representatives of those who are plaintiffs in actions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, the Law Commission proposal which refers to other than the rate on those securities which are independent of inflation contains the provision that the Government Actuary and the Treasury should be consulted. This clause is modelled on that provision. In my submission, proper consultation with those interests is perfectly in order. It is for the Lord Chancellor ultimately to decide. Of course, the Lord Chancellor himself is a potential defendant in actions from time to time, but the responsibility has to rest with a Minister, and I suggest that in this context that Minister should be the Lord Chancellor.
I believe that the Lord Chancellor should be able to consult the Treasury. That is the primary point about which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner is concerned. As I have said before, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale appeared to be taking a somewhat different point on the last occasion and he elaborated on that today. Fundamentally, however, the argument that you do not need to mention the Treasury because the Treasury will be consulted anyway is a different argument from and, to my mind at least, is not entirely consistent with the view that the Treasury should not be consulted in the circumstances of a particular case.
I have considered carefully what my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has said, but I believe that it is appropriate that "the Treasury" should be left in the clause on the basis that any representations that the Treasury may make will have to be considered carefully, bearing in mind that it is potentially responsible for the effect of any awards against the Government. Equally, that could be said in respect of the insurance industry, for example, when it makes representations. In my submission, it is entirely appropriate that that industry should be consulted. Therefore, I invite your Lordships not to accept the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says about his intention to consult widely.

1229
He has mentioned the insurance market. I imagine that in that consultation he will include also trade unions and solicitors' societies concerned with personal injury litigation. When he receives advice from the Treasury. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will ask for comments on that advice from such organisations, which are likely to have rival or opposite interests; otherwise this legislation has identified one privileged class of litigant, the Treasury. I am surprised that the prospect of having such a provision on the face of an Act of Parliament has not been condemned by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. However, in view of the observations that have been made and my hopes that the wide consultation will be on the basis that I have suggested, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 5:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("references") to ("to") in line 19.
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("respectively").
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("to damages and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 with Amendment No. 1. With the permission of the House, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [Enhanced protection for structured settlement annuitants]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert ("and as if any reference in those sections to liquidation were a reference to liquidation or provisional liquidation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House knows, most structured settlements are funded by means of annuity policies. To meet concern about the long-term security of such funds, the Bill as currently drafted would enhance the protection offered by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, which guarantees payment of 90 per cent. of the policy value where an insurer goes into liquidation, to 100 per cent. in the case of structured settlement annuities. That reform is welcome, but it seems that it will not provide adequate protection for all those injured who find that an insurer cannot meet its liabilities because the protection does not extend to insurers in provisional liquidation.
A situation which has been drawn to my attention has arisen when an insured person has suffered real hardship because he has not been paid by the general insurer and has not so far been able to recover the sums owing because the general insurer is in provisional liquidation. In such situations, the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 fails to provide protection for the injured person, who also has no power to compel the liquidator to make matters final so that payment would be guaranteed under the Act. In the case in question, the general insurer has apparently continued to receive the proceeds of the annuity policy purchased when the case was settled, but, despite requests, the general insurer also continues to refuse to allow the annuity policy to be assigned to the
1230
particular plaintiff, despite the fact that such assignments have become common practice since the Finance Act 1995.
There seems to be a gap in the legislative protection. The simplest solution seems to be to extend the 1975 Act to provisional liquidations in the case of structured settlements. It is on that basis that this simple amendment is proposed. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am not sure but I suspect that the amendment arises as a result of a recent dispute involving Municipal Mutual Insurance. It had entered a state of provisional liquidation, with the result that the plaintiff victim who had agreed a structured settlement with the company was unable—or was thought to be unable—to recover payments under the settlement, although the company continued to receive the sums payable under the annuity which had been purchased in order to implement the structured settlement.
The view was that the protection provided by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 could not be relied upon by the plaintiff victim. That was thought to be because the protection under Sections 10 and 11 of the 1975 Act appeared to be limited to liquidation and did not extend to provisional liquidation.
These Benches would welcome the advice of the noble and learned Lord on this specific point: if Sections 10 and 11 of the 1975 Act do not extend to provisional liquidation, it appears to us that the argument in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is a powerful one.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have sought to consider this question which is not entirely easy. However, having looked at the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, I have reached the conclusion that if this is a good point, it is a much more general point and does not apply only to structured settlements; it also appears to affect third parties' rights against insurers. The provision is the same.
I have not had time fully to consider this matter. My present belief is that if a person is the creditor of a company in provisional liquidation he will be able ultimately to enforce liquidation. If he has a claim which is liquid against the company I do not believe that his petition for liquidation can ultimately be refused. That is my very superficial answer to the problem. But I wish to look at the matter thoroughly. I believe that if this is a good point it is a much more general point which does not apply only to structured settlements. I am not sure that simply to put into Sections 10 and 11 of the 1975 Act, as this amendment seeks to do, references to liquidation as including liquidation or provisional liquidation will solve the problem. This is an important matter. I should like an opportunity to consider it further. The advice that I have been able to obtain so far is on the lines I have suggested. If there is a real problem here it goes a great deal beyond structured settlements. We may need to look at something more fundamental.
In the meantime, if the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is willing to withdraw his amendment I will undertake to have the matter looked at as thoroughly as possible

1231
before the next stage is reached. I shall try to intimate to both the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the result of my inquiries before we part with the Bill.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that indication. I am not able to say whether the case brought to my attention was that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to whom I am grateful for reinforcing the point. It appears that there is something of a lacuna. I accept that it is not an easy matter. It struck me that the problem might extend beyond structured settlements. This Bill would enable the problem to be dealt with only in so far as it affected structured settlements. That explains why the amendment finds its place here. With respect, it may be an over-simplification to look for an answer in persuading the court to finalise the liquidation. That appears to have been an obstacle in the case to which my attention was drawn.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for undertaking to give the matter further consideration. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Guarantees for public sector settlements]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("Exchequer") and insert ("Consolidated Fund").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is a small drafting amendment to substitute a more precise reference to the proper destination of any moneys which may be recovered from the principal debtor by a Minister whose guarantee has been called upon. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 8 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
Viscount Chelmsford Viscount Chelmsford moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert ("but section 1 applies only to causes of action accruing on or after that date").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is not about the terms of the Bill but its attachment. I believe that if the Bill were passed today and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor used the index-linked rate, the rate applied to a particular case would almost halve and, conversely, the amount of lump sum to be put in for interest would almost double. As far as concerns the insurance industry whose brief I hold in this matter, that is not necessarily a problem provided it can rate its policies accordingly.
I raised this point in Committee. The problem arises, if the Bill is enacted as currently drafted, in terms of the pipeline claims currently before the courts. I said in Committee that it was the belief of the insurance industry that pipeline claims would cost motor insurers alone the equivalent of £200 million and that across the whole market, including all bodily injury, the cost would
1232
be perhaps between £500 million and £1 billion. The amendment seeks to provide protection in respect of pipeline claims.
In Committee on 13th May my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, replying to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said at col. 381 that he believed that my amendment need apply only to Clause 1. Therefore, the amendment has been altered as he suggested. My noble and learned friend said at col. 374:
"The normal rule of statutory enactment that I have been accustomed to seeing followed is that one does not make retrospective alterations".
I hope very much that my noble and learned friend will stick to that, despite the fact that he is awaiting the result of a particular appeal, because there is good precedent for it. I draw to the attention of the House three pieces of legislation: the reform of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, which was introduced for accidents occurring on or after 1st April 1991; the consumer protection Act, which applied to products supplied on or after 1st March 1988; and the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which related to incidents occurring on or after 1st September 1989. Therefore, we have put down an amendment which applies to causes of action accruing on or after the date on which the Bill becomes law. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the principle underlying the amendment is very important: that Parliament does not and should not legislate retrospectively except in very exceptional circumstances. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree with that general proposition. The effect of the Bill, if implemented as drafted, is that the prescribed rate which the noble and learned Lord requires the courts to apply in discounting compensation awarded for future pecuniary loss will apply to any claims which are, as described by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, already in the pipeline, even if the cause of action has accrued before the date of the new determination by the Lord Chancellor.
Therefore, the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, is that if the prescribed rate is lower than the current assumption of 4 to 5 per cent. the awards that the insurance industry will have to pay out will be higher than anticipated. If I do not over-simplify the matter, the noble Viscount argues that that is inequitable because the premiums for such policies would have been higher if the new prescribed rate had been anticipated. I am not persuaded that there is any element of retrospectivity in Clause 1 of the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out in Committee,
"the aim of the power should be to try to arrive at the figure that the courts would think is the right figure at the present time".— [Official Report, 13/5/96; col. 382.]
That is the reason given by the noble and learned Lord for the proposal that the prescribed rate will be determined in light of the guidance to be given by the Court of Appeal in two cases to be heard later this year. Also, guidance from the Court of Appeal is not a new phenomenon. The current assumption of a 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. rate is based on a Court of Appeal case

1233
decided in the mid-1980s, which itself involved applying the dicta by the late Lord Diplock in your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity in an earlier decision of the House.
My view is that the insurance industry can reasonably be expected to have been aware of the previous Court of Appeal guidance and of its necessarily contingent nature; that is to say, that it was guidance only which could well change by court decision over time as economic conditions changed. That is what may well happen in the decisions to be handed down by the Court of Appeal later this year.
To my mind, therefore, it follows that setting the new rate will not be inequitable, because it is a contingency that the insurance industry, which, in my experience is highly skilled in assessing in advance the risks that it faces, would, or should, in ordinary prudence, have taken into account already when settling premiums for past policies. Without hearing further argument, I have to confess that I am not persuaded that there is real merit in the amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I, too, wonder a little about this amendment, particularly in view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said several times now that it is his intention to consult, among others, the insurance industry. I also wonder whether in Clause 1 the provision for an order to be made from time to time would allow for an order to do precisely what the amendment seeks to do, by saying that the prescribed rate within that order should apply only to causes of action arising after a certain date.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the basic answer to my noble friend's amendment is that, if the exercise of the power in Clause 1 were to double or to halve the rate that would otherwise be payable, then my noble friend would have a good point because the power would be used completely to alter the level of damages that heretofore obtained. My purpose in this power is to simplify the procedure required to reach an award, not to change the level of the awards, so that instead of having to have a different, detailed calculation in every case I would be able to prescribe a rate which would apply generally.
Basically, what I am aiming to do, using this power, is to arrive at what the Court of Appeal will decide is the proper rate in present circumstances. Difficulty may arise at a much later stage, but at present I submit to your Lordships that that is the correct way forward. I do not intend to alter the nature of the burden that would fall on the insurer in respect of pipeline claims, but merely to simplify the method by which that calculation is carried out.
Looking to the future, it may be right to have some power to alter the level as well as to replicate it. This power is not intended to do that. It is intended always to reflect what the courts would do generally apart from this power. I am willing to consider putting into Clause 1 more express words than are there at the moment so as to achieve more clearly what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said; in other words, to make it
1234
clear that the power can be exercised in relation to claims not yet accrued in a way that might be different from the way in which it affects claims already accrued.
The purpose of this provision is to reflect the current level of damages, not to alter them, as they are to be determined in accordance with the present law by the Court of Appeal in the light of the various powers that it has. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, the insurance industry has had to take account of that in the past. I, too, agree with the proposition that it is pretty skilled at estimating the future and making reasonable returns for those interested in the outcomes. The level of decapitalisation that has been used over the years has altered, and it alters also to some extent from case to case in the light of the evidence. So such risks are involved in the present situation.
My purpose in using this power is to simplify the method rather than alter the level of damages in the particular case. That is why this proposal differs from that in the Law Commission's original draft Bill appended to its report. In the light of that explanation and assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, the insurance industry can certainly put up with the slings and arrows of court decisions and is accustomed to doing so. The amendment was born of the concern at what looked like a right-angled change between current rates and plain index-linked rates. We have heard a great deal this evening. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for a number of the things he has said which give great comfort to me and I hope to the insurance industry. I should like to look at them with care. I am interested in my noble and learned friend's suggestion that he may alter Clause 1. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
7.58 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to be able to open a Second Reading debate on this Bill. The Bill follows the announcement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in Hong Kong on 4th March that the Government would support a Private Member's measure to give British citizenship to the wives and widows of men who fought in the defence of Hong Kong during the Second World War.
British citizenship is something about which the wives and widows and their supporters have been petitioning the Government for several years and it has been the subject of a long campaign in Hong Kong itself. That perseverance, and cross-party support both in your Lordships' House and in another place, not least from the Foreign Affairs Committee, has finally won the

1235
day, for until the announcement in Hong Kong by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister it seemed that the Government were not persuaded that anything could or should be done. So that was indeed a most welcome commitment.
Although this is not a government measure, I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for their help in drafting the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships will he aware of the fate of Hong Kong at the hands of the Japanese forces during the Second World War. When the Japanese attack came on 8th December 1941, British and other forces fought valiantly but were overwhelmed and forced to surrender on Christmas Day that year. Many were taken prisoner and endured terrible hardship, even execution, at the hands of their captors.
In 1986 the then Home Secretary used a discretion to grant British citizenship to those surviving ex-servicemen in Hong Kong who already held a form of British nationality but had not automatically become British citizens when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force in 1983. His discretion did not, unfortunately, extend to the wives and widows of those men and citizenship could not be granted to them in the same way. The Government had some sympathy for the women's position. In 1990 those women were given an assurance by the then Home Secretary that they would be allowed to come to the UK for settlement if they were still resident in Hong Kong and had not remarried.
The present Home Secretary repeated that immigration assurance in 1994 when he wrote a personal letter to each of the 53 women believed to qualify. The letter promised them that they could come to the UK for settlement at any time and that that could be facilitated by the endorsement in their travel documents of an entry clearance of indefinite validity. Those letters were sent to the Hong Kong immigration department for onward transmission. They were delivered to 53 women, 40 of whom were resident in Hong Kong, two of whom have since died. The other 13 were no longer resident in Hong Kong. Since then the Government's attention has been drawn to a further three still living in Hong Kong, making a total of 54.
Clearly, in the light of those numbers, the Bill has no significant immigration potential for the United Kingdom. The women concerned are mostly British Nationals (Overseas), although some are of foreign nationality. In both cases they are subject to United Kingdom immigration controls. As the law stands, they can be granted British citizenship only if they come to settle here. If the wives and widows chose to take up the offer in the Home Secretary's letter they would be able to meet the residence requirement and obtain citizenship in the normal way. However, their preference is to go on living in Hong Kong and for that reason they have continued to press for British citizenship without having to fulfil the UK residence requirements. They and their supporters see the possession of British citizenship as essential to full recognition of their husbands' or late husbands' wartime service.
To give them British citizenship without UK residence requires the introduction of primary legislation, hence the need for this Bill. It is a simple
1236
one. It gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to register as British citizens those women resident in Hong Kong who have received one of the immigration assurance letters written by him. Clause 1 would enable the Secretary of State to register as a British citizen any of the women who was the recipient or intended recipient of the immigration assurance letter and who, in line with the immigration assurance, is principally resident in Hong Kong and has not remarried. The power to register would be discretionary to allow for the possibility of British citizenship being refused in the extremely unlikely event of any of the applicants being found unacceptable on character grounds. It is not envisaged that qualified applicants will he refused for any other reason.
Clause 2(1) will provide for the British citizenship acquired under Clause 1 to be otherwise than by descent, which is the same as they would have obtained had they settled in the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) would extend to the Bill some of the provisions which already apply to applications for citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981.
Clause 3 gives the Short Title and provides for the Bill to have the same extent as the 1981 Act provisions referred to in Clause 2(2). Applications for citizenship would, in practice, be made to the Governor of Hong Kong. He would first check that the applicant had had an immigration assurance letter from the Home Secretary, still had her home in Hong Kong and had not remarried, and then forward the application to the Home Secretary. I believe that the Bill will be welcomed by the wives and widows and by all those who have taken an interest in and supported them during their long-running campaign. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
8.4 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I warmly support the Bill. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for bringing it forward and to the Prime Minister for making that possible. It appears to be a small measure, affecting no more than some 50 people, but it is nevertheless a measure of considerable significance. It rounds off our debt of honour to those who fought in the defence of Hong Kong more than 50 years ago.
There is an old Chinese custom that one should pay off one's debts before the lunar New Year. We missed this year's lunar New Year and we missed those of several previous years. However, the measure, late though it is, is extremely welcome and will be welcomed not only by the small number of war widows and wives but by a large number of people in Hong Kong who believe that it is right that at long last this move is being taken.
Although slightly at a tangent, it is fair to mention at this stage the fact that the measure will draw attention to one other issue in respect of which we have not moved. That is to deal adequately with the issue of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities—those who have a form

1237
of British nationality but no right of abode in Britain. It is a small number and there is no need to go into all the details which were rehearsed at great length when a Bill was passed by your Lordships' House more than two years ago but foundered in another place. The number is small and the concern of those people is great. It is one issue in respect of which something needs to be done.
It is also an issue in respect of which there has been some recent movement in terms of the assurances that those people have been given. The Prime Minister, when in Hong Kong, at the same time as making the commitment to the war wives and widows, which is now being realised, also made a commitment to this group to guarantee that if they came under pressure to leave Hong Kong they would be given a right of entry and settlement in the United Kingdom. More recently, at the beginning of last month, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Mr. Robin Cook, gave an assurance that if there should be a Labour Government measures would be taken to allow those people into the United Kingdom for settlement without any need for special circumstances. The world has moved on, therefore, since the previous Bill was passed by your Lordships more than two years ago.
I suggest to the Government, not for immediate response because I imagine that it would be similar to responses made in the past, but for consideration, that when the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, they will look again at the other unresolved issue.
However, none of that should be allowed to detract from the great importance of passing this small but important measure. It deserves a fair wind and a safe entry into port as soon as possible.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in support of the Bill so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. He has worked hard to achieve it. It is also a great privilege to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, a distinguished former Governor of Hong Kong. It is worth underlining that the genesis of the Bill owes much to the personal intervention of the Prime Minister and that it is supported by the presence in the House tonight of two former Governors of Hong Kong, the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord MacLehose.
It is interesting that, even in a matter of apparently minor significance in the normal course of national events, those who have had such an important part to play in the affairs of Hong Kong are showing with their presence and support for the Bill how right they think it is that the Government should take the steps proposed.
I wish also to mention Mr. Jack Edwards. My noble friend pointed out that he has been the most tremendous campaigner. The fact that his campaign has achieved success and that he and others who support him have managed to achieve this legislation demonstrates what can be done when the cause is right by persistent, patient perseverance and by good, efficient lobbying and sound representation.
1238
There is a lesson here which is worth underlining. It shows that it is not always necessary—in fact, it may rarely be desirable—in order to achieve your aims to resort to more extreme measures of representation. I hope that that message goes beyond even the people of Hong Kong to others who may shortly take over responsibility to a greater degree in Hong Kong so that they come to recognise that much is to be gained from persistent, patient representation of causes which are in themselves sound and just.
I have a question for the Minister who is to reply to the debate. The procedures outlined for dealing with those who are eligible for citizenship under the Bill involve the receipt by them of a letter and the clearance or approval of that letter through the office of the Governor of Hong Kong before its transmission to the Secretary of State in this country. That sounds a rather cumbersome procedure. I am sure that it will receive the careful attention of the Governor of Hong Kong. Through his actions during his time there he has shown how much he has at heart the interests of those I describe as the ordinary people of Hong Kong. I hope that he will make clear that the procedures are to be carried through swiftly. In fact, it is part of the requirement of the legislation that they should be carried through in good time. Should it be necessary, I hope that all assistance will be given to the widows and wives concerned to ensure that no slippage is occasioned by inadvertence on their part. If my noble friend can give assurance on that point, I am sure the House will be grateful.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, referred to the fact that this is something that should have been done some time ago and probably could have been done some time ago and that similar causes are waiting in the wings to be treated, it is to be hoped, in a similar way. Nevertheless, the Bill is a small but, for those involved directly, a critically important step towards justice and honour. As such, we do well to support it.
8.15 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I too support this Bill wholeheartedly. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on the enduring stamina that he has shown in bringing this Bill to your Lordships' House.
There is no doubt that it is well overdue. With so few beneficiaries it is more of symbolic significance. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, elegantly outlined the background to the Bill. I am sure that many noble Lords feel that it is a pity that in 1986 the Home Secretary did not grant British citizenship to the wives and widows of ex-servicemen in Hong Kong.
I was rather amused by a recent cartoon in the South China Morning Post on 16th May which portrayed a war widow watching two politicians, or they may have been civil servants, battling it out on a Union Jack with the caption, "Promises, promises, promises". I am pleased that those promises have at last been fulfilled.
Like my noble friend Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, I hope that this Bill will pave the way for the granting of British citizenship to the non-Chinese ethnic minorities—those

1239
who have a right of abode in Hong Kong but no nationality, travel documents and no citizenship. There have been a number of estimates of the number of such non-Chinese ethnic minorities and they appear to range between 3,000 and 4,000.
Therefore, like so many other noble Lords, I welcome the recent concession made by the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Hong Kong in relation to admission to and settlement in the United Kingdom of non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who have—I believe the words are—"come under pressure to leave Hong Kong" after 1st July 1997. However, is it not the case that in all likelihood, if there were to be cases of that nature, there will be some difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the words "under pressure to leave Hong Kong". I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some enlightenment with a more definitive statement as to what conditions there will be for the granting of such citizenship.
In fact, I notice that the Bill states:
"The Bill will not result in any additional public expenditure… There will be no increase in public service manpower … The Bill has no cost implications for business".
If British citizenship were to be granted for the non-Chinese ethnic minorities, I do not believe that that would have any of those implications.
I warmly welcome the Bill and wish it a hasty passage through both Houses. I hope that it will pave the way for a more definitive concession for those non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong to gain, at long last, full British citizenship.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Rennell: My Lords, I was delighted to be approached by my noble friend Lord Willougby to speak very briefly—I use his words—on this Bill. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate him on his tenacity in rescuing this debt of honour, which it really is, from the delays and demands and democratic democracy in another place.
As a young officer in the late 1950s, I served in the Royal Navy in the Far East in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and all over the place. As the youngest and most junior member of the wardroom I was given the greatest number of jobs. They consisted of looking after the forecastle and managing the office and the pay. I can still remember that the yen was 2,018 to the pound, or something like that. Of course, I was also in charge of the sports activities wherever we went.
Finally, of particular interest was the Chinese division which I was asked to look after. There were some 20 Hong Kong Chinese sailors on board out of a total crew of about 120, who were mainly cooks and stewards. We also had a tailor on board, So-so, a cobbler, Shu-shu, and two laundrymen—dhobi men. We also had two or three senior Chinese Hong Kong sailors who had served in the Second World War. I always remember one of them, who was probably about 35 or 38 at that time, known as Siu Lim Ying. He would be beavering away, cleaning up the tables and setting out our food. He was absolutely charming. I would say to him, "Siu, could I have some tosi cha, moi fried bread
1240
please?" I used to speak a bit of Chinese in those days. Siu would continue beavering away, cleaning up the tables and would take no notice of me. I would then remember that I did not have to say that, and that I should say, "Siu! Tosi Cha, moi fried bread please, Siu!".
The point was that Siu was rather deaf and could only hear high-pitched noises. In fact he had suffered from gunfire damage during the war. That was something that I too experienced when I was in the navy. I had stood rather too close to a 10-inch gun without wearing an ear protector and am also rather deaf. That is just one of my memories.
Another enduring memory of the Chinese division of which I was in charge—and this was no thanks to me—was the fact that they were never in the rattle; they never got into trouble and were never called in front of the captain or the first lieutenant for being late back on board or being drunk. There were plenty of "Gazza" incidents, but the Chinese division were never involved. Indeed, throughout the whole 18 months of my time on the ship not one Chinese Hong Kong sailor was up before the beaks, as it were. They were loyal, reliable, honest and dedicated to Her Majesty's Navy. Basically, they had three priorities in life: first, their families; secondly, their pay—they did not like to be paid too much or too little, they wanted it exactly right; and, thirdly, their service in the Royal Navy.
Therefore, my memories of them consist of great admiration and respect. So my plea to the Government is that we must no longer let them down. We must honour the wives and widows of those loyal and brave servicemen who fought on our behalf. The wives and widows want recognition now. For all the reasons that have been outlined in tonight's debate, they need and deserve the security of a British passport and British citizenship. Certainly, there seems to be general agreement in the House on that point. As other speakers have said, I am delighted that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who is a caring man, has given his commitment to the cause. I support the Bill wholeheartedly. Like other noble Lords, I hope that it will pass quickly through the House and become law before the end of this Session.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my support for the Bill. I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for presenting this Private Member's Bill. We on these Benches support the legislation wholeheartedly, as I believe do all noble Lords in the House.
The issue on war widows is so clear cut that I do not believe I need to dwell upon it at great length. However, I should like to mention the cause championed by Lord Bonham-Carter two years ago; namely, the position of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who, in the worst scenario, face the problem of becoming stateless persons under Chinese occupation. It is rather sad that so little has been committed to them.
I know that the Government have moved in some small way during the time since those debates two years ago when that Bill passed through this House. However,

1241
it would be most helpful if the Minister could once again give some assurances that the Government will not neglect the issue in the future. Much has been said about how worthy the Bill is and how it should perhaps have been undertaken some time hack. It would be unfortunate if the position of those ethnic minorities in Hong Kong were to be left to the last minute.
8.26 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as always, I shall preface my remarks when speaking to a Private Member's Bill by saying that I speak for myself and not for my party. However, I do not think that noble Lords will be surprised to learn that a number of my noble friends strongly support the Bill without qualification. Before I conclude my brief remarks I shall say a few words about the procedures for ensuring that the legislation is enacted.
I have only one qualification about the wording of the Bill which is resolutely sexist. From the way in which Clause 1 and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum are drafted, I presume that the number of people who are recipients or intended recipients of a letter of settlement is finite. Clause 1 says that it applies to those who,
"before the passing of this Act",
are recipients or intended recipients. But there must have been women serving in the forces in Hong Kong during the war. Surely their husbands or widowers are equally entitled, if they are still alive, to the same consideration. If the Minister tells me that of the 50 or so in that finite number there are no widowers or husbands of women service personnel, then I suppose that the wording of the Bill will have to go through as it stands. However, when we have a tradition in our legislation to use the word "he" for both sexes, it seems unfortunate for us to break it on this occasion in order to provide for a group of people whose numbers, and presumably names, we know.
My second observation is on the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wilson, Lord St. John and Lord Redesdale; namely, the wider issue of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. I supported Lord Bonham-Carter two years ago when he proposed that those people should be given the right of admission into this country. As I recall, every speaker except the one on the Government Front Bench took the same view. It is a matter of sadness that two years have passed and nothing has been done to reassure those people that they will have a right of entry and will not be left stateless after the hand-over on 1st July next year. Along with other speakers, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that suitable legislation will be passed before that time.
I conclude with a word about the timetable. I understand that it was because of an error by an Opposition Whip in another place that the Bill was quite unnecessarily committed to a Standing Committee rather than being considered by the whole House. Therefore it has been necessary to have this No. 2 Bill in order to make sure that the Bill goes through. I repeat the apologies
1242
which I believe have already been given to the sponsors of the Bill for that error. I give the assurance of the Opposition in another place that whatever is necessary to secure the passage of the Bill, even if it involves the suspension of standing orders, will be supported by the Opposition because we want to see this Bill go through.
8.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what noble Lords have said about this Bill. I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for agreeing to adopt the Bill and for his clear and persuasive explanation both of its provisions and its merits.
The British Nationality Act 1981 already contains provisions for people to be granted British citizenship if they are accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom, and the wives and widows had been promised that they could come here for settlement at any time. That seemed to the Government to be a perfectly satisfactory and logical response to the case that had been put on their behalf.
However, over time it has become clear that support for the case for these ladies being given British citizenship without having to uproot themselves from Hong Kong has grown in all quarters. My right honourable friends took note of the strength of feeling on the matter and were persuaded that the time was right to offer the Government's support to a Private Member's Bill, as the Prime Minister did during his visit to Hong Kong in March.
During the debate on Hong Kong in this House on 24th April some noble Lords expressed concern at the apparent lack of progress on the Bill. I hope their fears have been put to rest today. I can assure the House that there has been no dragging of feet and that ever since the Prime Minister's announcement officials and Ministers have been working hard behind the scenes to ensure that the Bill will do what the Prime Minister promised in the most effective way.
There have been those who were disappointed that the Bill was not a government Bill, but we considered the Private Member's Bill route the easiest and quickest way of getting the legislation on to the statute book. We are looking to have the Bill on the statute book by the end of July and to bring the legislation into effect immediately so that the wives and widows have their citizenship before the end of the year. As my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has said, the Bill is a simple one. It would give British citizenship to the same wives and widows who have received a personal letter from the Home Secretary confirming their eligibility for settlement in the United Kingdom.
I would say in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, my understanding is that the surviving partners of those who fought in defence of Hong Kong in World War II are all women. That explains why Clause 1 is couched in the way that it is. The procedure for applying for registration as a British citizen under the Bill will be made as quick and easy as possible. Each of the wives and widows would be asked

1243
by the Hong Kong Immigration Department to complete a short application form and, after checking and initial processing, these would be passed to the Home Office which would issue the certificates of registration. I can give my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton the assurance that he seeks. It is our understanding that this will he carried forward as speedily and effectively as possible and that all assistance will be given to the wives and widows to help them through that process.
Several noble Lords have raised the question of British citizenship for the non-Chinese ethnic minority British nationals in the territory. Members of this community have received repeated Government assurances over the years about their position in terms of admissibility to the United Kingdom. When he was in Hong Kong in March the Prime Minister gave the clearest commitment yet. He said that the Government are now prepared to guarantee admission and settlement to the non-Chinese ethnic minorities with no nationality other than British if at any time they came under pressure to leave the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Government are satisfied that this guarantee fully safeguards the position of the ethnic minorities and believe that there is a quite insufficient case for introducing new legislation to give them British citizenship. I cannot emphasise enough the fact that the Prime Minister gave a guarantee on 4th March to the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. The Prime Minister also undertook in Hong Kong to consider whether we should seek to identify specific circumstances—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, I hope she will say a little more about what is meant by being under pressure. Is it not possible that one of the pressures which might exist would not be their being told to leave by the Chinese authorities but that, not having any other passport, they could not travel away from Hong Kong and return?
1244
Would that be considered pressure which would qualify them under the guarantee which the Prime Minister gave?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that I shall come to that matter. At the same time the Prime Minister undertook to consider whether we should seek to identify specific circumstances that should be met. He also made clear his view that setting down in advance a specific set of circumstances would not necessarily give better protection than broad guarantees already in place. I am sure that Ministers of the day would not interpret Britain's commitment narrowly. We have accepted that evidence of discrimination could indeed be a relevant factor. I think that goes some way to assure the noble Lord that simply pressure to leave would not be the only factor taken into account. I thank my noble friend for introducing the Bill. I support the Motion that this Bill be given a Second Reading.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken so eloquently on this sensitive subject. I hope that the people in Hong Kong who are affected by this measure and their supporters—Mr. Jack Edwards has been mentioned—and the war wives and widows will draw great comfort from what has been said tonight by noble Lords on all sides of the House. Several noble Lords mentioned the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. I share the concerns, but it is, I believe, another battle for another day which I look forward to joining.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his generous apologies concerning the unfortunate events in another place. I welcome most warmly his assurance of support on this occasion and as regards the detailed way in which we hope to proceed. There is little more I can say other than to commend the Bill most warmly to your Lordships. I ask that it now be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before nine o'clock.

  Mr. Brent Stirling
  Mr. Brent Stirling
  Brazil: Demarcation of Indian Lands
  Brazil: Demarcation of Indian Lands
  Conscientious Objection
  Conscientious Objection
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Restaurant Service and Cover Charges
  Restaurant Service and Cover Charges
  DSS: Male/Female Staff Ratio
  DSS: Male/Female Staff Ratio
  Habitual Residence Test
  Habitual Residence Test
  Wheelclamping on Private Land
  Wheelclamping on Private Land
  NHS Patient's Charter Standards: Report
  NHS Patient's Charter Standards: Report
  Drug Rehabilitation Projects: Residential Care Costs
  Drug Rehabilitation Projects: Residential Care Costs
  Prisons: Funding for HIV Prevention
  Prisons: Funding for HIV Prevention
  Downer Cow Syndrome
  Downer Cow Syndrome
  Warble Fly Prophylaxis: Research
  Warble Fly Prophylaxis: Research
  Safer Cities Programme: Costs
  Safer Cities Programme: Costs
  RAF Bentwaters: Sale
  RAF Bentwaters: Sale
  Armed Forces Married Quarters: Sale
  Armed Forces Married Quarters: Sale
  US Fighter Planes: "Times" Report
  US Fighter Planes: "Times" Report
  The Gulf War and Chemical Weapons
  The Gulf War and Chemical Weapons
  Armed Forces: Sudden Deaths
  Armed Forces: Sudden Deaths