Sitting of 11 June 1996

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

    Procurement Projects
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with European partners about defence procurement projects. [30882]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): British Ministers frequently discuss collaboration and defence projects with Ministers in Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the importance of the defence industry to the British economy, does my right hon. Friend agree that collaboration with our European partners on defence projects can lead to economies of scale and larger markets? Does he also agree, however, that we must not forget the strategic importance of our relationship with the United States, and that any decisions on defence procurement should therefore be based on cost-effectiveness?
    Mr. Portillo: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's proposition. The fact is that, if the United States produces weapons for its own market, it may have a production run 10 times as long as any single European state can have. Therefore, getting together to agree our specifications and requirements in Europe offers great benefit, but to cut ourselves off from the United States, which has a technological edge in many of these areas, would of course be absurd. Therefore, our policy should be to achieve a balance between collaboration in Europe and collaboration with the United States. Of course, value for money and the effectiveness of the product for our services should also be important considerations.
    Mr. Spellar: We note once again that the criteria that the Secretary of State just outlined, ignored the key question of the maintenance of Britain's defence industrial base. Will he now assure us that it will be a key priority in procurement decisions?
    Mr. Portillo: I am astonished by the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman, who is meant to follow these matters. I made a speech in Paris last week in which I made it clear that it was one of the very important criteria for the United Kingdom that we should maintain a British industrial base. However, I am concerned about what we
    100
    heard in the debate on the Royal Air Force last week, when we heard from the Labour party about its intention to shut off exports of defence products from this country. That would be extremely damaging to jobs in this country and would also make procurement from British industry much more expensive. The time has come for Labour to say just how it intends to restrict our exports of defence products so that people may know how many jobs will be lost and where they will be lost.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that collaborating with our European partners means that we can maintain our research and development base but that it should not mean the creation of a European armaments agency run from Brussels, which would be of no use whatever to this country?
    Mr. Portillo: Clearly, there is a need for getting together with other countries in Europe to see what agreement we can reach on specifications. For some time, a group has been working within the Western European Union—that is the appropriate place for it to be, not the European Union—to see whether we can bring 13 countries together. There is a bilateral effort involving the French and Germans, which we are now joining, to see whether, between those three big players in Europe, we can reach some accord on specifications. That is the right way to proceed, but if my hon. Friend is saying that there is not a role in this for the European Community, the European Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice, I entirely agree with him.

    Redundancies
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for further compulsory redundancies in the armed services; and if he will list the numbers in each service to be made redundant in each of the next three years. [30883]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): No further redundancies are planned beyond those already announced.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister recall that the 1992 Conservative party manifesto said that cuts of 27 per cent. would devastate our conventional forces? How does he reconcile that analysis with the fact that, through progressive salami slicing that has undermined morale, his Government have cut the armed forces by more than one third?
    Mr. Soames: I know that it might have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, but since that time the cold war has ended, the Berlin wall has come down, the Warsaw pact has gone home and we are operating in a totally changed and entirely different strategic environment. To suggest that the services could have remained still and unchanged against such a background is idle folly. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party is presently proposing to take £4.5 billion out of the defence budget, a conference decision that is binding on the Labour party?
    Mr. Trotter: Is not the strength of our forces based on our spending more than the European average on defence? Would not the cut of £4,000 million a year that was

    101
    approved by the Labour party at its conference and is supported by many Opposition Members lead to a great reduction in the strength and capability of our forces and many redundancies, not only in the services but in the industry that supports them?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes a devastating case on his own account. He is absolutely right. Such a move would be deeply damaging, not only to Britain's strategic and commercial interests, but to the very fibre and backbone of the nation. Our armed forces are a golden asset for the United Kingdom. The Conservative party has looked after them well and will continue to do so.

    Industrial Participation
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards industrial participation. [30885]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): Where we invite bids that involve significant overseas work, we routinely invite bidders to offer proposals that would provide equivalent work in the United Kingdom. That helps to ensure that similar defence work is available to United Kingdom companies.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that, under the Conservative Government, no fewer than 345,000 skilled workers have lost their jobs? Does he accept too that the Government's hands-off approach to Britain's defence industry needs have betrayed those thousands of workers who served Britain so well for many years?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Far from it. Our defence industry is going from strength to strength and we take something like 19 per cent. of the world export market. We are second only to the United States. It is second only to our best ever achievement in the world. That is a pretty good achievement for British industry.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to look at another variety of industrial participation—participation by civil aviation interests in a military aerodrome, Royal Air Force Northolt, which has a special place in the armed services? Will he give me a robust assurance that RAF Northolt will remain a military aerodrome and not become a feeder-reliever airport for Heathrow, as was proposed by the Select Committee on Transport?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend will no doubt have read the remarks by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in the RAF debate last Thursday. RAF Northolt is already a heavily used military base and it would be difficult for it to take very much more.

    Ships (Construction Programme)
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction programme of ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. [30886]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We asked for tenders for the replacement of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and contract negotiations with VSEL continue. The timing of any order is subject to the satisfactory outcome of those negotiations. We hope to conclude them shortly.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that we can take enormous pride in the manner in which we have re-equipped our armed forces in recent years? Every member of the armed forces must give thanks every day that we have not had a Labour Government, because they would have raped the procurement programme in their search for a peace dividend. Does that success not make it even more surprising that there have been delays in the acquisition of replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid? What is the latest date by which a contract must be agreed in order for those vessels to enter service by the planned date of 2001?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not want to give my hon. Friend the latest date for which he asked, because I do not wish to tie my hands in negotiations. However, I hope that he will agree that, as we have the youngest Navy since the second world war, we have indeed equipped our Navy very well, as my hon. Friend said in the opening part of his question. I hope that he will also have listened very carefully to the way in which I phrased my earlier answer, because I gave him news that I have never before given: we hope to conclude the negotiations shortly.
    Mr. Hutton: Although I welcome any progress in the placing of orders for those vital ships for the Royal Navy, does the Minister agree that the procurement contract has been subject to extensive and totally unacceptable delays, which have not only compromised the Royal Navy's amphibious capability but threatened many jobs in Britain's shipbuilding industry?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No. What would threaten jobs in British industry would be the cutting of £4 billion from the defence budget. We have managed to maintain a very young Navy. In the negotiations over the landing platform dock replacement, we have also been achieving a good deal for the Ministry of Defence, the taxpayer and the company involved, since we are improving its management practices at the same time. We hope to conclude the negotiations shortly. This country's amphibious capability is not in doubt. I need point only to the recent launch of HMS Ocean and all the extensive capability that that implies to prove exactly that.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty of maintaining HMS Fearless during the recent operation in the Atlantic shows the urgency of the need for a replacement, but more importantly, that the Government accept the need for two replacements for two ships? That is the important issue.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there was a great difficulty in maintaining HMS Fearless during the Purple Star exercise. She performed extremely well. There was a highly successful amphibious off-load from her, which was one of the highlights of the exercise. She remained operational throughout and is now leading an amphibious

    103
    task force in the Caribbean. She is doing very well and is in a better material state than she has been for very many years.

    Officers' Children (Education)
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is being spent in the current year on private education and support of officers' children in the armed forces; and if he will break down this figure between male and female children. [30887]
    Mr. Soames: The total cost to my Department of the boarding school allowance for the academic year 1994–95 was £107 million. Information concerning the breakdown of that by boys and girls is not recorded.
    Mr. Simpson: I am sorry that the latter piece of information is not available, but it is good to see that the Government are not averse to all forms of public subsidy. How would the Minister justify that subsidy to schools in the east midlands, which can barely afford to cover their running costs and where at least one is having to seek commercial sponsors for its toilets and toilet rolls? Would not the subsidy policy make more sense if the Government shifted it from heavily pampered schools to those that are barely provided for?
    Mr. Soames: That is an outrageous question. I hope that the services heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The boarding school allowance is not an education subsidy. It is a function to allow service personnel access to education. It is paid to assist service families in providing a stable education for their children in the face of an extremely turbulent and frequently mouvementé service life, which can lead to great difficulties for service families. The allowance is paid regardless of rank and it is an extremely important part of service life.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways to recruit and retain capable people—the leaders of tomorrow—is to ensure that they know that their children will have a stable education that is paid for by their employer during the critical stage of their schooling? There is nothing odd about that, especially since we have asked them to go off to Bosnia at short notice.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who understands the importance of the scheme to the overall ethos of service life. It is extremely important that soldiers, sailors and airmen—of whom a great deal is asked—have the assurance that their families are being well cared for. That is something that we can do to help service families during what is frequently a turbulent period in their lives.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that the Opposition agree with the boarding school allowance for those who are genuinely eligible, especially those men and women serving on UN peacekeeping missions abroad? Is he aware that many of us are deeply worried about the poor standards of some of the private schools in the scheme? Will he introduce a more thorough inspection system to exclude some pretty rotten schools?
    Mr. Soames: In the light of what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, the hon.
    104
    Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we accept no such proposition. We watch the intellectual gymnastics of the Labour party with admiration. Effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that everything Labour has said for 15 years has been wrong, and it has made a terrible mistake. We will not buy that, nor will the country.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: In his supplementary question, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) referred to the people who benefit from the boarding school scheme as "pampered". Will my hon. Friend remind the House that those people serve this country and risk losing their lives?
    Mr. Soames: I am happy to do so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, which I thought was disgraceful. We owe much to our service men and women, who serve in serious and extremely dangerous conditions. They have every right to know that their families are well provided for, and the Conservative party will ensure that that remains the case.

    Sri Lanka (Training)
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held recently with the Government of Sri Lanka regarding the provision of training to the Sri Lankan armed forces. [30888]
    Mr. Soames: In March the then commander of the Sri Lankan army visited the United Kingdom to discuss a range of issues with the Chief of the General Staff and others. More recently a British Army officer has visited Sri Lanka to discuss training matters. Details of the discussions are confidential between Governments.
    Mr. Gerrard: Is the Minister aware of the reports that Vietnam veterans from the United States are now in Colombo training the Sri Lankan army in guerrilla warfare? Will he confirm that British Army personnel will not get involved in such training? Instead, should we not say to both Sri Lanka and the US that a military solution to the Sri Lanka's problems is not possible and that they should be looking for a negotiated settlement?
    Mr. Soames: I am happy to confirm that that is so. The United Kingdom has provided low-level training assistance, including developmental and technical courses for Sri Lanka. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the prospects of peace. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to monitor the situation closely, and we all hope that a peaceful negotiated settlement can be arrived at shortly.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the negotiations started by the new President and Prime Minister in Sri Lanka were disrupted by bombs? Does he realise that the Sri Lankan army is in great need of the expertise that the British Army can provide in training officers to work against a guerrilla army? That would ensure that the civilian population could be properly protected in the Jafna peninsula. Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the recommendation from our embassy in Sri Lanka that we increase the military advice and aid that we give to Sri Lanka?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will realise that I study all such applications with great care. There is immense demand for access to United Kingdom military training, both at home and abroad. Last year, 4,270 students from 117 different countries attended training courses in the United Kingdom. That illustrates the high regard in which our armed forces are rightly held throughout the world and the excellent reputation of our military training. I take note of what my hon. Friend said.

    Rapid Deployment Force
    Sir Dudley Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of a joint rapid deployment force. [30889]
    Mr. Portillo: The joint rapid deployment force will enhance our fighting capability by creating a force trained and equipped to respond effectively and speedily to future crises. The JRDF will be drawn from a range of assigned units from all three services, enabling the permanent joint headquarters to assemble a force appropriate to any particular operation.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a role for the Western European Union to play in that context, especially in the light of the combined joint task force agreement that was arrived at in Berlin by the NATO council only last week?
    Mr. Portillo: I am not sure whether I have ever had the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work as president of the WEU assembly. He does a wonderful job, much to the credit of his country.
    My ambition is that the joint rapid deployment force be a thoroughly flexible force that is available for national contingencies, for NATO and as part of a combined joint task force within NATO. Thanks to the agreement made in Berlin last week by NATO Foreign Ministers, it could naturally play a part in a combined joint task force under the political control of the WEU, should there be a Europe-only operation.
    Mr. Hardy: While I associate myself with the Secretary of State's comments about the work of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) in the WEU, does he expect us to believe that, given the Government's enormous cuts in the manpower of Her Majesty's forces in the past few years, any rapid deployment force could be immediately viable or exist other than on paper?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. It is going to exist. It is being brought together at the moment. It will be a highly effective force based on 3 Commando Brigade and 5 Airborne Brigade. It will have available all the support units that it may need. It will be carried forward in such a way that training between the various components will be a matter of routine. The hon. Gentleman should not be misled; this will not be a paper exercise but an important new capability for the British armed forces. He should direct his attention to his party's proposals to cut defence from where we are now by a further £4.5 billion.
    Mr. Churchill: May I, through my right hon. Friend, pay tribute to the superb job that British forces are doing
    106
    in Bosnia through their participation in IFOR? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in all future rapid deployments overseas, British forces, where appropriate, are provided with air-portable, air-conditioned and air-filtered operating theatres? The Defence Select Committee had that lack drawn to its attention during our recent visit to Bosnia.
    Mr. Portillo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It has been a magnificent and highly successful operation. We are in danger of forgetting how complex it has been, how much planning was necessary, how successful was the logistical support, how much risk there was and how well it has been done. I believe that our forces have had at all times the appropriate medical back-up, but I agree that, when one is engaged in an operation of such size, it is sensible to take stock of the lessons that can be learned. I am keen to make sure that we learn the lessons for the medical and other fields. I undertake to consider that carefully.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans are being prepared for the withdrawal of British forces from Bosnia after 20 December. [30890]
    Mr. Portillo: IFOR' s mandate expires at the end of the year and we intend to withdraw UK forces at the same time as our NATO allies.
    Mr. Thompson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the current situation in Bosnia does not bode well for the withdrawal of our troops on 20 December? Perhaps the whole situation needs to be re-examined. That date is only six months ahead. The families of British forces in Bosnia regard 20 December as a significant date because it is close to Christmas. Many expect that the serving forces will be back home for Christmas. Would it not be appropriate to renegotiate with our allies in Bosnia and seek a more distant date to take account of the present situation?
    Mr. Portillo: First, I should be frank with the hon. Gentleman and say that 20 December is the date on which the IFOR mandate ends. He should not read into that that the forces will be home on that date. That is the day that the operation ends. I anticipate that the ending of IFOR will lead to a withdrawal of troops over weeks, and possibly months, after that.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many aspects of the Bosnian situation do not bode well. What is important is that the international community develops an overall political strategy to deal with the many parts of that problem—humanitarian problems, the need for reconstruction, the need to rebuild the economy, the need to prop up the Croat-Muslim federation, and the need to provide police forces and training. As a small part of that, we need to consider what, if any, need there may be for a military presence in 1997. It would, however, be premature to reach conclusions about that now.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British troops will continue to be involved in the implementation force in Bosnia after the 20 December

    107
    deadline only if, first, it continues to be a NATO operation, and if, secondly, there is a substantial involvement on the part of our United States allies?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. I cannot conceive of any operation in Bosnia of a military sort that is not a NATO operation. I believe it is essential that in any NATO operation in Bosnia the United States should be involved alongside, and on the same terms as, her allies in the alliance.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will recall that the purpose of deploying NATO forces, including British troops, in former Yugoslavia was to bring peace and stability, and to assist in the reconstruction of the civilian infrastructure of that country. If, without undue risk to British troops, we can continue to help to fulfil those objectives as part of a NATO force, should we not now express our willingness to do so? That of itself would assist stability and civilian reconstruction.
    Mr. Portillo: Although I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view, I think that the point is debatable. I am not sure that announcing an open-ended commitment to a military presence in Bosnia would be helpful in creating stability. On the contrary, it might stop the necessary concentration of minds among the former warring factions on the idea that eventually they have to make a peace for themselves. I also believe that what the implementation force was set up to do will have been achieved by December: the forces will have been separated, they will have gone back to barracks and they will have surrendered their weapons, which will be in points of storage.
    The question is: what is needed in 1997? As I have already said today, what is most needed is an overall political strategy; as part of that we can consider whether any military operation is necessary.
    Mr. Renton: I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has just said, but is there not a real problem to do with the fact that, of the moneys pledged for the reconstruction of Bosnia, only about 20 per cent. has thus far appeared? Does not that mean that, at the end of the year, the situation in Bosnia may be such that it will be difficult for IFOR troops to withdraw? Will my right hon. Friend therefore urge all his colleagues in government to bring pressure to bear on the countries that are not paying the moneys that they have pledged to reconstruction, so that they get on and pay up promptly?
    Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend reinforces my point that we need not just a military option for Bosnia but a total package of international help, including money and reconstruction. While it is possible to conceive of a 1997 military operation which is part of a political strategy, it would be unacceptable to conceive of a 1997 military operation instead of a political strategy.
    Dr. David Clark: Has the Secretary of State had time to read today's excellent Select Committee report on Bosnia, outlining serious inadequacies in medical provision, the provision of housing and the provision of sanitary facilities? Will he assure the House that the MOD's shortcomings outlined in the report will be rectified and that the mistakes experienced in the IFOR
    108
    operation will not be repeated—if it proves necessary and desirable, as I believe it will, that British troops have to stay on in Bosnia after December 1996 in order to continue their peacemaking activities?
    Mr. Portillo: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has shown a lack of feel for the complexities of a military operation. It is outstanding that, within a one-month period—between December last year and January this year—we deployed approximately 13,000 soldiers, in the dead of winter, in the interior of Bosnia. We got them there, we kept them supplied and we provided them with ammunition, equipment, housing, sanitary facilities and medical facilities—and the hon. Gentleman has said that they were not exactly what he would have liked them to be. We learn lessons from every military operation, and we shall learn lessons from this one. For the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that this operation has been anything but an outstanding success for our forces and for the logisticians who supported them is unworthy of him.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current role of the implementation force in former Yugoslavia. [30891]
    Mr. Portillo: IFOR has made excellent progress in implementing the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement. It is now putting increased effort into supporting civil programmes, such as the rebuilding of schools, hospitals and public utilities.
    Mr. Winnick: Given the good work of IFOR, does the Secretary of State agree that it is important for the future of Bosnia that the notorious war criminals, Karadzic and the general, as well as some war criminals on the Croatian side, are brought to justice? Will IFOR undertake that task? Does the Secretary of State accept that the chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague has stated time and time again that war criminals who are wanted for terrible crimes against humanity should be brought to justice as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, they should be brought to justice. I can conceive of no lasting peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina unless those people are brought to justice, unless the evidence against them is heard and unless a verdict is reached in each case. As the hon. Gentleman has heard during the course of these exchanges, IFOR has a primary duty: the separation of the forces and now the provision of a secure environment in which the elections can be held. Within IFOR's mandate, IFOR has made it perfectly clear that it recognises its duty to hand over war criminals to the authorities so that they may be brought to justice.
    Mr. Key: Given the outstanding success of Britain's contribution to IFOR, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in future deployments in peacekeeping and peace enforcement, notice will be taken of, and advice will be sought from, the protection and life sciences division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? We would then have the best possible and the healthiest troops in the field, which would avoid some of the minor problems that were encountered by our forces in Bosnia.
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has made a valuable suggestion. He speaks with great authority and with the benefit of having visited Bosnia. In addition, he has the long experience of a large number of service people in his constituency. I will consider what he said very carefully.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not clear that, without the military's backing, the work of IFOR in underpinning its work and all the grand civilian work of reconstruction could not proceed, and the peace would disappear? Is it not clear that an IFOR mark 2 or some form of military backing must continue after December if peacemaking and reconstruction are to continue?
    Mr. Portillo: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but I cannot go any further than I already have this afternoon in my statements. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, if it is his view that there can be no proper civil operation without military back-up, it is my view that there could not be a military operation with any chance of success unless it were part of an over-arching political strategy by the international community.

    Anti-ballistic Missile System
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress of the feasibility study on an anti-ballistic missile defence system. [30892]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Our national pre-feasibility study on defence against ballistic missiles, which was conducted by a consortium led by British Aerospace, has recently been completed and we expect to receive its final report shortly.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is entirely conceivable that Europe and Britain will come within range of long-range ballistic missiles supplied by North Korea and possibly China to north African and middle eastern pariah states long before the medium extended air defence system is put in place to defend Europe as planned in 2005, and that the need for a ballistic missile defence of Europe is now urgent? What discussions has he had in sharing this sense of urgency with his NATO and Western European Union colleagues? What has been the outcome of these discussions?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We are concerned about the emerging risks and we are doing something about that, both nationally and with our allies. Only a fortnight ago, I was fortunate to visit the national test facility and the ballistic missile defence office in the United States, where I was enormously impressed by the important and very interesting work that is being done. We expect to take decisions by the end of the year.
    Mr. Dalyell: What are the consequences of the Ariane catastrophe for anti-ballistic missile research?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I believe that there are none at the moment.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that at this stage we should talk up the real threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, most important,
    110
    by the ability of some countries to launch nuclear, chemical or biological threats beyond their own borders? Does he agree that it would be a gross dereliction of duty on the part of this or any other Government not to notify the public of the serious and growing threat to this island?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in the matter. There are two issues involved: the defence of our troops in theatre and the defence of our national integrity. Both issues are important, but we believe that the first must have priority at the moment.

    Operation Purple Star
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant vessels chartered by his Department to take part in Operation Purple Star were British-registered. [30893]
    Mr. Soames: Madam Speaker—
    Mr. Trickett rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) must resume his seat when another hon. Member is asking a question.
    Mr. Soames: The answer is none, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Turner: Does the Minister agree that history reminds us of the heroic role played by the British merchant fleet in the life of this country? Does he agree further that that proud naval history is under threat because the Government have betrayed the British merchant fleet by not engaging one British ship? They have commissioned the ships of virtually every other country in recent times.
    Mr. Soames: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition. The Government have taken many positive steps to improve the competitiveness of British shipping and to encourage more shipowners to fly the red ensign. They include generous funding for training, liberalisation of officer nationality requirements, changes in registration laws and the introduction of roll-over relief on capital allowances.
    Only 37 British—flagged ro-ros—the roll on/roll off ships to which the hon. Gentleman refers—are militarily useful, and all of them are currently on extended charter. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should disrupt their charters in time of peace simply for the sake of buying British. We believe that we have a very satisfactory system for chartering ships through the Baltic exchange. We will continue to use that to gain best value for money for the taxpayer and the best possible use for our armed forces.
    Mr. Devlin: One civilian ship that we do not have to charter in time of war is the royal yacht, Britannia. I urge my hon. Friend to consider commissioning a fast, modern replacement ship which Her Majesty could use, which could be utilised in our trade promotion work around the world and which could be built in the north-east of England.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend tempts me down a path that I am reluctant to tread. No decisions have yet been made about the future of Britannia. However, the hon. Gentleman clearly has a formidable case to make regarding the north-east of England and I am sure that the House has noted his comments.

    Procurement Decisions
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department makes of the industrial implications of procurement decisions. [30894]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We have always taken industrial factors into account in defence procurement decisions. We have recently taken steps to ensure that that happens in a more systematic way.
    Mr. Chisholm: I am glad that there has been a slight improvement recently. Is it not high time that the Government took account of this country's employment and industrial base in awarding defence contracts and abandoned the hands-off approach that they have adopted in the past 17 years? Is the Minister aware that more than 300 jobs at GEC-Marconi Avionics in my constituency depend on the awarding of the Sea King airborne early warning contract? The rival bids involve far more development and manufacturing work that is being done overseas. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman's question was clearly greeted with enthusiasm. He makes his constituency point in the way in which I would expect him to do, but I remind him that some 90 per cent. of work by value done for the Ministry of Defence is won by British companies in this country.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that defence procurement contracts awarded to this country are vital to the maintaining of our manufacturing capacity? Will he continue to look favourably on Royal Ordnance at Radway Green in my constituency, which is operating successfully at home, in Europe and overseas to win contracts in the face of stiff and—it must be said—not always fair competition?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I was pleased to be able to announce recently the award of a contract for Royal Ordnance—partly, if I may say so, on the urging of my hon. Friend, who has worked so hard for her constituents in this regard.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30912]
    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. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister heard today's admission by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)
    112
    that Sir James Goldsmith is helping to fund his faction within the Conservative party? Does it strike the Prime Minister as odd that a foreign-based millionaire— [HON. MEMBERS: "Billionaire."] Does it strike him as odd that a foreign-based billionaire who has set up his own political party and is running candidates against official Conservative candidates is also funding his own fifth column within the Conservative party? Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to do anything about this extraordinary situation?
    The Prime Minister: I had not seen that statement by Sir James Goldsmith, but of course Sir James is a man of independent mind. Sir James is of course entirely free, if he wishes, to field his own candidates at a general election—I suppose that anyone with £20 million to spend can afford to do that—but he is not going to change our policy.
    Mr. Dykes: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his plans to put some backbone into some of our colleagues who seem to be irrationally obsessed with Sir James Goldsmith, and very scared about him as well? That, presumably, is why my right hon. Friend authorised the attendance of four members of the Government at last night's bizarre proceedings.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may himself think that he requires authorisation to attend particular meetings, but I assure him that all my hon. Friends will use their own independent judgment about the meetings they attend, and about the judgments they take from those meetings.
    Mr. Blair: It may seem indelicate to intrude on private grief, but may I ask the Prime Minister what we are to make of the political party in government when a former Cabinet Minister hosts a reception for a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and his campaign manager, to advocate withdrawal from the European Union—in the presence of Ministers—to the leader of a different political party altogether, whose objective is to remove Conservative Members of Parliament at the general election?
    The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory. He entered the House on a programme of leaving the European Union.
    Mr. Blair: The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman's political party is now moving towards advocating that programme. [Interruption.] It is. Let us put it to the test. Will the Prime Minister now join me in saying that the real agenda of many of those who will support the Referendum Bill today is to push Britain to the point of withdrawal from Europe? Will he join me unequivocally in saying that the views of those people who will make that case today are wrong?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can invent his own policies: he should not invent policies for my party. I have made it clear in speech after speech and in the recent White Paper that this country's role lies within the European Union, fighting for the sort of European Union that is amenable to this country. That remains the position. We intend to try to provide, within the European Union, a set of circumstances that is right

    113
    for this country. That does not mean that we accept every element of policy that our European partners propose, and it does not mean that we would never be isolated, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. It does not mean that we would give up the veto, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. We are there to fight for British interests, not to follow the policy that the right hon. Gentleman would follow and surrender British interests.
    Mr. Blair: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman stand at that Dispatch Box as Prime Minister and say that the views of those people are wrong? If he carries on running from them, they will carry on chasing him and the losers will be Britain, our jobs, our industry and our influence. When will the Prime Minister finally stand up and take a lead?
    The Prime Minister: I have told the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is putting views in the mouths of my hon. Friends that are not theirs, and my hon. Friends have made that clear time after time. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to sort out problems on Europe, he might make it clear that he disagrees with those 50 of his Back Benchers who have issued their own manifesto disagreeing with every element of the leader of the Labour party's policy on Europe. Perhaps he will make it clear that he disagrees with them. Our policy is to be within Europe, fighting for British interests, disagreeing with our European partners when we must, and agreeing with them when it is in the interests of this country.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement by the National Lottery Charities Board of £150 million of grants today, mostly to help young people? Does that not show that the House was right to make the charities board one of the recipients of national lottery funding and is that not the true image of the lottery in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome many of the awards that have been made today. They cover a wide range, including money for Childline, the British Red Cross, an ex-service men's association and the Samaritans. They will all have widespread support across the country. Having studied the list of all the awards made today, a small number of the awards do not in my judgment reflect the way in which Parliament and the public expected the lottery money to be spent. That is true of a minority of awards. The freedom to make those awards was given to the individual boards by the House and they have responsibility for the awards that they make. Overwhelmingly, they exercise that responsibility well. From time to time, they make awards that are ill founded and ill judged.
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30914]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: I have given the right hon. Gentleman previous notice of my question. Will he revoke his policy on market testing as it affects military units such as the 1,800-strong RAF Sealand in my constituency, where
    114
    large-scale redundancies are feared? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no level playing field when predator contractors compete against the in-house bid in RAF Sealand, such as GEC and Brown and Root?
    Will the Prime Minister give consideration to making my part of the world a market-testing-free zone on the basis that, if something is working, one should not fix it? Why put profit before the national interest? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the Falklands and Gulf wars, RAF Sealand gave magnificent service to Britain? That is all that it wants to continue to do.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the matter that he wished to raise. The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his support for RAF Sealand and has raised it with a number of my hon. Friends in the past. Our intention is to ensure that the armed forces get the highest possible quality of support at the best value for money for the defence budget. An announcement on the winning contractor is expected towards the end of the year. I am not proposing to revoke our present policy in any way—it is the right policy—but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the in-house bid will be evaluated against precisely the same criteria as the two external bids and that the judgment will be made on value for money.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join the Leader of the Opposition in putting to my right hon. Friend some things that are wrong. Would it not be wrong to oppose the Family Law Bill, which has provisions on domestic violence? As to that measure's marriage elements, is it not right to get rid of quickie divorces? Ought we not to tidy away the problems of first marriages before letting people get on to second marriages, and would it not be wrong to oppose the Bill because of that as well?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his purpose in asking that question entirely clear. I hope that we shall see some leadership on those issues from individuals who might, for spurious reasons, object to a Bill that I believe is in the interests of the people of this country.
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30915]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that drug dealing and money laundering are major difficulties in this country? Is he aware that a Scottish newspaper reported at the weekend that a journalist had approached a major Scottish organisation and offered it money as a donation, and was advised how that money could be laundered? Is that not a particular cause of concern for all of us? Is it not of particular concern for the Prime Minister, when the organisation involved was the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party?
    The Prime Minister: This Government have taken more action against drug dealing and money laundering than any previous Government, and we continue to do so. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman's allegation has any

    115
    foundation, but if he is prepared to give me details, of course I will have it examined—so that it can be repudiated.
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30916]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the recent fall in unemployment, which is a sign of good economic management? Will he join me in congratulating Layeezee Beds in Batley, which recently recruited 60 new members to its work force because of demand for that company's products?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that good news from my hon. Friend's constituency, which is reflected in many constituencies throughout the country. The economy is in better condition than at any time for a generation, which is why we were able to reduce interest rates yet again last week—simply because we have been successful in keeping inflation under control. Our policies are working, inflation is falling, unemployment is falling, growth is beginning to accelerate and this country has better economic circumstances than for many years past—and they are better than in many of our competitor countries on the continent.
    Mr. Benn: How can the Prime Minister justify disfranchising 116,000 voters in the election that he called in Northern Ireland when they voted for Sinn Fein, which is committed to the six Mitchell principles? When there
    116
    was a ceasefire nearly two years ago, no all-party talks were called for 18 months. Had other Governments followed that principle, there would have been no peace process in the middle east or settlement in southern Africa.
    The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein disfranchised itself. It had every opportunity to take part in the talks. Had there been an unconditional ceasefire by the IRA, Sinn Fein could have been a part of the talks process, as I had hoped it would be. Its representatives cannot sit down in a talks process with a bomb on the table and a gun under the table and the threat that, if they do not get their own way in negotiations, they will revert to type and the habits of the past 20 or 30 years. Sinn Fein's exclusion from the talks is its fault. That is the position of this Government, the Irish Government and the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, and that situation will not change. It is in Sinn Fein's hands. A ceasefire and the end of violence, which should have occurred anyhow, quite apart from the talks, and the way would be open for Sinn Fein to join the discussions.

  BILL PRESENTED
    SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN (SUPERVISION OF OFFENDERS)
    Mr. John Hutton, supported by Ms Janet Anderson, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Alan Milburn, Dame Jill Knight, Ms Ann Coffey, Mrs. Jane Kennedy and Mr. Julian Brazier, presented a Bill to make provision for the courts to impose an offender supervision order on persons convicted of certain sexual offences against children; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

Referendum
3.30 pm
Mr. William Cash: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the need for changes to the treaty on European Union affecting the United Kingdom's continuing membership of the Union and its participation in European monetary union and a single currency; to provide for the action to be taken consequent on the results of the referendum; and for connected purposes.
My Bill is not about whether the United Kingdom should be "in or out", as the federalists claim. It is about the national and European interest and about what sort of Europe we are in, where we are going and whether the British voters should be allowed to have their say before it is too late. Nor is it a matter of left or right, as my list of sponsors shows clearly. They properly range across the national political spectrum, Conservative and Labour, including Privy Councillors, former Cabinet Members and the leader of the Ulster Unionists. The Democratic Unionist party also supports the Bill, as do many others who cannot be here today.
As recent opinion polls show, British voters want to remain in the European Community for trade and political co-operation, but they do not want a federal Europe. The Prime Minister is right when he says that, if member states insist on federalism, Britain will not follow them. The problem is that, under the Maastricht treaty, we are surfing on a tide of federalism. Even today, France, Germany and the other member states are pressing for the removal of the veto for foreign and defence policy.
The treaty does not allow us to prevent other member states from going ahead with a single currency and states that it is irrevocable. Even if Britain were, say, to exercise its opt-out, which the Government are not at present prepared to do, a future Government could still join.
The prescription, therefore, is for an irreversible move to monetary union, and thus political union too. No wonder the electorate is confused, particularly since the original White Paper of 1971 stated that we would not give up the veto or our sovereignty and that we would not become part of a federation—although that is now denied by the Euro-fanatics. Even Lord Howe of Aberavon refers to the Government's position as taken to an "unsustainable extreme" and says:
"There is no such thing as a European people."
The outbursts from the unelected official, Jacques Santer, over the beef crisis illustrate my case and reveal the underlying and deeper problem of democratic legitimacy. Mr. Santer says that the hour of truth has come. In the words of William Blake, I would reply to him:
"A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent."
The question is who governs Britain and how.
There are fundamental reasons for holding a proper referendum in the United Kingdom before the intergovernmental conference is concluded, after our general election next year. Who represents Britain at that conference will be crucial to the national interest. The Government have already properly agreed in principle to hold a referendum, but only if a Conservative Cabinet says yes to a single currency. That qualification is, or ought to be, unthinkable, because a single currency would
118
destroy our parliamentary democracy. Furthermore, Chancellor Kohl and the Euro-federalists' obsession with political union and the consequences of a hard-core Europe would also undermine the single market.
In the light of the present failings of the European Union and the exchange rate mechanism, which almost destroyed the British economy, the situation is made worse by the Government's White Paper on Europe, which is faithfully endorsed by those on the Opposition Front Bench. It states:
"If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to propose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable from our point of view."
In other words, we will not insist on, let alone propose, treaty amendments to rule out monetary union and a single currency and the fundamental elements of a federal Europe. Hence the referendum question in my Bill.
The official Opposition are running away from the problem. The official Labour party position is in favour of managed exchange rates and monetary union, so it would press on with failed policies, generating massive unemployment for those who would be duped by them.
The Liberal Democrats say that they want a referendum, but only after the next IGC, when the fundamental question of a single currency for Europe is embedded in the Maastricht treaty itself. On the question of a federal Europe, the Liberal Democrats are not even supported by those who vote for them. It is hurting, but not working.
Since the Maastricht treaty was signed, evidence has multiplied that EU policies—for example, on unemployment and on Bosnia—are not working. Europe and the United Kingdom are now faced with damaging uncertainty and instability. We are in danger of being caught up in an unaccountable, introverted and collapsing Europe which fails to address modern problems of international competitiveness. A responsible IGC would address all those questions.
The electorates are increasingly opposed to the main proposals laid down at Maastricht by the political elite. In Germany, a majority of the electorate are now opposed to a single currency, and no one could suppose that in France the electorate would now vote in favour of Maastricht. In Spain, unemployment is running at 23 per cent.
Britain has a responsibility to use the IGC to put forward political amendments to the treaty, to avoid European government and to re-evaluate where all this is going. Britain must take a lead. The beef crisis is symptomatic of the deeper malaise affecting Europe, including German domination—which looks like leaving Britain on the outer rim of a federal Europe. If we insist on fundamental amendments to the treaty, not least to monetary union and the proposed single currency, we can open up the vital questions, throughout the electorates of Europe, about Europe's future before it is too late.
By reducing the competences of European government, largely conferred by Maastricht, we would prevent a federal Europe and curtail the power of the European Court of Justice to adjudicate on political issues, including those arising from monetary union. A federal Europe involves surrendering the levers of national democratic government to central unelected officials and a remote and unrepresentative European Parliament.

119
We should insist that the UK's decisions about its national interests be made before the conclusion of the IGC and not by the Maastricht timetable. The Government and the official Opposition both decline to propose those fundamental amendments to the treaty, which are necessary in our own and in Europe's interests, to ensure that we can govern ourselves in the areas that really matter. A proper referendum is required of those who will be most affected—the voters themselves. The judgment of the people is now required.
I urge the House to support my Bill.
3.38
Mr. Tony Banks: I oppose the motion on a number of grounds. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said that it was not the intention of the Bill to secure the withdrawal of this country from the European Union. I think that he is being totally disingenuous. There are many people on the Conservative Benches—and, perhaps, one or two on the Labour Benches—who have a scarcely hidden agenda to have this country withdraw from the European Union.
Europhobes are now in control of the Conservative party. It was scandalous to see the way in which the Prime Minister refused to stand up for this country inside the European Union and to stop running. He was invited by the Leader of the Opposition to stand and fight, but he did not. He is letting his party be run by Conservative Europhobes.
The hon. Member for Stafford mentioned BSE and fishing, but the issue is not BSE and fishing—it is about the position of this country in the European Union. Those issues are being used as a way of attacking this country in the European Union, and it is totally disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.
The Government have got themselves into an impossible position over BSE. One could see it coming. The Government have made it quite clear that they want the European Union to back down, but the European Union is not going to back down. Jacques Santer was quite right to remind the Government that other European Union countries are not prepared to let us walk all over the European Union—[Interruption.] Yes, to walk all over the European Union, and to refuse to agree with the proposals that we ourselves introduced in the Council of Ministers. It is an absurd situation, and the Government have not allowed themselves an escape route.
The European Union is a free association of independent and sovereign nations, and, sooner or later, they are going to say to Britain, "If you do not like the rules, there is the door. You can walk out and you can leave." If that were to be the case—if Conservative Europhobes were to get their way—it would be disastrous for this country. There is no future for this country, economically or politically, outside the European Union—[Interruption.] It is about time that that was recognised.
The final point—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be heard. He does not have to be listened to, but he will be heard. There is a very important distinction between those two.
Mr. Banks: Madam Speaker, he will be listened to and he will be heard by Conservative Members.
120
I am not one of those who opposes the idea of a referendum. I want the argument about Britain's future in the European Union to be taken out of here and into the country so that the matter can be properly argued. There is too much discussion among the chattering classes about Britain's future in the European Union. I should be quite happy and prepared to debate the issue outside, with my constituents and with the constituents of any Conservative or Labour Member.
I do not like this ten-minute Bill because I do not want the House and our democracy to be dictated to by a rich greengrocer, and I do not care how rich or distinguished a greengrocer he is. I do not understand why someone who is a member of the European Parliament—in France—who apparently lives in Mexico and who pays no taxes in this country can go out and start buying up our political process. I do not care whether Tory Members of Parliament are defeated, but I want to ensure that they are defeated properly—at the ballot box by British people—and not by greengrocers over in France, who live in Mexico.
On all those grounds, I oppose leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 1.

Division No. 139]

[15.43 pm

AYES

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Alexander, Richard

Harvey, Nick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hawksley, Warren

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Hunter, Andrew

Beggs, Roy

Jessel, Toby

Bendall, Vivian

Key, Robert

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Body, Sir Richard

Legg, Barry

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Leigh, Edward

Brazier, Julian

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Livingstone, Ken

Budgen, Nicholas

Lord, Michael

Butcher, John

Lynne, Ms Liz

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Canavan, Dennis

Madden, Max

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Marland, Paul

Carttiss, Michael

Marlow, Tony

Cash, William

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Churchill, Mr

Mills, Iain

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Colvin, Michael

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Corbyn, Jeremy

Nicholls, Patrick

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

Pawsey, James

Day, Stephen

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Duncan Smith, Iain

Porter, David (Waveney)

Dunn, Bob

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Fry, Sir Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gale, Roger

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Gallie, Phil

Simpson, Alan

Gardiner, Sir George

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Gill, Christopher

Skinner, Dennis

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Gorst, Sir John

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Spearing, Nigel

121

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Steen, Anthony

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Stewart, Allan

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Sumberg, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sweeney, Walter

Whittingdale, John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Thomason, Roy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Graham Riddick.

Tracey, Richard

NOES

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Rupert Allason.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Cash, Mr. John Redwood, Mr. David Trimble, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Sir Peter Tapsell, Mr. John Townend, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Richard Shepherd and Mr. David Martin.

REFERENDUM
Mr. William Cash accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the need for changes to the treaty on European Union affecting the United Kingdom's continuing membership of the Union and its participation in European monetary union and a single currency; to provide for the action to be taken consequent on the results of the referendum; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 147.]
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand it, it is an important tradition of the House, which you have upheld on many occasions, that if a Member opposes a motion or a Bill, he or she is obliged to vote against it. My understanding is that the solitary Member who voted against the Referendum Bill was not the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who opposed it. There were several shouts of "No". Surely—if they had any courtesy—the hon. Members involved should apologise to the House.
Madam Speaker: No, that is not quite correct. An hon. Member who opposes a Bill need only raise his voice in opposition and does not have to go through the No Lobby. It is a matter of raising one's voice.
Mr. Robert Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I hope that it is not another bogus point of order.
Mr. Banks: No, Madam Speaker. Although I have the same name as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who opposed the Bill, I was the one who voted against it.
Madam Speaker: How very enlightening. I would like more points of order like that. Are there any more? No, so we shall move on.

Orders of the Day
  Opposition Day
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Standards in Education
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.56 pm
    Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move,
    That this House believes that raising standards in schools is essential for the economic prosperity and social cohesion of the nation; notes the appalling disparity in skills between the UK and other developed nations; condemns the Government's obsession with structures at the expense of standards; and further urges Ministers to concentrate their efforts on providing excellence for all rather than returning to the divisions of the past.
    I must commiserate this afternoon with the Secretary of State for Education. It is one thing to have one's Back Benchers against one; it is quite another to have the chairman of one's party and the Prime Minister against one. When the Secretary of State makes a statement tomorrow to the Confederation of British Industry conference about discipline, detention and dealing with bullies, perhaps she could start with her own party and make it clear that she is not prepared to put up with the bullying tactics of the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who throws his weight about in suggesting that the Prime Minister, having given a particular task—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I am keeping Conservative Members awake—
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Not very successfully.
    Mr. Blunkett: If I am not doing so very successfully, a little whole-class teaching, which I intend to give this afternoon, is needed.
    When the Prime Minister gave the Secretary of State the very simple task of quietening down education issues and asked her to ensure that there was quiet in the teaching profession and that the divisions caused by her predecessor were set to one side, obviously she genuinely believed that he meant it. Over the past few months, we have seen quite the opposite. It was intended that the Secretary of State should come out fighting, with a right-wing agenda, to repeat exactly the performance of her predecessor with a set of proposals that had already been rejected not only by parents, governors and teachers, but by her own party. I commiserate with the Secretary of State because it is impossible for her to know exactly what is expected.
    What is absolutely certain is that 17 years of failed Tory policies, floundering, disarray and waste have undermined the chance genuinely to lift standards, opportunity and excellence for all children in this country.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am totally astonished that the hon. Gentleman has so much sympathy

    123
    for the Government. Has not the Labour party changed almost every policy that it has put forward in the past 20 years, never mind 17 years?
    Mr. Blunkett: As I shall show this afternoon, every time Labour announces a policy, the Secretary of State comes up with her own version of it a few days later. [Laughter.] I am delighted to share in the amusement of Conservative Members. The opinion polls should suggest a different story to those who find the matter funny. With Labour having a 39-point lead on education and an even bigger lead on the issue of standards, I do not think that the Tories have anything to laugh about at all. We are trouncing the Conservative party on every single issue in education, because—after 17 years of failure—we are concentrating entirely on lifting standards, achievement and opportunity for all our children in every school in every community in Britain. We are not concentrating on providing a privileged education for a few, and mediocrity for the many.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: I will give way in a moment. [Interruption.] I am being heckled by junior members of the Secretary of State's education team, who are being threatened by the chairman of the Conservative party. He is suggesting that a rabid right winger is needed in the Secretary of State's team to bring a little sharpness to the debate. I look forward to the reshuffle that may take place in July, when I shall find out who that rabid right winger might be.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Bill Cash.
    Mr. Blunkett: I doubt that it will be the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), on the grounds that that would be going one step too far in terms of European union. The Tory party should be making more effort to match the standards that exist in other European countries. The indictment is that, on every single statistical estimate available, the Conservatives have failed to match what is happening in other developed countries around the world.
    Mr. Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that education is run locally? Is he aware that the Labour party has been in charge of many local authorities for 50 or 60 years, and that standards in those authorities, which include Hackney and Islington, are deplorably low? How can he pretend that the Labour party stands for higher standards, when in practice it achieves absolutely nothing?
    Mr. Blunkett: I thought that the Government had announced that they had decentralised and devolved responsibility from local education authorities to schools. I thought that they took pride in the local management and local funding arrangements for schools, and in the fact that they had taken away what they describe as the "control" of local authorities.
    Now, as with everything else, someone else is to blame for what has happened in the past 17 years. They are the BSE Government—the "blame somebody else"
    124
    Government. They will not take responsibility for anything. Who has been directly in charge of the teacher training colleges and institutions that the Secretary of State will be dealing with, if not tomorrow, certainly in the forthcoming White Paper? Who has been responsible for not providing a clear curriculum within teacher training institutions? Who is responsible for the failure to provide a minimum level of time for teaching the basics in teacher training? Who has been in charge of those teacher training institutions that have failed to equip teachers to provide discipline and a disciplined environment in the classroom? Who is responsible for the failure to deliver the essential, basic provision to five, six and seven-year-olds? It is certainly not local authorities or Labour councils; it is entirely because of 17 years of successive Conservative Secretaries of State being removed in a desperate effort to try to improve the situation that they have messed up.
    Mr. Graham Riddick: If a Labour Government were elected, would it retain the services of the current chief inspector of schools, Mr. Woodhead?
    Mr. Blunkett: The question rests with the Secretary of State, who is in danger of having someone declare a by-election in what might euphemistically be termed a Conservative safe seat to allow the head of Ofsted to step into Parliament and take her place, for which several Conservative newspapers have called recently. If I were Secretary of State, I would make a decision that would ensure that everyone responsible co-operated. I would not divide the service. I would concentrate not on selection, grant-maintained status or structure but on the key task of giving our children the same life chance that they would have if they lived in France, Germany or Switzerland.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment.
    The statistics are clear. A third of our 11-year-olds are falling two or more years behind those countries on maths or literacy. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research programme shows that, even with children spending more time in education, compared with the Swiss they are falling two years behind in maths by the time they reach 11. GCSE and A-level results show that we reach only half the performance levels of the French or Germans or some of our south-east Asian competitors. We have everything to be ashamed about and little to be proud of in respect of the way in which the Government have mismanaged the education service. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who has been very persistent.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: On education policy U-turns, does the hon. Gentleman recall his attack in the Sheffield Star only 18 months ago, when he condemned people who
    "preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area."
    Is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) have done so the reason for the hon. Gentleman's U-turn?
    Mr. Blunkett: I dealt with that silly question in the previous education debate, when the hon. Gentleman

    125
    asked it in exactly the same terms. I understand now why the electorate are so unenamoured of the Government. They hear the same old tripe week after week, and month after month. Let me talk about what people want to hear about—the real lessons of education.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: No, I shall make some progress before I give way again.
    The key lesson is that we should never ration excellence. If excellence is rationed to the few, the talent of the many will eventually inevitably be excluded from the opportunity for excellence. The second lesson, which follows directly from that, is that selection has failed. It failed historically and it is failing in the present climate. We have only to take the Prime Minister's word for it. Only a few months ago he said:
    "The top 15 per cent. of youngsters who come out of our schools are equal to anything you will find anywhere in the world. The other 85 per cent. frankly are not."
    Not only is that an indictment of 17 years of Conservative Government, but it shows what happens when children are segregated so that high standards and quality are provided only to the few and not to the many.
    All this explains why the Secretary of State is so opposed to grammar schools. It is why, during her term as education chair in Norfolk, she did not review or reverse any of the proposals implemented over the previous four years, under a Conservative Government and a Conservative county council, to remove grammar school status and provide comprehensive education. It is also why, except for the eccentric right, no one wants to bring grammar schools back, and why selection is anathema. It is why the idea of a grammar school in every town is laughable. Spending between £2.5 billion and £3 billion on providing grammar schools for 5 per cent. of the population, while 19 out of 20 children will then inevitably attend what would become secondary modern schools, is an insult to the intelligence of parents.
    This is why we reject the idea, why parents have rejected it for the past 30 years, and why the former Prime Minister spent so much of her time as Education Secretary ensuring that she removed grammar schools. Just 10 days ago, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) was reported in The Times Educational Supplement as saying that "Margaret" had signed the closure of more grammar schools than any other Minister. He added that when he had pointed this out to her once or twice,
    "she glared at me and changed the subject."
    Of course she did, because Tory party policy at the time was clearly against grammar schools and selection, and in favour of introducing comprehensive education.
    The problem is—the past 17 years are a good example of this—that under Conservative Governments children have not been provided with the sort of comprehensive schooling that gives everyone an opportunity to succeed.
    Dr. Robert Spink: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that grammar schools would not be allowed under a Labour Government. He must be aware that his party's leader has said that parents whose children currently enjoy the benefits of grammar schools can vote
    126
    to retain them if they so wish. Does he support his leader's policy; if so, does he believe it inconsistent to allow those who enjoy the benefits of grammar schools to retain them but not to allow others to vote for those benefits by voting for new grammar schools in their areas? If choice is to mean anything, people must be given that choice.
    Mr. Blunkett: I was not sure—I gather from radio broadcasts that Ministers are not sure either—that Tory party policy would allow local populations to vote on the matter, thereby reopening all the votes in local elections of the past 30 years to remove grammar schools and ensure open access and admission policies. But let me answer the question directly: I wrote the policy, so of course I am in favour of it. I wrote the policy, suggesting that we will not permit selection, but where grammar schools already exist, parents with a direct interest in their children's admission to them will have a vote. That seems perfectly fair to me.
    We already know what people think and feel. Although the Secretary of State is engaged in a battle with Cabinet colleagues over whether there should be 15, 20, 25, 40, 50 or 100 per cent. selection for all schools, an experiment is already taking place. Grant-maintained schools are allowed to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake by examination, yet only 43 of them have chosen to take up the option. So the notion that the percentage to be selected is the big issue of the moment is nonsense.
    The issue of the moment is how we can transform our education system—how we can get to the point where every 11-year-old who does not have a specific special educational need can read, write and add up to the level of their chronological age. The issue is how we can transform our education system, through nursery provision and through primary education, so that every child has the ability to reach their full potential and thereby to make selection an absolute irrelevance.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is not the problem that some rich and powerful parents are able to exercise selection by bussing their children from one side of London to the other? That being the case, what choice would the hon. Gentleman give to parents in west London, for example, who would expect to be able to feed into the Oratory school but are unable to because some parents bus their children in from the other side of London? They have no choice; they have no selection. What would the hon. Gentleman do about that? What would he say to those parents?
    Mr. Blunkett: When the Conservative Government introduced the London Government Act 1963, they permitted people across the then Inner London education authority to choose—as denominational parents have done over the decades—to send their children to the school of their preference. I did not know that Conservative Back Benchers were against that; I did not know that they would be arguing against Catholic parents being able to choose a Catholic school, whether it is voluntary aided or otherwise. Let me make it absolutely clear that the whole task of lifting standards rather than meddling with structures is to ensure that parents can make genuine choices, because real opportunity exists, because every single school is performing at its best.

    127
    I shall be clear about rich and powerful parents—they are the ones who buy private education.
    Mr. Hughes: Middle-class left-wingers.
    Mr. Blunkett: No, I am not talking about middle-class left-wingers; I am talking about the 20 out of 23 members of the Cabinet, from the Prime Minister down. Those in the Cabinet who have not bought private education are desperately fighting to stop the education system of this country being completely divided and ruined once again by a squabble over structure—including, apparently, the Secretary of State, who is losing hands down.
    Let me be absolutely clear about privilege. If we abandon state education and give up on it because we cannot achieve those levels, because we cannot get every 11-year-old up to the level of their chronological age and because we cannot ensure that every comprehensive school delivers the goods, we would do exactly what the Government have done. We would say to people—as the Deputy Prime Minister has said—"We will allow you to `escape' from the inadequacies of inner-city education under the Tories."
    What have the Government done? They did not lower class sizes and they did not intervene to help bring about real change—they doubled the assisted places scheme. They undermined state education and then encouraged people to leave it. What sort of confidence and faith can anyone have in a Government who doubled the assisted places scheme instead of attracting people into the state sector? The Government should have said to middle-class people, "We will save you money. You will not have to spend your hard-earned pounds on buying private education because we will invest in making it good enough for your children." Instead, they doubled the assisted places scheme at a time when we have record numbers of classes with more than 30 pupils in primary education.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): No, we do not.
    Mr. Blunkett: The junior Minister has said that we do not. There are now 1.6 million children in primary education who are being taught in classes of more than 30. Pupil-teacher ratios have risen for the fifth year running. The statistics would have hit the headlines if the Government had got them right the first time round. The Government cannot add up, nor can they spell. They have issued press releases that have misspelt the Isle of Wight—it has been spelt "White". The Government are not literate or numerate. Is it any wonder that the rest of the population are struggling? The most indictable statistic is that more than 41,000 young men and women left our schools last year at the age of 16 without any qualifications.
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he intends to move on, but it is important to put on record the fact that, according to the latest figures that I have seen, there are fewer primary school pupils in classes of more than 30 and 35 than there were in 1979.
    Mr. Blunkett: Which set of latest statistics is the Minister talking about? Some 1.6 million children are
    128
    desperately seeking a Government who will pay not for a handful of people to go to the private sector but for lower class sizes at the key infant stage in order to ensure that all five, six and seven-year-olds learn to read, write and add up. Teachers need the time and the space to do the job. The Government will achieve that end not by providing a paper promise of nursery education, but by providing genuine, free, professional and high-quality nursery places. That should be followed by teaching the basics in classes that are small enough to manage. Targets must be set throughout primary education following a baseline assessment that is made when a child enters a reception class. In that way we shall begin to transform our education system.
    We propose to change teacher training, to set targets and to establish a task force and we are committed to achieving those aims by the second parliament under a Labour Government. That programme represents the beginning of a process of matching the achievements in the rest of the world.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Nursery education in my constituency is at 94 per cent.—and it has been at that level for the past 20 years. That figure has been achieved through the co-operation of local authorities of all political colours. Predominantly Conservative Governments—at least for the past 17 years—have provided enough money to pay for 94 per cent. of nursery education. My local authority has chosen to make that provision while other local authorities have chosen to waste their money in other ways. Consequently, we have had to ring-fence the money for nursery education by giving it to the parents so that local authorities that do not have high nursery education priorities cannot cheat them any longer.
    Mr. Blunkett: I knew that the intervention would be a good one. The hon. Gentleman should reflect not upon what the Conservative Government have given to Calderdale, but upon the way in which the local authority—comprising parties of all political persuasions—has prioritised nursery education. It did so against the backcloth of a letter that the hon. Gentleman received from the Secretary of State 18 months ago suggesting that expenditure on nursery education was a diversion from real expenditure on mainstream schooling.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the Government's voucher scheme, money will be clawed back from Calderdale for the four-year-olds for whom it provides in order to offer a paper promise in areas where there is no existing provision. If we couple that with the fact that administration costs could go directly to providing new places, we find that the hon. Gentleman is arguing my case for me. I am very grateful to him.
    We have announced a range of measures in recent months. On truancy and exclusion, we emphasise the importance of tackling disaffection and of allowing schools the option of a one-term exclusion rather than 15 days or permanent exclusion from the school. Ten days later the Secretary of State announced not three months, but 45 days. That announcement was 10 days late and three weeks short of our own announcement.
    At the end of May, I said that something drastic should be done about teacher training. I called for an immediate project to ascertain what has happened to those who have

    129
    undergone teacher training in the past five years. The Secretary of State is to say something about teacher training tomorrow. There is a major shortage of English and maths teachers. The number of teachers who are qualified to teach those subjects has dropped dramatically by 22 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively. Last year's GCSE results saw a drop of 1.9 per cent. in maths, and a 2.8 per cent. drop in English.
    Last year, we announced that we considered head teacher training to be a crucial prerequisite for anyone taking a headship; the Secretary of State then announced the same. We announced baseline assessment targets and home-school contracts; the Secretary of State announced them a few days later. We made an announcement about education for 14 to 19-year-olds at the end of March; the Secretary of State made the same announcement 10 days later, on the back of the Dearing inquiry. We have announced that we are in favour of extending local management of schools, and I gather that the White Paper will probably follow us.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: Certainly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can add his own examples.
    Mr. Hawkins: I have been following Labour education policy for many years. Is not the hon. Gentleman's attempt to rewrite history a complete travesty? During the past few months, he and the leader of his party have tried to apologise for everything that Labour and the militant teachers it has supported have stood for for over 17 years. Is he not really admitting today that the Conservatives have been right all along, and trying to rewrite Labour policy in the Conservative shadow?
    Mr. Blunkett: I find it difficult to take anything seriously from someone who is abandoning his constituency for the chicken run because he knows that education policy, and Tory party policy generally, will result in his losing his seat. Let me deal with the issue head on, however.
    Seventeen years of Conservative government have led us to announce a series of programmes and changes that the Conservatives have failed to introduce during those two decades. We are announcing programmes because the Conservative Government have not done so; we are talking about changes and improvements in standards because they have not happened. I could name many more improvements that are needed— for instance, the repair and renewal of buildings. It will be interesting to see whether the Secretary of State has anything to say about that, in the White Paper or elsewhere.
    Let me repeat that we will ensure that the £3 billion backlog of repair and maintenance of schools throughout the country—a Tory legacy of neglect—is dealt with directly through a new public-private partnership which will not be exclusive to grant-maintained schools, but will be available to every school in the country. We will ensure that teachers teach, and children learn, in classrooms that are warm, safe and fit to work in, and that everyone has the opportunity of a decent education, wherever they live and whatever their background.
    130
    We are talking about transforming the life chances of our people. We are talking about transforming access to further and higher education. We are talking about our "Target 2000"—our aim to ensure that by the year 2000 every 18-year-old will have reached at least qualification level 2. We will transform and replace youth training in order to achieve that goal, and offer every young person who has been out of work, education or training for more than six months the opportunity of a job, a learning place or a position in the voluntary sector.
    With £1 billion allocated from a windfall tax, we will transform young people's life chances. We will tackle head on the skills shortage that the Government will reveal as the biggest own goal of Euro 96 when they announce on Thursday, that, after 17 years, they are falling further and further behind our European partners and our competitors across the world. There are skills shortages at a time of high unemployment; and the Government are failing to match, or even begin to match, their own targets. Forty per cent. of people have advanced qualifications, compared with a target of 60 per cent. That is a failure unequalled anywhere in the developed world.
    We are not talking simply about revealing failure—about league tables and inspections that tell us what is going wrong, but do nothing to put it right. We are talking about rectifying as well as revealing: about ensuring that we intervene, and spread excellence and achievement from one school to another and from area to area. We will use the education authority as the voice and advocate of parents, not to control, but to support and to work with schools in achieving their goals. The family of schools should share resources and specialisms, and link through new technology to make it possible to ensure that, instead of rationing to a few, we are able to open up opportunities to the many.
    Mr. David Lidington: I accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's comments that national initiatives must be translated into best practice, school by school and classroom by classroom. Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity now to say that he and his party have full confidence in the independence, integrity and programme of work of the current chief inspector of schools?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am sorry, but it is not my job to answer questions about the chief inspector of schools. It will be my job shortly, God willing, and I will then answer questions. Is it not interesting that a Secretary of State under siege, who is doing her best to fulfil the mandate that she was originally given, is now taking second place to an appointed official? Is it not a shame that Conservative Back Benchers have to ask me, the shadow Secretary of State, what I will do about the chief inspector of schools? It is the chief inspector's job to reveal the inadequacy, the failure and the abysmal performance of 17 years of Tory government, and it will be our job to do something about those problems.
    We will offer support as well as pressure. We will unite parents, teachers and governors with their education authorities, schools and central Government, to do the job. The Government have failed to do that job, as, I am sorry to say, has the Secretary of State. When we get the chance, we will unite this country to make education the key to economic prosperity and social cohesion. That is

    131
    the pledge from the Labour party—not structure, not status, not muddle and not selection, but excellence and standards for everyone.
    4.31 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'welcomes the measures which Her Majesty's Government has introduced to raise educational standards through greater diversity and parental choice, the establishment of a common framework for the curriculum, assessment and regular testing, greater self-government for schools and colleges, and enhanced accountability through inspection and the publication of performance information; and welcomes the increases in achievement and participation which have followed.'.
    I am grateful to the Opposition for tabling this debate. It is a pity that they thought fit to devote only half a day to educational standards, but of course they have always been rather half-hearted on the subject. Consider the double-speak we have just had to endure from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He has been so little in evidence over the past few days that The Times has taken to describing him as Labour's health spokesman. The hon. Gentleman may wish he was, because it is obvious that he has an impossible task.
    In the confused shambles that constitutes Labour's education policy, the hon. Member for Brightside cannot reconcile the words or the actions of his Front-Bench colleagues or the structure of education with his own views, with those of the left-wing Campaign group of his party or with those of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), or—since the hon. Member for Brightside talked a lot about polls— with those of 74 per cent. of Labour parliamentary candidates. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy, but he should save it for himself.
    The hon. Member for Brightside is confused, and who can wonder? He opposes grant-maintained schools, but the Labour leader is sending his son to one. The hon. Gentleman opposes grammar schools, but now he finds that the shadow health spokesman—the real one—has chosen to send her son to one. To cap it all, the hon. Gentleman thought he was safe in opposing cuts to child benefit, until he found that the shadow Chancellor had overruled him.
    Nor can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his new-found enthusiasm for standards with the practice of those town halls up and down the land where Labour has long held sway. The hon. Gentleman's seemingly interminable speech clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy and plain humbug of Labour's so-called education policy. It is difficult to know how the hon. Gentleman kept a straight face. He must surely know which party presides over the worst educational standards in the land. I will remind him.
    Labour controls the boroughs of Islington, Tower Hamlets and Southwark, where 20 per cent. of seven-year-olds are illiterate—a fact exposed by the recent Ofsted report. Labour controls Islington, which also has the poorest GCSE results in the country. Some caring parents living in Islington—such as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—choose schools for their children outside that borough, which is not quite a vote
    132
    of confidence in the Labour comrades. One wonders who took part in the opinion poll about which we heard so much from the hon. Member for Brightside—not, I think, Islington parents, who vote with their feet.
    Who is in power in Tower Hamlets, which has the highest truancy rates in the land? Labour, of course. Who controls Nottinghamshire, where last year the local education authority denied 11-year-olds the right to sit their standard assessment tests although that is the law of the land? Who deprived those pupils? It was Labour. At Hackney Downs, the LEA reduced a once outstanding grammar school to the state where it had to be closed—although there were only eight pupils per teacher and it cost nearly three times the national average to educate each pupil. Who is in charge in Hackney? Labour.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Secretary of State comment on Labour-controlled Northumberland, where only two schools have gone grant-maintained? One did so by two votes, with the opposition of most of the parents when they realised what that decision meant. The other school went grant-maintained because there was a proposal to close some primary schools in the county because of its sparse population. Northumberland is at the opposite end of the scale that the right hon. Lady mentioned. Can she say anything critical about Northumberland and its education authority?
    Mrs. Shephard: Last year, Northumberland county councillors complained that their education budget fell short by £700,000, but awarded councillors £500,000 in increased meal and travel allowances. They also should have known that the case of Hackney Downs shows convincingly that there is no connection between resources and results. There may be some connection between Labour councillors and higher meals and mileage allowances.
    The lack of a connection between resources and results can be seen in the 10 LEAs that produced the poorest GCSE results—Islington, Knowsley, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Manchester, Lambeth, Newham, Hackney, Liverpool and Haringey. Every one of them produced results way below the national average, and most incurred expenditure per pupil above the national average—nine out of the 10 with Labour in control.
    If the hon. Member for Brightside and his colleagues are so concerned about standards, opportunities for all our children and Britain's competitiveness, why do we not hear from the hon. Gentleman outright condemnation of those of his Labour comrades who have allowed such scandalous situations to develop? We hear not a word. All we hear are the footsteps of Labour Front Benchers opting out for their own children and voting with their feet.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: I implore my right hon. Friend not to move on without referring to Derbyshire, which was omitted from her list. Is she aware that places such as Bolsover and Chesterfield have one nursery school for every 6,000 or 7,000 of the population, whereas High Peak and the Derbyshire dales have one nursery school for up to every 22,000? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures reveal not only reprehensible management but show that downright political bias determines Labour education policy?
    Mrs. Shephard: The story of Derbyshire's local authority would fill a book, or many books. I am delighted

    133
    that my hon. Friends lose no opportunity to expose the extraordinary goings-on and the extraordinary identification of priorities that we have seen in that authority.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that she is criticising the political control of the LEAs, not the teachers, who are professional, dedicated and do an excellent job? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the increase in the number of youngsters in higher education from one in eight to one in three is one of the greatest achievements of the Government, and that it would be put at risk if she were to adopt policies that Labour advocates, such as doing away with the student grant and child benefit?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is extraordinary that, while claiming that they want to give incentives to young people to continue in education and training, Labour Members use as their means a tax on parents of £560 per child. The increase in numbers going into higher education represents a welcome increase in standards of achievement over the past 16 years. However, as I am always ready to admit, there is a great deal more to do.
    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) paid a graceful compliment to good teachers. He is right to do so. However, it is a fact that Labour Administrations cannot deliver. Labour equals poor leadership, which allows poor teaching, and the result is abysmally low standards of achievement and millions of children deprived of their right to a good education.
    Mr. Blunkett: I should like to clarify this, because it is important for the months and years ahead. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that it is not possible for teachers to teach well, for heads to lead or for education officers to give support if the councillors are not of the best in those individual authorities? I should be grateful for a straight answer.
    Mrs. Shephard: The straight answer is that I have given the House illustrations of bad achievement in Labour-controlled local authorities, which have been backed up by examples given by my hon. Friends and which, alas, illustrate all too well the prospects for education, training and competitiveness in this country in the unlikely and appalling event of a Labour Government being elected.
    Mr. Blunkett: With the right hon. Lady's indulgence, let us pursue this a little further. Is she suggesting that the political complexion of the elected members of an authority is affecting the teaching of children in the classroom, the quality of head teachers or the work of officials in those authorities?
    Mrs. Shephard: The record of the authorities I have quoted speaks for itself, and there is no need to go into more detail. It is obvious that, in badly managed, Labour-run authorities, everyone's job is more difficult.
    Let us look at what the Government have put in place to raise education standards. As I have said, there is always more to do and higher levels to achieve. Let us
    134
    look at what we have already achieved against continuous resistance and hostility from the Labour party. At every step, the Labour party and its comrades in the Labour town halls have fought every measure to raise standards.
    Ms Joan Walley: May I refer to the difficulties that the hon. Lady seemed to be presenting to the House in her last comments? If head teachers, councillors and local education officers can monitor what is needed in a particular area, the Secretary of State should be receptive to those needs. In my authority of Staffordshire, there is a clear and urgent need for capital spending on school buildings. Despite extensive building repair and improvements, there are schools in my constituency with classrooms that should not be used. Repeated bids to her Department have not provided the funding we need to bring the classrooms up to an acceptable level. Surely that will affect education standards. Can we abandon this party political approach that the right hon. Lady seems to be adopting, and recognise what is needed in our nation's schools?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to abandon the party political approach for one moment by telling the hon. Lady a fact—spending on capital programmes has been increased for this year by 7 per cent., which should help Staffordshire and every other local authority in the land. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Lady of the party political activity undertaken by her colleagues in the House and elsewhere who have opposed everything that the Government have sought to put in place to improve standards in education.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: My right hon. Friend has been talking about the measures that the Government have taken to improve education standards. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to the assisted places scheme. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that excellent scheme is designed to help poorer families, not the better-off, as the hon. Gentleman wrongly alleged in his speech?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to confirm that the assisted places scheme is designed specifically to help children from disadvantaged families take advantage of a good education within the independent sector. It extends the choice and diversity that have been the key notes of this Government's education policies.
    What have we put in place? We have introduced the national curriculum, the national system of testing and assessment for children at seven, 11 and 14, and more freedom for schools to manage themselves, with local management for LEA schools and over 1,100 grant-maintained schools, which act as beacons of excellence to promote ever higher standards. We have introduced more accountable schools. The national system of rigorous inspection means that, for the first time, all schools will have their strengths and weaknesses made known to parents and to taxpayers. We are providing much more information for parents.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to congratulate the headmaster, staff, governors, parents and children at Ripley St. Thomas school in my constituency, which has recently become a specialist language centre, having

    135
    raised vast sums from everybody in the locality? One of these days, would my right hon. Friend pay a visit to the school, because I am sure that she would enjoy it?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sure I would, especially if my hon. Friend were the guide. I am delighted to congratulate those responsible for the school, because that example illustrates precisely the greater choice for parents and the greater diversity that we have sought to put in place.
    We have introduced grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, city technology colleges, specialist schools and colleges and, of course, assisted places.
    Ms Margaret Hodge: Will the right hon. Lady explain to the House why, when she was a member of Norfolk county council's education committee, she voted for the closure of all the remaining grammar schools in the county, including the one that she attended, North Walsham girls high school? Why did she do that, and what has changed her mind since then?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady will find that her chronology is a little wrong. She will find that I may well have been working for the council at that time, but I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned Norfolk, because an entirely new choice for parents has been introduced by the Government with the introduction of vouchers for four-year-olds. The hon. Lady has made quite a campaign of trying to rubbish what is going on with nursery vouchers in Norfolk, and I am delighted to tell her the result of some research that we are producing today. It shows that 86 per cent. of Norfolk parents are delighted with the nursery voucher scheme. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be thrilled to hear that.
    We have also introduced effective action to improve the least successful schools.
    Mr. John Garrett: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Shephard: No, not at the moment. I must make progress.
    We have also introduced effective action to improve teaching. We are establishing 25 literacy and numeracy centres to tackle basic skills teaching in primary schools. We are introducing more stringent teacher training for reading and arithmetic. We are introducing training and an entirely new qualification for head teachers, and, of course, the Teacher Training Agency was set up specifically to improve the quality of teacher training.
    What is the record of the Labour party? We have heard a great deal about intentions and about the activity over the past couple of months, but when we legislated in 1979 to save the remaining grammar schools, who voted against it? Labour. When we legislated in 1980 to establish the principle of publishing exam results and to bring in the assisted places scheme, who voted against? Labour did.
    When we carried through the Education Reform Act 1988 to establish the national curriculum, national testing and assessment, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and the abolition of ILEA, who voted against it? Labour did. When we legislated in 1992 to free further education colleges from local authority control, who voted against? Labour did. That legislation included the establishment of a rigorous system of school inspection, but Labour voted against that, too
    136
    When we legislated in 1993 to make it easier for schools to go grant-maintained and to establish the Funding Agency for Schools, who voted against? Labour did. When we legislated in 1994 to reform teacher training and to set up the Teacher Training Agency, who voted against? Labour did.
    That is a long record by the Government of achievement in raising standards, and a long and shameful record by Labour of opposition to every measure to raise standards—a record that Labour and Hansard cannot deny. Labour was so busy opposing that it has not even noticed what it voted against over the past 16 years, as the hon. Member for Brightside made clear. It is no good trying, hopelessly, to put it right over two or three months.
    Mr. Garrett: The right hon. Lady earlier drew comparisons with Labour local authorities. Will she cast her mind back to the time when she was a leading light in Norfolk county council's education authority? She may even have been the chair of that authority for a time—[Interruption.] Does she recall that, when she played a leading role in Norfolk education, it was probably the worst authority in the country? It was at the bottom for the league for expenditure on books, for expenditure on pupils and for class sizes, for expenditure on buildings. Independent observers held it up as an authority—[Interruption.] Its results were very poor, too—[Interruption.] I keep being interrupted, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): It is a rather long intervention, but it is not helped by sedentary interventions from Conservative Members.
    Mr. Garrett: Does the Secretary of State admit any responsibility for that deplorable level of performance, while we are on the subject of comparing councils?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has helpfully and usefully provided a perfect example of Labour's usual attitude, which is that resources equal good results.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way on the subject of Norfolk?
    Mrs. Shephard: This must be the last intervention for some time.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I had five children at the village school, at which she appointed the school head, at the time that she was a school inspector? All my children received an exceedingly good education.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend.
    In the days when Labour Members voted against every measure to put standards in place, at least they were consistent. The puzzling thing now is that some of them oppose one thing, some another. The hon. Member for Brightside, for example, does not like selection in schools. Just a few weeks ago, he said about children:
    "Creaming them off and putting them in schools that provide excellence—that's the theory—you give excellence to a very small minority and you write off the rest."

    137
    Of course, his view is not shared by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) or several other Labour Members, who are very happy for their children to belong to that "very small minority".
    The hon. Member for Brightside has many times voiced his opposition to grant-maintained schools. But he goes further than that—he objects to parents choosing any school not in their own local authority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) pointed out. I am sorry that he is no longer in his place. The hon. Member for Brightside should really take to task the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Barking (Ms Hodge), just two of the Labour Members who have made that choice using the powers that Government policies have given them—while, of course, seeking to destroy those policies lest other people's children should gain from them.
    Last Friday, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield announced his support for streaming and his opposition to mixed-ability teaching. Yet not only has Labour promoted those educationally harmful mixed-ability classes for many years, but only last December, in a policy paper, it said:
    "schools have rightly rejected forms of streaming which have labelled some children as failures throughout their schooling."
    Do hon. Members remember the hon. Member for Brightside saying, "Watch my lips—no selection"? How curious that the views of the shadow spokesman for education seem so different from those of other hon. Members, not only in his party but on his own Front Bench.
    The Labour Party reminds me of that old Tuscan army,
    "Where those behind cried `Forward'!
    And those before cried Back'!"—
    and some no doubt went sideways, just like the Labour party which is trying to go in all directions at once—wherever the magnet of an opinion poll leads it. By the way, for the avoidance of any doubt, the Tuscans lost.
    This Government have already carried through the most radical programme of change for our schools in living memory, but we have to go further. The Dearing 16-to-19 review heralds a wider and more rigorous range of vocational and academic qualifications. On Thursday, we shall publish the third competitiveness White Paper, setting out plans for education and training policies to equip Britain to face the future.
    The skills audit addresses what has been a chronic problem for this country for 120 years. It is this Government who have had the courage to do that; it is this Government who have brought forward the measures to deal with the deficiencies. We shall continue to do so, because it is this Government alone who understand the challenge of global competition.
    Later this month, I will publish a White Paper to extend self-government in all schools, to give more freedom to grant-maintained schools, and to give all parents more choice of schools—including grammar schools. In September, I will launch a thoroughgoing reform of teacher training to ensure that new primary teachers are better equipped in future to teach the three Rs. We shall be bringing legislation before the House to support better
    138
    school discipline and to give powers to Ofsted to inspect the work of LEAs in raising educational standards. Those measures are essential if pupils are to learn effectively.
    I shall predict Labour's response to that programme to raise standards ever higher. It will fudge, it will oppose—not just us, but each other. Labour Members will doubtless seize eagerly on the advantages of our policies for their own children, while denying those opportunities to the children of others. Some of them may pay lip service to the cause of higher standards—we heard some of that this afternoon— while allowing their local authorities to lower standards at every turn. In other words, they will practise the creed which socialism has used throughout its history—"Do what I say, not what I do." People will see behind the smiling face of new Labour the class envy and mediocrity of old socialism.
    This Government will continue their programme to give the people of this country the finest education in the world. I urge the House to support the amendment.
    4.58 pm
    Mr. Mike Hall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on a tour de force this afternoon on Labour party policies and the way in which we will try to lever up education standards. His speech was in stark contrast to the bereft performance of the Secretary of State. We heard little of what the Government propose to do about the crisis in our schools that has come about after 17 years of Conservative government. All we heard was an onslaught on the Labour party in local government. I am tempted to ask whether the right hon. Lady will accept responsibility for her Department's activities. Which of her five predecessors does she blame for the problems in our schools today?
    What is happening in our schools today is a direct result of the dictations of the 1988 education Act—wrongly titled the Education Reform Act—which was put on the statute book by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). The Government had high expectations of that Act. On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman described the legislation in the following way:
    "This Bill will create a new framework, which will raise standards, extend choice and produce a better-educated Britain.—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 771.]
    Yet, according to figures produced on the performance of our education system, problems in schools today show that the expectations of the Act are not being realised. In fact, school standards may have suffered as a direct result of the Act because of the nature of the national curriculum and of standard attainment tests, which were so flawed and so poorly introduced.
    The Secretary of State said that the Labour party has opposed all the Government's so-called "reforms", the national curriculum and national testing, but she is wrong. If she reads the Second Reading speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on the 1988 Bill, she will know that that he warned that the manner in which the national curriculum and the standard assessment test were being designed would lead to the national curriculum being over-prescribed, making it unable to deliver the goods that the Government intended it to deliver.

    139
    The pronouncement of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was prophetic—what he warned of has come to pass. Those two crucial criticisms about the fatally flawed nature of the SATs and over-prescription have been borne out by the investigation of none other than Sir Ron Dearing. He was brought in by the Government to sort out the mess of the national curriculum—a twice-revisited national curriculum, with twice-revisited tests. In 1993, he said:
    "The National Curriculum is fundamental to raising educational standards. Urgent action is needed to reduce the statutorily required content of its programme of study and to make it less prescriptive and less complex. A closely co-ordinated review of all the statutory curriculum Orders should immediately be put in hand, guided by the need to:

    i reduce the volume of material required by law to be taught;

    ii simplify and clarify the programmes of study;

    iii reduce prescription so as to give more scope for professional judgement;

    iv ensure that the Orders are written a way that offers maximum support to the classroom teacher."

    On key stages 1, 2, and 3, which are fundamental to our primary education, he said:
    "The primary purpose of the review at Key Stages 1, 2, and 3 should be to slim down the National Curriculum; to make the Orders less prescriptive; and to free some 20 per cent. of teaching time for use at the discretion of the school."
    We would not be in our current position if the Government had listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and piloted their national curriculum and standard assessment test. As a direct result of their not listening, since 1988 near chaos has reigned in our schools as teachers have become demoralised and our children's education has suffered.
    As Secretaries of State for Education came and went, Sir Ron Dearing was brought in to try to bring some order where chaos reigned. His report, published in December 1993, vindicates the Labour party's advice to the Government during the passage of the 1988 Bill. Had the Government listened, today we might have higher school standards. We might also have saved the £750 million that they wasted on the introduction of the national curriculum, which they had to revise twice to get it right, making it less prescriptive and more directed to the needs of children.
    It is not the first time in our educational history that we have seen the so-called "twice-revised codes". We saw them at the beginning of education, when we had payment by results, and now we see it revisited in the redrawing of the national curriculum. I still do not think the Government have it right. Those are the rewards of the 1988 Act, which are there for all to see.
    The Prime Minister was quite right. As a direct result of those reforms introduced by the Government, he admitted that
    "the top 15 per cent. of youngsters who come out of our schools are equal to anything you will find anywhere in the world. The other 85 per cent. frankly are not."
    That is a frightening admission of complacency by the Prime Minister about the quality of our state education. It is a condemnation from the very top of Government of the quality of education received by 85 per cent. of our pupils.
    It showed absolute complacency for the Secretary of State to go to the Dispatch Box and fail to address those concerns, but spend most of her time trying to bash
    140
    Labour-controlled local authorities, which are doing their level best to provide decent education for the children in their area.
    The Secretary of State did not attempt to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside about the responsibilities of head teachers and teachers to teach the children in their care. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to draw attention to that failing, but his Government must now act.
    Not only have Labour Members drawn attention to the problems in schools today, not only does the Prime Minister admit that there are problems and not only has Sir Ron Dearing tried to straighten out the national curriculum, but the Office for Standards in Education—the Government's organization—has drawn attention to problems in our education system. Ofsted stated:
    "Far too many children were found, however, not to be making the progress which they should."
    That quote is from 1996, after 17 years of Conservative government. It has been 17 years of a Government who have tried to dictate from the centre what is taught in our schools, how it is taught and how teachers are trained. There has been a range of issues, and legislation after legislation, but the Government have not yet produced the improvement in standards that we desire for all our children who are being educated in the state sector. That quote is another condemnation of the Department for Education and Employment, under a Government who have had 17 years in office and who still fail to take responsibility for their actions.
    It is absolutely disgraceful that the number of pupils leaving our schools with no passes at GCSE rose from 7 per cent. in 1993 to 7.8 per cent. in 1995. According to a recent parliamentary question tabled by hon. Friend the Member for Brightside, 41,389 pupils left school last year without a single GCSE pass. That is another demonstration of the Government's failure in education. Sir Geoffrey Holland—who, until recently, was the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment—said that 13-year-olds in English schools lag two years behind their continental cohort, and that they never catch up.
    The Government have recently published results that demonstrate another important problem. There is a huge achievement gap between the ages of 7 and 11. In English and mathematics, about 20 per cent. of pupils were below level 2 at the age of seven, whereas more than half were below level 4 at the age of 11. That is a very worrying trend in our pupils' achievements.
    Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hall: No, I shall not give way. The Secretary of State did not give way to me, so I am not sure why I should give way to the hon. Gentleman. He can make his own speech in his own time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that he will catch your eye if he behaves himself.
    Ofsted has found that, in key stage 2 generally, there has been a slowing in pupil progress, particularly in years 3 and 4, and that that is a worryingly persistent feature of inspections in recent years.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside drew attention to the fact that, in the past five years, pupil-teacher ratios have worsened. That is a poor record

    141
    of government, and I must ask: who is to blame for this sad state of affairs? We heard from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)—he has left the Chamber—in a debate on education last Wednesday. He blamed teachers; he blamed parents; he blamed pupils; he blamed the Labour party. He exonerated the Government—fancy that.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is the Labour party's fault.
    Mr. Hall: The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that it is the Labour party's fault. He must have been asleep for the past 17 years. He sat on the Back Benches in government, taking no responsibility for the problems that they have created in our state education system.
    We see that the Government have once again deployed the BSE strategy—blame someone else. After 17 years, it is really time that they held up their hands and said, "We have made mistakes in education. We recognise the failings and are prepared to do something about them." All we get instead are attacks on Labour-controlled local authorities.
    One of the interesting things about standards in schools is that teachers, and teaching methods in particular, have been singled out for criticism. Anyone in the teaching profession who has reached the age of 65 may well have entered the profession in 1952 and given 44 years of loyal service. The Conservatives have been in power for 33 of those 44 years; they still blame the Labour party for the teaching methods employed in our schools, whereas teaching methods have been adopted and approved by successive Governments, Labour and Conservative. It is important that that is recognised. Anyone who has entered the teaching profession in the past 17 years has known nothing other than Conservative control and seven Acts of Parliament and the interference that they brought with them.
    On a local note, Cheshire county council—my local authority—is controlled by the Tories and Liberal Democrats. It has a very poor record on education in terms of pupil-teacher ratios. It is 97th in a league table of 109. In spending terms, it is 96th out of 109, spending only £1,483 per pupil, which is far below the national average and much below the exemplars for education. A pupil-teacher ratio of 24:1 is far too high.
    Mention has been made of the interest in the level of funding for the state education system. The difference between the amount received by Westminster city council for education and that received by Cheshire county council is iniquitous. Both are Tory-controlled, but one receives far more than the other. If my local authority received the same amount as Westminster, it would be able to employ 4,539 extra teachers.
    I do not accept that employing those extra teachers would not raise standards at schools in my county, in my constituency and, indeed, at the local comprehensive school attended by my son. I do not accept for one minute the argument that class size does not matter. The idea is straightforward: a good teacher teaching 40 kids will teach 30 kids better. That is plain common sense, and we should be doing something to reduce pupil-teacher ratios.
    The Government must consider why teachers leave the profession. The Public Accounts Committee recently considered the number of teachers retiring. Between
    142
    1985–86 and 1994–95, 150,000 teachers left the profession and 108,600 left prematurely. They left not because of ill health but through voluntary early retirement. If they could be encouraged to stay in the state system, we should have a huge wealth of resources to help increase standards in all our schools. We need to encourage teachers to stay in the profession.
    We know why teachers become shell-shocked. There has been an initiative overload by the Government, who have demanded that teachers do more and more in less and less time. In addition, they have heaped criticism on teachers when they fail to achieve what is demanded of them. We must seriously examine ways to retain teachers in the profession.
    I am encouraged by the Labour party's commitment to ensuring that, within five years of taking office, we shall be providing a nursery place for every three and four-year-old whose parents want one. We shall do so because we know that it will represent value added for the rest of those individuals' careers.
    Mr. Pawsey: How will Labour do it?
    Mr. Hall: I am not taking any sedentary interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Pawsey: I tried the other sort.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) must control himself. He seems to be getting into bad habits these days.
    Mr. Hall: The crux of the matter is how to raise standards in education. If we can provide a nursery education for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it, the benefits throughout the children's careers would be there for all to see. This is an important commitment that the Labour party has made. We have also committed ourselves to reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to below 30 in the lifetime of a Labour Government. That is essential to improving standards in the state system.
    I am attracted by the idea that the Labour party is committed to a general teaching council. This will ensure professionalism, which will in turn empower teachers and make them feel valued. We can thereby hope to improve the quality of teaching. I am also attracted by my Front-Bench colleagues' ideas, which are not new, of assertive discipline in school, ensuring that we employ the best teaching methods, and instituting criteria-based assessments of how pupils are performing.
    The home-school contract is probably one of the most important that we can develop. It engages parents in the education of their children to ensure that we all get the best out of the system. It also increases expectations. I am confident that the Labour party, once in office, will make education its passion and that, through partnership with everyone involved, it will improve the quality of education for all.
    Our approach will be based on co-operation, partnership and opportunity, not on diktat from central Government, which ignores the people who are most important to the enterprise—teachers, pupils and parents. We shall bring them all together in a co-operative venture so that our education system will ensure that the economy is well served into the 21st century.

    143
    I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside to the whole of the educational establishment as a good example of what the Labour party will do in office in the not-too-distant future.
    5.15 pm
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the education policy of the Conservative and Labour parties.
    It was in Islington—and under Labour—that I saw education break down as I had never seen it break down before. When I arrived in Islington as the head of Highbury Grove school, I was still a member of the Labour party, but what I saw there drove me out as a refugee to the Conservative party. That is perfectly true. Schools in Islington were run as if by the red guards in China. When my chairman of governors asked whether the school could be run as a workers' collective, I fled. This is all public knowledge; I have written about it.
    Education in Islington is still, I believe, among the worst in the country. It is a question not of money but of the way in which education services are organised in that particular authority. It is no wonder the leader of the Labour party fled with his son to another borough. I had to say that at the outset, as I am still a schoolmaster at heart, as I know the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is, too.
    Interestingly, Highbury Grove was saved by working-class and immigrant parents who wanted their children taught properly, as opposed to the trendies in the Labour party who wanted the school run as a collective. It was the working-class and immigrant parents who kept Highbury Grove, which was then the most over—I have forgotten the word.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Over-subscribed.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Indeed. I am so excited, but I must control myself. Highbury Grove was the most over-subscribed school in London at that time, and it was the working class parents and their children who kept up standards. It certainly taught me a lesson about where I stood politically.
    From time to time, we see a movement towards common sense in the Labour party, and we drink to it. If the Opposition paid for it, we would drink to it even more. However, any such movement is very slow.
    The first issue that I wish to highlight is the teaching of children in ability groups. There has been a revelation in the Labour party, which has discovered setting. Its members have been to a prayer meeting and decided that setting is the answer. Setting means that each child is tested in every subject and goes into a first, second, third, fourth or fifth group for each separate subject, according to the results of the tests. It is like a progressive barn dance, with pupils meeting from time to time as they move from class to class. Under this system, the whole class has to wait until the last child has arrived, 25 per cent. of teaching time will be wasted and the gates will have to be locked to prevent children leaving between classes.
    Anybody who has seen setting in a school, as I have, knows that it does not work. We tried it for one term at Highbury Grove and the staff—including the trendies—
    144
    said that they wanted no more of it and that they would sooner teach one class where they knew what they were doing.
    We know that children differ in ability. We all differ in ability—academically, in sport and in everything else. We have to accept it as a fact of life. It is nonsense to pretend that all children are the same, and it would be a grey world if they were.
    It is the height of cruelty to educate able and less able children together. It makes the able arrogant—they think that they have all the answers—while the poor little boy at the bottom of the class who never gets anything right in class will kick in the windows, and I am on his side because of all the disadvantages that it brings him. Whatever he does, he knows that he cannot succeed.
    At last, after the prayer meeting, Labour has decided on setting. However, I would like to see a school that is organised in that way with normal staffing. If there is one, I would be happy to go to see it with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). I do not think that there is one. I do not think that there is a school in discovered space that continues to use that system. It is simply not on.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the argument that the Opposition are putting before the nation is the same dishonest argument that they used to encourage the launching of comprehensive schools? The Opposition said then—as they are saying now—that every child will have his or her own timetable and work at his own pace in every subject. That is totally impossible to organise in any school, as my right hon. Friend and I know from our long and deep experience. Finally, I remind him that he said that a good school is where the children go in fast and come out slow. Is that not right?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: My hon. Friend has remembered the advice that I gave him. I advised parents to stand outside the school gates to see how quickly the children went in the morning and how slowly they came out at the end of the day—or vice versa—and, if the staff came out so fast at 4 o'clock that they knocked the children down, to go home, as nothing could be done with that school. It is the best test of any school—better than all the inspectors.
    Mr. Greenway: What about my point about setting?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: My hon. Friend, who also taught in the east end of London and whom I first met on my second day in London—obviously, he has influenced me in relation to the Conservative party—mentioned setting, but I have said enough about that.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: If the hon. Gentleman is offering to show me a school that is totally setted, I shall give way. If not, I shall not. I am waiting for such an offer from anywhere in the world, and I shall accept it.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Between his Waldorf and Stadler act with the hon. Member for Ealing,

    145
    North (Mr. Greenway), I would encourage him to think about what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech. He did not say that every class in every school would involve setting. He said that we would work from the presumption of the advisability of setting over mixed-ability teaching, but he entered an important caveat—that it is for the teacher to decide the pedagogical methodology employed in the classroom.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: That means that every school will organise itself and that there will be no interference from socialist authorities such as Islington. Am I right in that? Will schools in Islington be able to organise themselves in exactly the way they want without any interference from the local authority?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We have made it absolutely clear that not only do we support the local management of schools but we seek to reinforce that in a variety of ways. That is published Labour party policy. It is for the school to run itself and not for the local authority to run it as part of a line of management. That is history now.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I feel that policy is being made as we speak and that we are in the centre of the world. However, I shall move on, as I wish to make two more points.
    My second point relates to grammar schools. Apparently they will be allowed to remain.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: No. I am godfather to my hon. Friend's son, so I shall restrain my hon. Friend.
    There are currently 161 grammar schools and they will be allowed to continue, provided they receive an affirmative vote. Perhaps the rest of the country should be brought in on that. Why cannot the rest of the country be allowed to decide whether to bring back grammar schools? However, it is a step in the right direction. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition knows how far he is prepared to go on that, but the Opposition spokesmen do not. They are doing their best to answer me, but they are really in the dark, in which case, as they are honest people, I am concerned that they should be worried about it. However, I shall hurry on.
    The grant-maintained schools have been most effective. Without any interference from me, all but one of the secondary schools in my constituency are now grant-maintained, including the Catholic one. Parents took that decision against the wishes of the teaching unions, just as, back in Islington, parents wanted to run their schools in their own way. The introduction of grant-maintained schools has been one of the Government's greatest achievements.
    My third point is totally non-partisan, as has been all that I have said, because I am speaking the truth. It relates to a teaching method—whole-class teaching. Mixed-ability classes comprising four groups—A to D—is the most inefficient method of all time. School after school currently uses that particular method. If the teacher has four groups, each group will receive tuition for only a
    146
    quarter of the lesson. If he has three groups, they will receive tuition for only a third of the time, and if he has two groups, they will each have half a lesson.
    The difference between our schools and those in the far east, where children are two years ahead, is that they are all taught together in classes far larger than ours. I do not accept that it is a matter of class size. I have seen classes of 60 or 70 in Japan, Taiwan and throughout the far east that have higher standards and discipline than those here. [Interruption.] I do not want to upset the Labour party. I am helping them towards the truth. In many primary school classes, children between nine and 11 are divided into four groups. The children might as well go home for three quarters of the day. That method will have to be looked at again.
    My father was the chairman of a divisional executive in Lancashire and he was also a Labour alderman. He was genuinely Labour. He was a conscientious objector in the first world war and was in Wormwood Scrubs with Mr. Morrison; so I have a good background in these matters and no one can take that away. He said that grammar schools were the ladders of working-class opportunity, and Haslingden grammar school remained a grammar school until he died. He also preserved Bacup and Rawtenstall grammar school, which has 950 pupils—some hon. Members will know it. That school was also saved by my father, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for whom I have the greatest respect, knows. I shall keep my hon. Friend under control, too. Outside that school, there should be two statues—a blue statue for me and a red statue for my father.
    Mr. Kilfoyle rose—
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall not let the hon. Gentleman in again because I am about to sit down. I shall get my own back at the end of the debate.
    Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm for the benefit of the House that today is an Opposition day debate on education? Do you not find it significant that only one Labour Back Bencher is present?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would not have thought that the hon. Member needed me to give him that information. This is certainly an Opposition day debate on education.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: It is always difficult to follow the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). I am sure that many hon. Members will vividly remember his recent speech in which, having described his time as a teacher as climbing up the drainpipe, he told us that the most important skill that a teacher must have was to learn to climb the rigging.
    I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Brent, North for being able to elicit a clear statement from the Labour Front-Bench team—that was the point that I was hoping to raise with him on an intervention—that it does not believe that it is appropriate for political parties or the Government to determine how individual schools should organise their classes or how children should be taught. There might be all-party agreement that decisions on how

    147
    to arrange organisation in a school are best left to individual teachers, schools and governors. I was a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman clearly supported that view.
    The right Member for Brent, North made various comments on, and expressed views about, grouping, and referred, for example, to Taiwan and very large classes. I hope that he accepts that that is not a very good example with which to criticise mixed-ability teaching, because many Pacific rim countries organise their lessons in such a way that the more able children are involved in helping the less able. They provide a very good example of effective mixed-ability teaching. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree, however, that, whatever method is chosen, the most important thing to ensure is that children are actively involved in every lesson, rather than passive, which, sadly, often happens.
    About a couple of months ago, I was excited that education had at long last reached the top of the political agenda, but in view of debates in the past two or three weeks, I am increasingly uncertain about whether it is a particularly good thing. I do not object to party-political point scoring from time to time, but recent debates have not moved the general education debate very far. The Government's latest proposal, for the introduction of a grammar school in every town, for example, which the Secretary of State said today she will announce shortly, will not address the concerns of people, teachers, parents, governors, and, perhaps, the entire nation about the education service. Nor will the Opposition Front-Bench team's telling teachers how to teach or schools how to organise themselves move the debate on.
    It seems that we are almost in an era of a gimmick a day. Such an approach will not raise achievement in schools or keep failure at bay. It is important to recognise that some of the recent gimmicks have not addressed the underlying problems of shortages of books and equipment, overcrowded classrooms and shoddy buildings.
    Yesterday, I had the opportunity to stand outside one of the primary schools in my constituency and to talk to many parents as they delivered their children to school. I talked to them about their concerns about the education service and what they considered the most appropriate way forward. They made it absolutely clear that they did not believe that there would be any benefit in returning to a selective education system, and that they wanted more emphasis on literacy and numeracy. Many believed that the introduction of high-quality early years education would be a step in the right direction. Every parent argued for increased resources in education, and the vast majority said that they were quite willing to see a small rise in income tax to pay for it.
    When I was reading—many hon. Members in the Chamber will have seen it during the past few days—this week's edition of The Times Educational Supplement, I was interested in the remarks of Dr. Colin Butler, who describes himself as a senior English master at Borden grammar school in Kent. He said:
    "The largest single handicap on education today is not selection but funding; and a lot of so-called educational problems are really financial problems in disguise."
    I certainly agree with that. I was somewhat disappointed by the rather dismissive way in which the Secretary of State suggested that the level of resources made no
    148
    difference to the quality of education provision. As somebody said fairly recently—I cannot for the life of me remember who—insufficient resources threaten the provision of education in the state school sector.
    Sir David Madel: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about talking to parents outside a primary school in his constituency, resources, and a grammar school in every town, but will he tell us what those parents are saying about grant-maintained schools? Is it Liberal Democrat policy to obstruct and oppose parents' and teachers' wishes for a school to become grant-maintained?
    Mr. Foster: I should make it clear, as I have in many previous debates, that my party is absolutely clear about its policy on grant-maintained status—we oppose it. We would bring grant-maintained schools and, indeed, city technology colleges, back into the light-touch strategic planning framework of local education authorities. We have also made it absolutely clear that, while the legislation stands, we would not oppose a school assuming grant-maintained status if parents went through the appropriate procedure of a ballot and a majority were in favour of it. To elaborate further, there are two grant-maintained schools in my constituency, with which I work. I do what I can to assist because I believe that, as a Member of Parliament, I should support the education of all children in my constituency. I hope that that is a clear answer.
    Sir David Madel: What does the hon. Gentleman say to the parents of children at those two grant-maintained schools who do not want to return to the local education system? How does he deal with that?
    Mr. Foster: I make very clear the policy on which the Liberal Democrats will fight the next general election. The electorate in Bath will have an opportunity to consider that and other issues, and they will decide whether to vote for candidates who make such a proposition, which is perfectly fair and reasonable. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was reasonable for somebody to obstruct policy between elections, and I said that it was not. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's point later.
    Given the nature of the education debate, many people have been concerned in recent months about not often hearing good news about what is going on in the education service. It is important to recognise that, as a result of very many hard-working and dedicated teachers, and the support of their governors and parents, some excellent work is going on. I should like in particular to congratulate Eileen Whiting and all her staff at Twirton-on-Avon county infants school in my constituency on the absolutely excellent Ofsted inspection report that the school has just received. Despite the many good examples, there are real concerns about the education service after 17 years of Conservative government and innumerable pieces of education legislation.
    Some of the concerns were mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). In summary, he said that there are concerns about inadequate levels of achievement in literacy and numeracy; about the staying-on rate post-16, which appears to have stalled;

    149
    about the inadequate levels of skills training for the employed and the unemployed; and about the growing number of pupils who are being excluded from our schools.
    There is particular concern about the low morale of people who are working in the education service—teachers, lecturers, head teachers and others. The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) referred to the increasing number who are leaving the profession, very often as a result of stress-related illness. He will be aware that there is even a problem in recruiting head teachers to inner-city schools, and a potential problem of recruiting teachers in a number of subject areas, particularly science and mathematics
    Mr. Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the number of teachers leaving the profession—more than 150,000 in the past 10 years—represents a haemorrhage of experience that we would have done well to staunch? Teachers with a greater length of service will clearly be the best, and will get the best out of pupils. We must address the issue of keeping quality within the state system.
    Mr. Foster: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who made the same point adequately during his speech. The other point he made in his interesting speech, which would go a long way to prevent the haemorrhage, concerned a return to more partnership and co-operation in the education service, rather than the market forces, dog-eat-dog approach introduced by the Government.
    The problems will not be overcome by increased selection. Many of the parents I met yesterday remember the old selective education system and the 11-plus. In the old system, those lucky enough to pass went to a grammar school, while those who failed ended up in a secondary modern school. The right hon. Member for Brent, North talked about grammar schools providing a ladder of opportunity; he did not remind us that those who went to secondary modern schools did not get that opportunity and did not get a second chance—which can be provided by a more comprehensive education system.
    Parents cannot understand where the Government are going. One minute they tell us that parents will have the right to choose their child's school; now we are told that the White Paper will propose that schools will increasingly choose their pupils. Selection will not raise levels of achievement; it will mean a return to quality education for the few and inferior education for the many. There will be a return to choice for a few, but no choice for the majority.
    Mr. Robin Squire: That is absolute rubbish.
    Mr. Foster: Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why he thinks that it is rubbish.
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute tripe. His suggestion that the creation of a grammar school, as one of 12 schools in an area, will at a stroke demolish the education provided in the other 11 is balderdash.
    Mr. Foster: The Minister will, perhaps, recall the days when there was widespread use of selective education.
    150
    Why did secondary modern schools—through no fault of the teachers—provide an inferior education? They did not provide a second chance for those who failed the 11-plus examination. Those points cannot be denied, and they show why a return to selection will not, by itself, raise levels of achievement.
    We must surely recognise that children are different, as the right hon. Member for Brent, North so eloquently put it. They have different levels of aptitude and ability, and they have different aspirations. We must provide an education system that meets all those different needs and aspirations for every young person. The vast majority of parents have no choice whatsoever about the school to which they send their children, so we must ensure that choice lies within every individual school, and not between schools. In that way, we can ensure that every individual reaches his or her potential.
    It is a great pity that the Secretary of State, who I believe agrees with that aim, has been forced to capitulate to the Prime Minister, and now seems to be following him down a well-trodden dead end. It is also a pity that she has been forced to continue to promote that other pet project of the Prime Minister—grant-maintained schools—which is a failed policy initiative if ever there was one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Opposition Members may recall—[Interruption.] I am sorry—they are not in opposition yet, although they will be shortly. Conservative Members may remember the Secretary of State's predecessor telling the House that he would eat his hat with a garnish if the majority of secondary schools were not grant-maintained by the next election. I hope that the current Secretary of State has not agreed to take that on.
    Where, in all the Government's gimmicks, is the visionary thinking about the future? Do they not realise that the world has moved on? Information is widely available, and we need to develop an education system that helps young people to gather information and use it wisely. We must develop an education system that starts to think of teachers not as the providers of information and knowledge to young people, but as people who help to develop and promote the learning process. We must ensure that young people are given more opportunity and are required to take more responsibility for their own learning.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: With all respect, the hon. Gentleman is producing a lot of hot air. I should like to know, as would the country, the Liberal Democrats' position on mixed-ability teaching. Is he aware that, at last, the Labour party is talking about raising standards and says that it will consider ending mixed-ability teaching? Is it not amazing that Labour has reached the first rung on the ladder of raising standards?
    Mr. Foster: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past 10 minutes, but I have had an interesting debate with the right hon. Member for Brent, North about the importance of politicians not dictating to teachers how they should organise their classrooms. In certain circumstances and with appropriate resources, it is possible to do some exciting work and help all children in a mixed-ability class, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. The problem is that we often polarise the debate and talk about one teaching method as opposed to another

    151
    when we should be making available a range of teaching methods so that children have opportunities to learn in a variety of ways.
    Mr. Greenway indicated assent.
    Mr. Foster: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
    Having been critical of the Government, I must add that I do not believe that Labour's attempts to steal the Government's clothes are helpful either. Opposition Front Bench Members will soon be telling teachers what colour chalk to use. I was interested to read a comment from a former Labour Member of Parliament, Mr. Christopher Price, in the education supplement to today's Guardian. He said:
    "Labour at the moment is committed to "do" very little; most of its policy statements consist of tactical manoeuvres to outflank the Conservative Right on school discipline and avoid any spending commitments before the coming election."
    How right Mr. Price is.
    Instead of telling teachers how to teach and schools how to organise, Government and Opposition would do well to commit themselves to increase investment in the education service to reverse some of the recent damaging cuts. In so doing, I hope that they will, like me, recognise that, while extra money will not by itself raise achievement, it is an essential starting point. What is the point of streaming pupils—if that is what people want—if there are not enough habitable classrooms? What is the point of advocating a return to traditional whole-class teaching methods if pupils still have to share books and to work in overcrowded rooms?
    Expanded nursery education, ensuring that schools have books, equipment and decent buildings and making sure that our teachers have the opportunity for high-quality, in-service training courses cannot be achieved without increased resources—or by a string of gimmicks that look back to a failed selective system. If the House passed legislation providing that there should be a no new education gimmick day, we would spend the day examining gimmicks from earlier days and finding that they do not provide the means for raising achievement that the country desperately needs.
    As I said earlier, I have not been impressed with the level of the education debate in recent weeks. If we are to do what all parties say they want to do—to raise achievement in our schools, which is desperately needed—one problem that parties must address is resources in schools. Only my party has been prepared honestly and openly to make a commitment to increase resources and to be clear about where the money will come from. The electorate want to hear that sort of honesty from all political parties, but, sadly, it has been lacking in the recent debate.
    5.51 pm
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: I do not think that even my severest critic would describe me as a rabid right winger. Opposition Members have often prayed in aid some of my criticisms of Government policies in recent years. I remain committed to education. I abhor extremism, whether of the right or the left. The politicisation of the education debate has much to answer for in respect of many of the problems that we face.
    152
    I would be less than true to what I believe if I did not say how appalled I was by the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). That is not because I disagree with what he said he wanted to achieve in education, such as an improvement in standards, better quality across the board and a variety of teaching methods. A remarkable consensus exists in the education world for those things, which we all want in our schools for the benefit of our children.
    In a recent article, I said that one of the most significant benefits gained by the Government has been by dragging the Opposition on to our ground in espousing so many of the things in education for which we fought for so long. However, to turn round and blame all the ills of education on the past 17 years is not just to rewrite history but to ignore it. The seeds of many of the problems that we are trying to tackle today were sown many years ago. I shall mention one or two.
    It was in the 1960s that changes were made to the requirements and qualifications for entry into the teaching profession. It was in the mid-1960s that O-level mathematics was dropped as a prerequisite for entry to teacher training. That happened between 1965 and 1970, only 30 years ago. A teacher who entered teacher training at that time was probably 18 or 19. A simple sum shows that they are still in schools and still without O-level mathematics. I instance that because maths has been much mentioned not only in this debate but outside the House.
    The ease with mathematics that many of us had taught to us has gone. It is small wonder that many teachers have said since that they feel ill at ease with the subject or that their lack of ease has been passed on to so many pupils. It was not until the early 1980s that that requirement was reinstated. One must be careful before picking points in history to illustrate and bolster specious arguments.
    To talk about rationing excellence is ridiculous. It was when the evolution that followed the 1944 Education Act, which worked through the system in the next two decades, was abandoned in favour of an egalitarian revolution that the problems started to arise. It was not a question of rationing excellence but of abandoning it. Abraham Lincoln once said that we cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor. Never was that more true than with education. If we deprive children who can benefit from it of the opportunity for excellence in the name of egalitarian nonsense, we shall not achieve the perhaps laudable aims that we set out to obtain. Common sense dictates that that will not be the case.
    We talk about pendulums swinging. My wife is an able and distinguished primary school head teacher.
    Mr. Robin Squire indicated assent.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement.
    My wife tells me how much she hates pendulums and that she prefers balances. Trying to get a little movement either way from the centre achieves far more than the vicious swing of the pendulum that throws out so much of the good in the name of change. In education, we must surely look at what is good and build on it. We must look at the best and use it as an example. We must consider what needs to be changed and seek the most effective way of changing it.

    153
    In all that, we must seek the co-operation of those who work in education. Most importantly, we must recognise that education policy is delivered not by politicians but by teachers. Improving the quality of teachers and their training and giving them the resources that they need is critical to the whole debate.
    On resources, we have heard what the £1 billion windfall is to achieve. I was staggered by the list of commitments that it would finance. I will give the House a simple example of the cost of improvements. Recently I was invited to speak at the launch of "Making Sense of Science", which involved improving the opportunities for science co-ordinators to acquire extra skills to take back into their schools. That is fine, but in a school with 10 classes and only 10 teachers there are no opportunities for staff release time. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to do their jobs.
    Let us imagine that, by way of a single improvement, we want to offer every primary school in the country increased resources of 0.2 per cent. for its staffing costs. That represents two teaching periods a week. Let us further assume that we pay for that solely from the supply budget, so that no permanent or even temporary contract is entered into. That will cost about £92.5 million.
    Doing the sum is easy: it costs about £120 a day for a supply teacher. There are 39 teaching weeks in a year, and 19,500 primary schools in the country. That shows the danger of making wonderful promises about increased resources. Of course I would like improvements of this kind; I have recommended them in the past both on my own behalf and via the Select Committee. The difference is that we recognise the need to be realistic. It is the cruellest of deceptions to pretend that £1 billion will do more than scratch the surface of the problem.
    Of course we want more money for education; of course we want it targeted on achieving better standards. But unless we are realistic about the costs we shall be perpetrating a cruel deception on those who believe that the promises can be delivered.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) mentioned the windfall tax in the context of initiatives for the training of young people. The Labour party has consistently said, on public platforms and in policy documents, that we will provide extra resources for education, as for other areas, as and when the economy allows.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: I accept that that is what has been said, but it was not said today and it is not said very often. It is one of those convenient omissions that many people make when trying to justify a case. The House should be concerned about promises of increased expenditure, because it will take a massive amount of money to bring about even the minimal improvement that I have mentioned.
    A great deal of this debate is about standards and whether they are as high today as they used to be. In this context, I offer the House a brief quotation:
    "Many who are in a position to criticise the capacity of young people who have passed through the Public Elementary Schools have experienced some uneasiness about the condition of Arithmetical knowledge and teaching at the present time. It has been
    154
    said, for instance, that the accuracy in the manipulation of figures does not reach the same standard which was reached 20 years ago. Some employers express surprise and concern at the inability of young persons to perform simple operations involved in business."
    That is an extract from "The teaching of arithmetic in elementary schools", HMSO 1925. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The golden age of education exists largely in people's minds.
    Today a revolution is under way in many of our classrooms. Some standards have undeniably fallen. Standards of numeracy and literacy are not as good as I should like them to be; there is empirical evidence to show that they have declined. But the wonderful breadth of knowledge, particularly evident in primary schools today, makes what I learned in primary school look very small beer indeed. We have brilliant teachers teaching mixed ability classes at varying speeds of learning. Brilliant teaching requires excellent preparation, delivery skills, and understanding of the differing needs of children—especially in the primary schools, which have come in for so much criticism.
    Let us look for the places where quality exists and then build on that quality. Let us set up the best as an exemplar for the rest. Let us cease the continual carping—the belief that the wheel can be rediscovered, or that everything was perfect 30 years ago, and that everything today is imperfect. The truth, as ever, lies somewhere between the two views. We must build on the good and seek to change the bad.
    In these debates we hear of the importance of getting it right for our children and giving them the necessary opportunities. On that there is a remarkable consensus. The 1944 Act arose not out of political dissent but from political consent. If education is indeed so important, we must surely all recognise that trading meaningless statistics across the Chamber and exchanging meaningless insults in newspapers and other education articles does not achieve the one thing that we all want: raising standards so as to give our children the best possible opportunities. If we could stop politicising the debate in this way, I would follow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State down her poetical road and say:
    "And even the ranks of Tuscany
    Could scarce forbear to cheer."
    6.6 pm
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: In the search for higher standards in education, it seems to me that we would do well to be fully aware of what, apart from the Government, we are up against. We live in a culture where to call someone clever is an insult, where to describe someone as an intellectual is to heap on him or her at least suspicion and probably a great deal of scorn. Those are the attitudes that have fed down over decades to our school children. Secondary school teachers fight an unending struggle against classroom cultures in which anyone who works hard is stigmatised as a swot. Even in higher education, many students actively disguise the fact that they are working hard and seeking to achieve, for fear of losing kudos with their peers.
    I am continually dismayed by the number of students I meet who do not like what they are studying, even though they are perfectly intellectually competent to get through. Part of our task, therefore, is to assert that cleverness, skill and achievement in formal education are as much to be celebrated and emulated as the same qualities in a footballer, runner or singer. That is no small task.

    155
    We also have to face up to the huge psychological and cultural influence exercised over our children by the electronic media, which have wildly accelerated over the past 25 years the availability—perhaps the necessity—of electronic devices which offer instant problem solving, not just in mathematics, or which dominate via the screen large chunks of our working and leisure time. As a force acting on the consciousness and the sub-consciousness of our children, this phenomenon weighs heavily against much of what those who set out to tackle academic standards are seeking to achieve.
    Our traditional education methods, whether progressive or reactionary, are fundamentally linear. They are based on systematic logical thought, or on the endless reiterative process of pursuing information from left to right and from top to bottom. The pencil and paper tests thrown at the education world in recent years are part of that process. At the same time, there is a hugely predominant influence on children's perception of instant visual—sometimes aural, often automatic—processes involving little interaction, analysis or self-criticism. So the methods by which we monitor standards and desperately hope to improve them—until recently, little but testing has been used in this context—may for the first time be fundamentally out of synch with the dominating cultural forces in society.
    I am by no means saying that we should be trying to turn back the clocks, but I recall, for example, worrying about teaching English in higher education where students were producing their written work on computers or word processors with spell checks while we were testing them in examinations that were in manuscript.
    The problem of raising standards across the education field is a massively complex cultural problem, while the proposed means of achieving it are simple—and often simple-minded. We have thrust on schools a predetermined curriculum that is controlled from the centre, assessed by crude systems outside the control of the teachers, monitored by a dubious inspection system, and progressively used to fuel crude league-table systems that are badly distorting the functioning of schools and standards.
    At the same time, we—I do not just mean the Government—are insisting day after day that schools and teachers are malfunctioning. We expect them to jump from initiative to initiative, we pile on them an intolerable burden of Whitehall-inspired bureaucracy, we tell them that everything they have done for the past 20 years has been at best useless and at worst perverse, and we remove from them much of the responsibility for assessing the pupils they meet every working day.
    There is nothing wrong with asserting the value of whole-class teaching; there is nothing wrong with asserting the value of setting up comprehensive schools; there is nothing wrong in asserting the value of phonics in the teaching of reading. What is wrong is the Gadarene lurch towards the centralised determination of such teaching styles and the lack of quantification of when and where different styles are used well, badly or in fruitful combinations with one another. There is the assumption that schools, groups of schools and partnerships—by which I mean partnerships that deliver teacher education—should not be encouraged to seek the matrix of solutions that are best for them. There is the assumption that schools can bear incessant burdens of bureaucracy without consequence for classroom teaching.
    156
    We look to other countries for comparison and for example. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) said, we should not be in the business of reinventing the wheel. Successful practice elsewhere must be attended to. However, just as we should beware of over-simple blanket solutions in teaching methods across all schools in England and Wales, we should beware of adopting wholesale the solutions that may be highly effective in different cultures. The same over-simplification exists in the Conservatives' relentless pursuit of the elixir of selection. It is derived from a hazy nostalgia for the good old days and from the simple certainty that selection will benefit the brightest children and improve their standards.
    At least two of my hon. Friends have referred to the Prime Minister's lament about the top 15 per cent. and the other 85 per cent. We have to remember the simple truth: it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Selection at 11 will no doubt create excellent grammar schools, but it will also create many more secondary moderns that will have enormous difficulties in achieving the sort of excellence that is required.
    Mr. Edward O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Newtonian law that operates in this market of education drives up standards for the few, but drives down standards for the many?
    Mr. Pickthall: That is bound to be the case in terms of simple comparison, yes.
    I wish to deal briefly with the problems that we need to address in the raising of standards. I maintain that we have a serious educational and cultural problem in the fact that we have particularly failed thousands and thousands of teenage males. The gender gap is widening. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) referred to failure at the GCSE level. The figures show a huge disparity in achievement between teenage boys and teenage girls, with the girls doing a great deal better.
    Alistair Smith, a consultant in accelerated learning, has done some research which shows that 16-year-old boys have an average vocabulary of 8,500 words and that 16-year-old girls have an average vocabulary of 11,500 words. To put that into context, The Sun caters for people with a vocabulary of 2,000 words, the Daily Mirror caters for people with a vocabulary of 10,000 words and the quality papers cater for people with a vocabulary of 20,000-plus words. If those figures are accurate, they show that the average 16-year-old boy could not cope with the Daily Mirror—if, indeed, he tried to read at all.
    Vast numbers of young men, particularly young white males—this has all sorts of political and social dangers that I do not have time to go into—are grossly under-achieving. I believe that this is partly because of the cultural barbarism to which I referred earlier. Their disaffection is making the raising of standards in secondary schools immensely difficult. Many girls will openly tell us that they resent the systematic disruption of their classroom experience by boys—sometimes over many years. The social consequences of this are horrendous. We need to analyse the roots of it, and a whole variety of measures to challenge it are needed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was right to emphasise the crucial problem of the gender gap in teenage education. He was also right

    157
    to stress the problem of growing class sizes, particularly in primary schools. The Government reiterate that class sizes make no essential difference—an argument that conveniently fits their financial priorities—but anyone who has taught classes of 34-plus knows exactly how much more difficult it is to monitor and to improve standards.
    I shall briefly touch on the argument about poor teachers. Mr. Woodhead has done us a service in headlining the number of teachers he assesses as poor. The percentage of the work force in teaching thus castigated is reassuringly small. It would make an interesting comparison if Mr. Woodhead were to assess Members of Parliament—I should be astonished if only 4 per cent. of them were classified as poor at their jobs. Nevertheless, an uncommitted, worn-out or incompetent teacher can do immense damage. There would be few laments in schools if the obviously unsuited teachers were eased out as quickly as possible—better still would be systems to prevent their entering the profession in the first place.
    One enormous worry has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South: the sheer volume of experienced teachers leaving our schools and colleges early who still have a potential 10 years or more to contribute. A similar problem arises with stress-related absences, which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned. This is an aspect to which we need to pay particular attention. If we lose large numbers of experienced teachers through burn-out, we lose their knowledge and the schools lose the stability that such teachers bring. I believe that there is a strong case for carefully targeted sabbaticals to allow experienced teachers a breather and to keep many of them in the profession.
    Teacher education has a key role. If we allow even a small number of new teachers who are not good enough into classrooms, we create a situation that is even worse than allowing problems to arise for perfectly good and experienced teachers. Most obviously, we must change the funding mechanisms for higher education institutions so that they are not heavily penalised if a student leaves the course. It is absurd to squeeze individuals through courses when they do not want to teach but merely want paid employment.
    To attract the right people into the teaching profession, we have to raise the morale of the existing work force and to make teaching satisfying and attractive. To an extent, of course, this depends on pay and conditions, but that is not the main factor. It is understandable that many of the best potential teachers will look elsewhere for a career when confronted by a situation in which teachers—and those who educate teachers—are regarded by the Government as being of low esteem and responsible for the whole spectrum of social problems faced by our community, and when the impression is given that there is a drive to trawl the profession for inadequate teachers to sack. Who would go into the profession in those circumstances?
    Correcting that drop in morale and potential deterioration in the profession of teaching is largely a matter of consistent support, of meaningful in-service
    158
    education and self-education, of professional development and of personal problem-solving. We have to ensure that that goes into the process of future training.
    Finally, what depresses me most about debates on education in the House is the readiness of many hon. Members to prescribe central nostrums for schools and standards: nostrums based on prejudice, anecdote, dogma or worse. In debates about disclosure of outside earnings, it is interesting to note how many Conservative Members assert the need for outside experience in order to be well informed as Members of Parliament, yet they mention no such requirement regarding their readiness to impose structures, styles, teaching methods or syllabus content in our schools.
    Perhaps the Industry and Parliament Trust should conduct a programme for all Front Bench education spokespersons. They could spend several weeks each year in the classroom to gain practical experience which could inform their decision-making. Recent and relevant experience might produce a more spectacular improvement in standards in our schools than reliance on the dogma and slogans of 20 or 30 years ago, as the hon. Member for Crosby pointed out.
    6 20pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to grammar schools and to secondary moderns. He drew the conclusion that, because of the inequality of existing resources, grammar schools should be abolished. With the utmost respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that he has got it wrong. Grammar schools should be retained and the others—whatever they are called—should be better resourced. That is the solution.
    I welcome the opportunity to discuss standards in education, but I am surprised that the motion was moved by the Opposition. The House should recall that hon. Members on both the Liberal and the Labour Benches have consistently opposed the Government's efforts to improve the quality and the standard of state education. For example, Opposition Members argued against the national curriculum and testing, grant-maintained schools, the introduction of the Office of Standards in Education, league tables, greater parental involvement, and the introduction of vouchers for nursery education. Opposition Members have consistently opposed the measures that the Government have introduced to improve the nation's education system.
    I appreciate that an approaching general election concentrates minds—especially the minds of those who have been in opposition for 17 years. Labour Members are clearly anxious to exchange the sackcloth and ashes of Opposition for the Red Boxes and the ministerial Rovers. They want to get their hands on the levers of power. Therefore, they are prepared to say anything and to ditch any principle in order to ensure that they get a majority at the next general election, whenever it is called.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) told head teachers at their conference that they could not duck their responsibility for the
    "crisis in children's literacy and numeracy".
    That is the first time that I can remember a Labour education spokesman attacking the sacred Plowden report. He said that, in the name of "child-centred" education, whole-class instruction has been abandoned in favour of some form of child self-discovery.

    159
    I do not have the slightest doubt that the hon. Gentleman will discover next the need for discipline in the classroom. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—who is a former education spokesman—has already made that startling and original discovery, and he talks about introducing a curfew for children.
    Perhaps the next thing on Labour's education shopping list—after streaming—will be the introduction of a form of grammar school. Of course, Labour Members will not call it a "grammar school", but it will provide good, sound selective education. Perhaps it will be known as a British local academic institution reformed—a BLAIR for short, but not for long, if the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has his way. He would set up Prescotts, which would be old-style comprehensives in the socialist republics in south Yorkshire and inner London.
    No doubt the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris)—I am sorry that she is not in her place—would espouse Estelles, which would be schools for the daughters of distressed members of the National Union of Teachers. I say that because the NUT will certainly be distressed by new Labour's wholesale adoption of the Conservative agenda for quality in education.
    The fact is that, one by one, the education shibboleths are being abandoned. The benchmarks that have guided Labour's education thinking for so long are being jettisoned like so many outdated textbooks. I welcome the Government's efforts to improve teaching in schools. I am pleased that we had the courage to dismantle Her Majesty's inspectorate and to put Ofsted in its place. Ofsted and Chris Woodhead are now revealing the problems and the shortcomings in primary education, for example.
    Ofsted revealed the problems in London schools. Its inquiry into the teaching of reading in primary schools in the Labour-controlled London boroughs of Islington, Southwark and Tower Hamlets raised serious doubts about standards in primary schools. Ofsted made it clear that a lack of resources was not the problem. Its report entitled "The Teaching of Reading in 45 London Primary Schools", which was published on 7 May this year, said that under-achievement in reading is a threat to pupils' education. That is hardly surprising when one remembers that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, nine out of 10 of the worst-performing local authorities are Labour controlled.
    The Secretary of State has announced that she intends to publish primary school performance tables. I deeply regret the fact that that is opposed by some misguided trade unions, to the extent that they are seeking to persuade school governing bodies to act illegally and not make their school results available to the Department for publication. I deplore that action, and I hope that second thoughts will prevail. Standards may be raised by ensuring that parents are able to exercise reasoned judgment when deciding between schools. That laudable objective is already meeting with success in the secondary sector: parents like it, and they want it.
    I am intrigued that Opposition Members are consistent only in their inconsistency—what they oppose today will be tomorrow's soundbite and next year's policy statement. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the motion.
    6.26 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Secretary of State's speech was in some ways characteristic of the Government's position. However, it was uncharacteristically flat, in view of the fact that she is believed to be at war with the chairman of her party. I shall return to that point later.
    The Secretary of State highlighted structure, which tells us a lot about the Government's attitude: they remain obsessed with structure when everyone else is talking about standards in education. The Secretary of State trotted out all the old shibboleths. She attacked local education authorities, but did not mention funding cuts and the deliberate confusion of setting with streaming.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) raised an important issue in referring to Government waste. He highlighted the botched attempt to introduce a national curriculum at a cost of £750 million or £760 million. I was quite taken with the comments of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) about his father. I do not doubt that he was a marvellous man, but I recall the right hon. Gentleman telling me that his father burned the results of his trial for Blackburn Rovers. There is a lesson to be learnt from that, and I would not believe everything he told me.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is also a supporter of Blackburn Rovers. My father burned the results because that year the team was knocked out of the cup at an early stage.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Touché.
    The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) spoke enough sense to warrant his description by Labour Members as a de facto Labour supporter in matters educational. He referred again to a penny on income tax, but he and his party have never explained how they would put that penny towards education and local authorities.
    The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who chairs the Select Committee, has just resumed his seat. I welcomed his urging of caution—things do tend to ebb and flow in education, as in all contexts—but there was an element of looking backward in his references to the 1960s and 1970s. It is time that hon. Members from all parties put that time behind them, and began to prepare for the 21st century.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: I apologise for missing the first few sentences of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he agree that the problem with education legislation and change is that, if such measures are poorly considered or poorly implemented, they behave like a time bomb, ticking away and then exploding in future generations? It is important to consider where developments began, before making too many judgments about where we are today.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: That is why the hon. Gentleman will probably agree with the well-considered proposals of the Labour party, and approve of our recognition that the whole nature of education is changing. It is becoming learning-centred, as opposed to teaching-centred.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) admirably flagged up the gender gap—the alarming difference between the educational performances of young men and young women.

    161
    Last but not least, let me refer to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). He obviously did not read or hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had to say about discipline, truancy and pupil referral units some weeks ago, when he once again set the pace for the Government to follow. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman said that we would come up with another name for good schools. We already have a name for them: comprehensive schools.
    I pay tribute to all the teachers, parents, governors and members of local education authorities who ensure that the best interests of our children are pursued in schools throughout the country. Despite the Government's backward-looking obsession with structure—flagged up again by the Secretary of State—those people have fought against the odds to raise standards for all our children in all our schools. Raising standards is recognised on all sides as vital to economic prosperity and social cohesion, as the motion suggests.
    If we are to match our global competitors—whether in Europe, in North America or on the Pacific rim—it is essential for our educational standards to be comparable to theirs. If we are to have a nation at ease with itself, where opportunity for self-improvement is available to all, an inclusive education system, offering excellence to everyone, is a sine qua non.
    Sadly, the reality is rather different. After 17 years in government, and despite numerous legislative changes, the Conservative party is still failing large sections of our population in the quality of the education that is delivered, imperilling those twin objectives of economic prosperity and social cohesion. We have a Secretary of State who is at war with the Prime Minister's own policy unit. The chairman of the Conservative party wants her political head on a plate. She is supported on her right—literally— by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), an Under-Secretary of State who is renowned for being sopping wet in Conservative party terms. In all fairness to him, he is joining the battle with the party's ideologues.
    What is happening to the hawkish Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)? He seems to have been effectively "disappeared"—no, wonder of wonders, he has appeared. He is not often seen anywhere nowadays; he tends to be replaced by the ubiquitous but seemingly educationally and politically nondescript Lord Henley. Another Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), has failed to make any impact, while his colleague, the other Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who is not present—is so ignorant of her brief that until yesterday, when she was disabused on a radio programme, she thought that parents decided by ballot on selective status in schools. Is it any wonder that the public are heartily sick and tired of a failed Government and failing education policies?
    We offered a cross-party consensus on nursery education, for example, to enable every three and four-year-old whose parents wanted it to have quality nursery education. That was rejected out of hand. Instead, we have what the Treasury describes as a "deadweight cost"—a handout to those who can already well afford private provision. No doubt they have been given it for
    162
    electoral as much as educational purposes. It will not provide any places in what the Pre-School Learning Alliance has described as the 200 black holes around the country where there is no nursery provision. Good authorities, such as Conservative-controlled Solihull, have made their views well known.
    Ms Estelle Morris: It is now Labour-controlled.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Even when it was Conservative-controlled, it made clear its views about the impact of the legislation.
    The Government are so confident about their ideological prejudice that pilot schemes for nursery education were transmuted into phase 1. There will be no meaningful evaluation of the lessons of that phase before the scheme goes national. Cuts in local education authorities imperil areas where provision is good—hence my reference to Solihull. Wherever there is an outstanding service for three and four-year-olds, people feel endangered, and nothing that the Government say will change that. While the Government make their case—as they did regularly Committee on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill recently—people are aware that £20 million will be spent on administration, and that the Government are failing to cater for those most in need.
    The quality on offer is highly debatable. The Government are not even sure how many nursery "settings" there will be. We have had that debate before. Will there be 27,000, or 40,000, as the Audit Commission says? The Government are offering unqualified people the opportunity to become inspectors on the basis of three days' training. They have failed to ensure the provision of an adequate number of trained and qualified nursery teachers. At the same time, they have abolished the minimum classroom size and recreation space.
    All that affects the quality and standards of nursery education, yet everyone recognises the increasing importance of nursery education—not just in terms of educational fulfilment, but in the longer-term context of, for instance, offending behaviour, unwanted pregnancies and stable job records. The research during the Ypsilanti project shows how successful nursery education is in assisting in that regard.
    In its final report of 16 June 1995, the National Commission on Education commented on the issue of larger class sizes, which constantly exercises hon. Members. It stated:
    "It was also certain that the larger classes would mean poorer education for children: the assertion that class sizes do not matter is disingenuous and is contradicted not only by commonsense but by most of the quite extensive research evidence that exists."
    But, time after time, Ministers tell us that size bears no relation to pupil attainment.
    The Government's own preferred authoritative adviser, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, noted in his annual report that there were serious resourcing problems in our schools, leading to fewer teachers and larger classes. That in turn led him to comment:
    "There is a need for considerable improvement in provision of books in half of special, a quarter of our secondary, and one in seven primary schools."

    163
    He went on to remark that there were serious deficiencies in equipment, and that one in five of our secondary schools and one in seven of our primary schools suffered from accommodation shortfalls.
    He then drew the remarkable conclusion:
    "Teachers who lack proper resources and who work in poor buildings experience problems which at best frustrate and at worst defeat their best efforts to do a decent job."
    Yes, indeed. Repeated cuts in local education authority budgets, combined with capping and the Government's failure to deal with changing enrolment patterns, have caused tremendous difficulties to many of our schools. Primary schools have suffered particularly, as the introduction of the national curriculum, changing primary generalists into semi-specialist teachers, has increased the pressures on such schools—as even the chief inspector noted.
    While primary schools have struggled generally, those in disadvantaged areas have suffered most, as Mr. Woodhead pointed out. Their problems were compounded by the way in which, under the current Government, section 11 funding was subsumed into the single regeneration budget, and by the removal of Government funds for the reading recovery programme.
    Furthermore, while nobody questions the code of practice for special educational needs, there has been a failure to ensure that special educational needs co-ordinators have had the training appropriate to their new-found status. Even now, more than half of special needs co-ordinators do not have appropriate qualifications; nor has the Teacher Training Agency yet ensured that initial teacher training for new teachers guarantees that all newly qualified teachers have an appropriate grounding in special needs to qualify them for their roles in implementing the code of practice. That is in spite of the fact that 20 per cent. of our children have special educational needs.
    The end product of all the disjointed Government prevarication and their twisted view of maintained education—a sector that many Conservative Members do not use—is a catalogue of problems that manifest themselves in our secondary schools and beyond. We know that there is a huge disparity between the best and the worst of our schools, and an ever widening gap in pupil achievement. Even the usually pro-Government Mr. Woodhead has noted:
    "The performance of schools serving disadvantaged areas continues to cause serious concerns."
    I am sure it causes serious concerns to parents in those areas.
    The reasons for the difference in performance are obvious. The Government are committed to advantaging the few at the expense of the many, and are oblivious to the damage being done to hopes for economic prosperity and social cohesion by their wilful neglect of so many of our schools.
    The Prime Minister's answer is to have a grammar school in every town. That means, by definition, that many secondary moderns will appear in every area. Such a preoccupation with outdated structures ignores the fact that, as a nation, we need raised standards for all children if we are to be a high-tech, high-skill and high-wage economy.
    The Conservative party is in thrall to league tables. The Opposition do not have a problem with giving meaningful information to parents. We have a problem with a system
    164
    of tables that does not take into account what is actually imparted by the schools to the children. The tables compare unlike phenomena in different schools. It would be nonsense to say that the best of the grammar schools, which are so favoured by the Conservative party, can be compared to inner-city comprehensives, with all the socio-economic problems they have to contend with.
    As I travel the country, I am struck by the increasing problems in schools. I was amazed when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that he was unaware of the problems of truancy and exclusion, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside. The hon. Member must have been on a long holiday, and he was probably truanting. The number of exclusions has soared to more than 12,000, while research shows that 800,000 pupils truant regularly, some 80,000 on a quasi-permanent basis.
    The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): What about Islington?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister mentions Islington. Is it any wonder that Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, credited the truanting and the excluded with most of London's street crime? The Minister should realise that his party has been in government for the past 17 years while those figures have taken off.
    The Prime Minister insists that privilege for the few is preferable to excellence for all. That is the Tory way forward. I know that the Secretary of State does not agree with the Prime Minister in her heart of hearts. Her experience and common sense are being neutered by the No. 10 policy unit. She knows that education is a great co-operative exercise. As the National Commission for Education has said:
    "Competition plays a useful part when its effect is to improve learning for pupils. There is little to be said for stimulating competition which is unfair or enables some schools to flourish only by making it more difficult for others."
    Those between the ages of 16 and 25 are the product of 17 long years of Tory educational policy and adventurism. Some 800,000 people between 16 and 25 are, as Ministers know, out of work, outside training and outside education. I have travelled the country and spoken to people about the future and their hopes. I have had the experience in my surgeries, which many others have had, of helping mothers with one, two or three young children. Another woman may come along as an adviser or part of the negotiating team, but there is no man present.
    At first, that used to bother me greatly because of the social implications, but I began to focus on the children themselves, especially the young boys. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) mentioned the gender gap in school performance, and I thought of the next generation who have no male role model at home and, increasingly, no male role model in primary schools. If they have a male role model, it is somebody involved in crime or drug dealing on the streets.
    Their one means of escape is an education system that inculcates the values that I would hope every sensible Member of the House would like to see inculcated. That will happen only if we have a commitment to an education

    165
    system that lends itself—as we have repeated ad nauseam, some might say—to economic prosperity and social cohesion, so that all our children have the opportunity to avail themselves of the best educational advantages.
    6.45 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Once again, the debate has illustrated the gulf between the Government and the Opposition on education matters. We have taken actions to improve standards: they have resisted those actions. We have recognised the need to build up this country's competitiveness: they have, for far too long, been concerned with levelling down, if indeed they have been concerned at all.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends who have spoken have set out what has been achieved. As my right hon. Friend made clear, there is always further to go, but the programme of action that we have carried through has been the most radical and far-reaching on record. It has covered the content of education and the measurement of pupils' performance, the quality of teaching, greater diversity and greater choice for parents, and more effective inspection and accountability.
    As has also been made clear during this short debate, those significant improvements have been achieved despite consistent and persistent opposition from the Labour party in the House, many Labour local authorities and the left-wing establishment of the teaching unions.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had a bit of fun at the start of debate, and what is sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander. One might have thought that there had been no comment in the media in the past few days about the latest emanations on education policy from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
    For instance, where has the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) been this evening? We welcome the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) to the debate, albeit in a silent capacity. I do not know who was the mysterious, well-placed left winger who said:
    "We are under some sort of loyalty test to see at what point we break and complain".
    But let us not hear too much from the Opposition about alleged or invisible divisions in the Government. We are united, and the Opposition are visibly starting to fall apart. I might also point out that Conservative Members have sat throughout this debate waiting to speak and unable to get in, whereas, on an Opposition day, there have been no more than three Labour Members on the Back Benches for most of the debate.
    The hon. Member for Brightside said that selection had failed, and he made that statement as if it needed no explanation. It is an interesting statement, because most other countries seem to believe in selection, and seem to believe that it works. Never mind—the hon. Member suggests that it has failed.
    I do not know what he bases that assertion on. He certainly does not base it on the views of the parents and pupils at the 161 selective schools we currently have. If the hon. Gentleman has been talking only to right hon.
    166
    and hon. Members in the shadow Cabinet, he might have received a biased version, because 16 of the 20 members of the shadow Cabinet went to a grammar school or to a fee-paying school. In typical socialist style, they have enjoyed the education, but then they want to pull up the ladder to stop anybody else sharing it.
    Mr. Kilfoyle rose—
    Mr. Squire: Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Would the Minister seriously have expected people at the age of 11, back in the 1950s and 1960s, to walk out on the only education provided for them? Is he seriously holding them guilty of a choice made, perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, by their parents?
    Mr. Squire: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for attending at age 11 the school that his parents selected, any more than I blame him for keeping his child at a school that has gone fully selective. It is extraordinary that, out of the hundreds of thousands of people who have benefited from a grammar school education, there is a massive concentration of individuals who did not and do not like grammar schools—and they are all in Labour's shadow Cabinet.
    Mr. David Jamieson: If grammar schools are so good, perhaps the Minister will explain why, despite, proposals from local authorities of all political persuasions, the Government and previous Conservative Governments have signed order after order to close nearly all the grammar schools in Britain.
    Mr. Squire: Local education authorities retain significant responsibility for planning the education they deliver. I am delighted that some far-seeing LEAs have retained their grammar schools.
    The hon. Member for Brightside, responding to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), inadvertently implied that money was going from Calderdale—or any other authority that has had top-slice money in nursery provision—to other parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman, who is extremely knowledgeable in these matters, knows that that is not so. The vouchers that go to Calderdale, as to any other LEA, whether funded by the top slice or the additional millions of pounds that the Government are putting in, are spent within the LEA. Any suggestion that the money is climbing into a train and going down to Lambeth is untrue.
    Mr. Blunkett: As the Minister has targeted the issue, perhaps he will confirm that, on the basis of a snapshot decision on four-year-olds already in nursery provision, the standard spending assessment will be adjusted to take

    167
    the £1,100 per pupil aged four from the providing authorities, to redistribute it with the paper promise of a voucher.
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I just said. He implied in an earlier response that the money travelled around the country.
    Mr. Blunkett indicated dissent.
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman does not understand, which is even more worrying. I am reaffirming that the money will be spent by parents within the LEA as they see fit.
    It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who is a likeable cove in many respects, can sit through two months of nursery education debate yet still repeat the tired and wrong statement that £20 million will be spent on administration. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true because it has been pointed out to him many times. Not even half that amount will be spent. But I must not confuse the hon. Gentleman with the facts.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boy son) gave another of his brilliant performances, taking us back to the dreaded days of long ago, which may still be with us in Islington. Drawing on his experience as a former head teacher but echoing the comments of Her Majesty's chief inspector, my right hon. Friend made the powerful point that we are essentially talking not about money but about the way a school is organised and that money is spent. Countless independent reports show that that is so. If I can do nothing more than persuade Opposition Members on that point, I will have enjoyed a major success.
    My right hon. Friend rightly highlighted the excellence of grant-maintained schools in his constituency—all but one of which are self-governing. We know the quality of education they are delivering and the popularity they enjoy with parents. Such schools are directly threatened by the election of a Labour Government and by the official Opposition's Liberal allies. Those schools would lose 10 per cent. of their budgets and would, unasked, have imposed on them two councillors. As those schools have shown that they know how to operate, why should they be interrupted and interfered with that way?
    I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) talks to parents at one or more of the schools in his constituency. When they mention funding, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman immediately points out the significant increase under this Government since 1979—anxious as he would be, as a fair man, to ensure that parents have full information. The hon. Gentleman said that any Government enjoying his support would have to return city technology colleges to LEA control. I believe that was a slip, because CTCs have never been under such control but are independent charities.
    The hon. Member for Bath rightly emphasised the importance of good morale in teaching. There is no divide on the importance of retaining good teachers and ensuring that their morale is high. The turnover rate quoted by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) was broadly correct, but 8 per cent. a year is not unreasonable. I do not want one teacher who is still delivering excellent education to leave the profession early, but we must keep
    168
    the matter in perspective. Teachers who in good, improving schools usually have higher morale. There is an exact link between the two, so the better schools become, the more teacher morale will improve.
    I welcomed, as ever, the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who speaks with additional authority as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. I liked the tenor and content of my hon. Friend's speech. Governments have responsibility for establishing a proper framework, but much that happens in our schools lies with the head teacher and governors. They can, however, be galvanised by external and informed assistance from LEAs or the Government—and should be.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) gave his customary robust reminder of educational realities. I welcomed a number of his home truths. He and others of my hon. Friends reminded the House how impossible is Labour's position when it claims to speak for standards in education.
    Everything in which the hon. Member for Brightside claims to believe now is alien to the views that he preached before he took his current job, when he opposed testing. At the conclusion of an education debate in 1987, he said that, as a parent of three primary-aged children, he demanded the right to be able to choose whether they should have to go through the performing hoop of a national test based on a national curriculum imposed by a national Secretary of State. Philip Stephens writes in today's Financial Times that Labour has
    "rewritten every line of the schools policy on which Labour fought the 1992 election."
    It gets worse. After the 1992 election, for some time we enjoyed the benefit of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) as Labour's education spokesperson. She repeatedly made clear her opposition to the curriculum and regular testing.
    There is an historical precedent. In 1492, Christopher Columbus set sail. He was not sure where he was going, and nor did he find what he was looking for—but we know that he found something he was not looking for, and called it something else.
    Five hundred years later, Labour's leadership set sail, looking for an education policy under Commander Sedgefield, Captain Brightside, first mate Walton and a motley crew of LEAs. They were not sure where they were going. Their intended destination was the land of ancient Labour civilisations—child-centred education, monolithic comprehensives, all-ability teaching and tolerance by Labour-controlled LEAs of mediocre school performance. Whenever Labour's leadership have found one of them, they have been largely deserted by everyone else.
    Labour's captain set a new course using stolen charts, and the leadership discovered some truly wondrous Tory education civilisations—regular testing and inspection, the publication of results, greater parental choice, grammar and other specialist schools, and self-governing GM schools. Labour's LEA crew were not looking for any of those. Those were not the destinations for which they had signed up. On the voyage of the Bounty, the officers were dumped overboard by the crew. On this voyage, the entire crew were being dumped overboard by the captain.

    169
    Even as the ship headed for home, the crew were silent but mutinous. They did not believe a word of Captain Brightside, and most of them were determined to carry on as they had always done for years—putting LEA control and educational dogma ahead of quality and greater parental choice.
    They were not alone. The former ship's purser and deputy commander, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) announced that he wanted egalitarian schools, another of those favourite old civilisations. The able seaman, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), said of Commander Sedgefield that it ill became the product of an elitist school who had rejected the LEA system for his own offspring to pontificate on teaching methods in comprehensives.
    The only diversion on the voyage was the discovery of a stowaway from Bath, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who had crept on board years ago and was now desperately trying to find a way to escape the impending shipwreck.
    Was it really a great voyage of discovery to benefit future mankind? Hardly. It was just a paddle around Walworth road pond in a broken-masted old tub with only a lick of paint to suggest that things had really changed. The Labour party is incapable of significant change on education. Only the Conservative Government have consistently stressed the need to improve education standards and have put in place the necessary framework to drive them up still further. I ask the House to reject the Opposition motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 285

    Division No. 140]

    [7.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ainger, Nick

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Allen, Graham

    Canavan, Dennis

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cann, Jamie

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Chidgey, David

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Church, Judith

    Ashton, Joe

    Clapham, Michael

    Austin-Walker, John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clelland, David

    Battle, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Bayley, Hugh

    Coffey, Ann

    Bell, Stuart

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Corbett, Robin

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Benton, Joe

    Corston, Jean

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cox, Tom

    Berry, Roger

    Cummings, John

    Betts, Clive

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Blunkett, David

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bradley, Keith

    Dalyell, Tam

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Darling, Alistair

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Burden, Richard

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

    Caborn, Richard

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    170

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

    Litherland, Robert

    Denham, John

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dixon, Don

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Dobson, Frank

    Loyden, Eddie

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McAllion, John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Eastham, Ken

    McFall, John

    Etherington, Bill

    McKelvey, William

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McLeish, Henry

    Fatchett, Derek

    Maclennan, Robert

    Faulds, Andrew

    McNamara, Kevin

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    MacShane, Denis

    Fisher, Mark

    McWilliam, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Madden, Max

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Foulkes, George

    Marek, Dr John

    Fraser, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Galloway, George

    Martlew, Eric

    Gapes, Mike

    Maxton, John

    Garrett, John

    Meacher, Michael

    George, Bruce

    Meale, Alan

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michael, Alun

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Milburn, Alan

    Graham, Thomas

    Miller, Andrew

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morley, Elliot

    Hain, Peter

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hall, Mike

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Mudie, George

    Harvey, Nick

    Mullin, Chris

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Murphy, Paul

    Henderson, Doug

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Heppell, John

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hinchcliffe, David

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hodge, Margaret

    Olner, Bill

    Hoey, Kate

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Home Robertson, John

    Parry, Robert

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Pearson, Ian

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

    Pickthall, Colin

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Pike, Peter L

    Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

    Pope, Greg

    Hoyle, Doug

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Purchase, Ken

    Hutton, John

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Illsley, Eric

    Randall, Stuart

    Ingram, Adam

    Reid, Dr John

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Rendel, David

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Jamieson, David

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Janner, Greville

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Rooney, Terry

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Salmond, Alex

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Sheerman, Barry

    Keen, Alan

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

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

    Short, Clare

    Khabra, Piara S

    Simpson, Alan

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kirkwood, Archy

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

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Lewis, Terry

    Snape, Peter

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Soley, Clive

    171

    Spearing, Nigel

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Spellar, John

    Wallace, James

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Walley, Joan

    Stevenson, George

    Wareing, Robert N

    Stott, Roger

    Welsh, Andrew

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Straw, Jack

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wilson, Brian

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Winnick, David

    Timms, Stephen

    Wise, Audrey

    Tipping, Paddy

    Worthington, Tony

    Touhig, Don

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Trickett, Jon

    Turner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Tyler, Paul

    Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

    Vaz, Keith

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Conway, Derek

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Alexander, Richard

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Couchman, James

    Amess, David

    Cran, James

    Arbuthnot, James

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

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Ashby, David

    Day, Stephen

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Devlin, Tim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dicks, Terry

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Dover, Den

    Bates, Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Batiste, Spencer

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Beggs, Roy

    Dunn, Bob

    Bellingham, Henry

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bendall, Vivian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Elletson, Harold

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Body, Sir Richard

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Boswell, Tim

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Evennett, David

    Bowis, John

    Faber, David

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Brazier, Julian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Forth, Eric

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Burns, Simon

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Butcher, John

    French, Douglas

    Butler, Peter

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Butterfill, John

    Gale, Roger

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gallie, Phil

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gill, Christopher

    Carttiss, Michael

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Cash, William

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Churchill, Mr

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Clappison, James

    Gorst, Sir John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Colvin, Michael

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Congdon, David

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    172

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hannam, Sir John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Norris, Steve

    Hawkins, Nick

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hawksley, Warren

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hayes, Jerry

    Page, Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Paice, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Hendry, Charles

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hicks, Robert

    Pawsey, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Horam, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hunter, Andrew

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jack, Michael

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jessel, Toby

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Sackville, Tom

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Key, Robert

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knox, Sir David

    Sims, Roger

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Soames, Nicholas

    Legg, Barry

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Leigh, Edward

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Lidington, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sproat, Iain

    Lord, Michael

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Luff, Peter

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stephen, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew

    Stewart, Allan

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Streeter, Gary

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Sweeney, Walter

    Madel, Sir David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Malone, Gerald

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mans, Keith

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Marland, Paul

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Thomason, Roy

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mates, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Mills, Iain

    Tracey, Richard

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Trend, Michael

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Trotter, Neville

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    173

    Viggers, Peter

    Wilshire, David

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Walden, George

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Wood, Timothy

    Waterson, Nigel

    Yeo, Tim

    Watts, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wells, Bowen

    Whitney, Ray

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Whittingdale, John

    Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the measures which Her Majesty's Government has introduced to raise educational standards through greater diversity and parental choice, the establishment of a common framework for the curriculum, assessment and regular testing, greater self-government for schools and colleges, and enhanced accountability through inspection and the publication of performance information; and welcomes the increases in achievement and participation which have followed.

    Prior Options Review
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.14 pm
    Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move,
    That this House believes that Government support for science and technology is vital to the United Kingdom's future; recognises the crucial long-term contribution which the public sector research establishments make to the economy and to extending the boundaries of knowledge; regrets the rationalisation and fragmentation of these establishments in recent years and opposes the dogma-driven privatisation objectives of the Prior Options Review.
    The Opposition have initiated the debate because we are deeply concerned about the Government's policy towards public science in general and towards Government research establishments in particular. We are concerned about the Government's policy of short-termism, including the encouragement of short-term contracts; we are concerned about the review after review after review to which the establishments are subjected; and we are concerned about the Government's obsession with privatisation.
    Perhaps I should preface my remarks by making a statement that I think would command general support in the House: that science is good for us. There is general support for the view that we should invest as much as we can reasonably afford in science, engineering and technology and in research and development. Of course, when I say "science" I refer not only to the public sector but to the private sector. Indeed, in "forward look" 1996 the Government's chief scientific adviser reminds us that there is still concern about the level of investment in research and development by some private industry sectors. He points out that there was an increase in real terms last year; indeed, there has been an increase three years in a row. I take it as common ground across the House that we want to encourage more investment by business in science, engineering and technology.
    This debate is about public science. I want to set out the case for the Government research establishments and public science. There are at least four reasons why public science is important. First, it is in the long-term interests of our people that we carry out long-term basic research. It extends the boundaries of our knowledge, but sometimes—and this is often wholly unpredicted—it leads to unexpected practical applications and to the development of new products for the benefit of business. By its very nature, basic long-term research is very costly. It is especially suited to the public sector.
    Secondly, the Government need as broad a science base as we can afford to provide advice to various Departments on the development and implementation of policy, but also to ensure that we are able to respond to unpredictable national emergencies, such as a new infectious disease in the human population or in our livestock or crops—for example BSE, which may have human implications, or another oil spill disaster like those off the west coast of Wales and off Shetland. We need that broad scientific base to make it easier for the Government to respond intelligently to a national emergency.
    Thirdly, we need Government research establishments to provide advice to industry and business. When I talk to business representatives, I am impressed by how highly

    175
    they speak of independent Government research, which is how they see it. That is how farmers, business men and industry generally see Government research establishments. They think of them as being independent, in a way that they do not think of research or science in the private sector. So those research establishments are a valuable resource for advice and information, and often for collaboration, with private business.
    Fourthly, those establishments also provide highly skilled scientists, technicians and engineers for our industry. If one talks to people in business, one will again find that they regard that matter as very important. A tremendous level of expertise and experience is built up in those establishments, and those highly trained people are free to move on at will into business and industry.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I think that he is making a very important case very well. He will know that we have our share of marine laboratories in my constituency in the form of the Rowett Research Institute and, in Aberdeen, the Macaulay Institute. On the basis of what he has just said, does he agree that Government require independent advice that is not and cannot be commercially compromised, and that industry requires independent advice that is not politically motivated? In those circumstances—for public policy purposes—those institutes must be publicly funded and independent. Does he believe that the scientific advice on which the Government depend in the BSE crisis would be credible if it depended on institutions that required commercial contracts for their bread and butter?
    Dr. Strang: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his support. I pay tribute to the Rowett Research Institute, which is an excellent institution with a tremendous history and a tremendous record in research. I have frequently had the pleasure and privilege over the years of talking to scientists from the Rowett.
    Those are four reasons—among others; I shall confine myself to four—why I believe that public science, and particularly Government research establishments, are a vital national resource that we should support and encourage.
    Mr. Paul Marland: I was rather alarmed by what the hon. Gentleman said about scientists in the private sector. The natural conclusion of his allegations against scientists in the private sector is that they are bent and that the only scientists who tell the truth are those funded by the Government.
    Mr. Bruce: Grow up.
    Mr. Marland: It is absolutely true. The hon. Gentleman said that we want straight and untainted scientific advice, and that that could not be obtained other than from a Government-funded source.
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman does himself an injustice. I do not think that any other hon. Member believes that I intended to malign or criticise scientists in the private sector. If scientists work for a fertiliser company and go to farms to give farmers advice, especially about fertiliser application levels, it would be regarded as less independent than advice from an independent,
    176
    Government-funded establishment, such as the Agriculture Development Advisory Service. That is only common sense, and it is not meant to criticise those scientists.
    Right after the 1992 general election, for the first time in almost 30 years, the Government appointed a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for science—the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who was the predecessor of the current Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As the current Agriculture Minister may know, his father was—almost 30 years before—the Cabinet Minister responsible for science.
    In 1993, the then Minister with responsibility for science produced an important White Paper entitled "Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology." I do not propose to quote from that document, but it argued that many services and functions in Government research establishments should be provided by private industry. That has been the starting point for this dreadful saga.
    A back-up paper was published along with that White Paper, which was entitled "Review of allocation, management and use of Government expenditure on science and technology". I shall quote from four successive paragraphs in it because they illustrate how determined the Government were to push on with privatisation. The first paragraph states:
    "The first option for consideration is the scope for privatisation."
    The next paragraph states:
    "In some cases, getting the GRE's"—
    the Government research establishments—
    "into shape for privatisation will take time, nevertheless, we believe it should be seriously considered as the first option."
    The next paragraph states:
    "The impetus required to achieve widespread GRE privatisation will not occur so long as there are no incentives for establishments or their personnel to market themselves more widely and aim their work towards commercial applications."
    The fourth paragraph states:
    "We believe that the flexibility of the GREs and their progress towards privatisation would be assisted by the introduction of term contracts for new recruits."
    That, sadly, gave impetus to the growth of short-term contracts in Government research establishments, which is something that we deeply regret.
    Following that study, the Government produced the "Multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments". Even while it was being produced, they announced that some establishments would be privatised, one of which was the National Engineering Laboratory— which will be dealt with in closing by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), because he has a particular interest and is particularly knowledgable in it. The Scrutiny Committee recommended that the Building Research Establishment and the Agriculture Development Advisory Service be considered as likely candidates for privatisation.
    As many hon. Members will be aware, that report did not receive a very good response from the scientific community. It certainly did not receive plaudits from our Select Committees. In the first paragraph of its conclusions, the Select Committee on Science and Technology quoted the Institute of Biology as stating
    "The [Scrutiny Report] refers to 'substantial rationalisation of civil research establishments over the last ten years or so,' and certainly research institutes have been subjected to frequent

    177
    structural changes, many of them reversing the main thrust of the previous one. Whether this can be regarded as 'rational' or not it has reduced research capacity and demoralised scientists."
    The Science and Technology Committee in the other place stated in its summary of conclusions:
    "We are concerned that the Scrutiny team were from the outset restricted by their terms of reference, which placed a higher priority on privatisation than on any other model or reorganisation which could be achieved …
    "We do not believe that sufficient attention has been paid to the question of the effectiveness of public sector science in the pursuit of wealth creation and quality of life as laid down by the White Paper".
    What was the Government's response to all that? It was to embark on a further attempt at privatisation and to announce that the prior options review would be extended to cover all those Government research establishments.
    In case any hon. Member is under any illusions, I shall quote one prior options review guideline. It states:
    "In considering appropriateness, the presumption is to privatise; in other words, there is a need to turn the question around, so that it represents a judgment as to the appropriateness of keeping the body in the public sector. It is not just a question of the private sector, nor is the issue purely one of saving money."
    Of course the question is not one of saving money, because, as we have found out, implementing those privatisations very often costs the Exchequer substantial sums of money.
    We had the Scrutiny Committee report. We then had the prior options review, and we were asked to examine that. Last month, we received the results of the first tranche of the prior options review.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Does not my hon. Friend think it ironic that, although they say that they regard the objectivity of scientists as a particularly important issue, the Government, as reported in the New Scientist, are being accused by those very scientists, following the Royal Society meeting, of plugging away at the evidence until they get the answer that they want? The Government are not being objective; they are simply taking an ideological stand.
    Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If I am taking a little time on this matter, it is precisely to spell out that fact. In my opinion, it is incredible that we should have review after review—but what was the outcome?
    In one of the first written answers given after the prior options reviews, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in relation to the agriculture and plant sciences institutes:
    "Prior options reviews have been completed of the Institute of Arable Crops Research, the Institute of Grassland and Environment Research, the John Innes Centre and the Selsoe Research Institute. I am satisfied that the functions of these Institutes are needed and that they should maintain their separate existence … I have concluded that full independence from the public sector, with the greater freedom this will provide the Institutes to direct their own affairs, would be a desirable option which merits further consideration. This will therefore be the subject of further work led by the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency, Sir Peter Levene."—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 270.]
    How on earth can the Government justify that?
    We have had review after review, but the threat of privatisation is still hanging over those research establishments. What sort of effect does the Minister think
    178
    that has on their morale? Of course, those establishments are not the only ones affected: the Scottish Crop Research Institute and the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute are candidates for privatisation, as are a number of others about which no indication was given, although they could include the Horticultural Research Institute and the Central Science Laboratory. Of course, we know that ADAS is to be privatised.
    Mr. Mike Hall: My hon. Friend mentioned the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, which controls the Daresbury and the Rutherford and Appleton laboratories. The Daresbury laboratory is in my constituency. It has undergone two reviews, and it has now been determined that it will stay as a non-departmental public body in the public sector, accountable to the Department of Trade and Industry. Most important, Daresbury runs a synchrotron radiation source, which involves premier physics research.
    However, Daresbury has to plan now for its replacement. That replacement, which is called Diamond, will cost about £100 million. Rather than continual reviews, we need long-term planning and investment by Government so that the Daresbury laboratory can continue its first-class physics research.
    Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for the representations that he has made on behalf of that laboratory. He rightly points out that long-term investment is needed there.
    As I said, Government policy has meant the continued demoralisation of scientists. When I made the case for public science earlier, I said that one of the reasons for these Government research establishments was so that the Government could respond to the unexpected. Let us consider what has happened with BSE in cattle, something that was certainly not expected when it was found in 1985 and identified in 1986.
    Every year, in the annual debate on agriculture, I have criticised the Government for their cuts in food and agricultural science. Indeed, Government-funded food and agricultural science has suffered proportionally greater cuts than other research. On 22 May, The Independent wrote:
    "The Government's chief scientific adviser yesterday conceded that spending cuts had damaged the Ministry of Agriculture's … scientific capacity at the time when public concern had grown over mad cow disease in Britain.
    Over the past 10 years, Government spending on research and development across all departments has fallen by £1.6bn in real terms—about a quarter. Maff s spending has been cut slightly more than the average.
    Sir Robert May, the chief scientific adviser, said that over the past decade Maff had focused narrowly on research and development which touched its central policy objectives, with the result that it was now less able to respond to new challenges like BSE.
    He added: 'I think Maff might now recognise that decreasing veterinary expenditure is something to be reconsidered.'''
    In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the cuts were severe. The Meat Research Institute at Bristol, which was concerned with meat safety and conditions in abattoirs, was closed during that time.
    On 20 March, a date that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will always remember because that was when he and the Secretary of State for Health made their important announcements about a possible link

    179
    between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the director of the Institute of Animal Health announced that 60 posts would go. That institute includes the neuropathogenesis unit which employs the Government scientists who are at the forefront of the work being done on BSE and the possibility of a link between it and CJD.
    In 1982, the Institute of Animal Health employed 842 people; it now employs 489, more than 40 per cent. of whom have temporary appointments. The institute has sought to protect BSE research, but it has meant cuts in other areas. Of course, this institute is concerned with animal diseases generally and is a centre of excellence.
    The Minister will of course tell us that the Government have increased spending on BSE research—I should hope so, as it was identified only in 1986 and has increased significantly. Much of the increased spending has, sadly, been at the expense of expenditure on other Government research. That is the point—we have to have a broad base of scientific capability in the Government so that the Government can respond to the unexpected. We do not know what the next infectious disease or problem will be in our livestock.
    Having slashed expenditure and many of the posts at the Institute of Animal Health, that institute is now a candidate for privatisation. It is in the second tranche now being considered under the prior options review. The same is true of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which is also in the forefront of work on BSE.
    Does any hon. Member really believe that the British people will thank the Government for privatising BSE research? It is incredible that the Government can even contemplate taking that road.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Strang: I shall give way in a moment.
    It is not only the Veterinary Laboratories Agency that is threatened with privatisation, because the third tranche includes the Norwich food research institute, the Rowett Institute, which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned, and the other food research establishment.
    I now give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), but this is the last intervention that I shall take.
    Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of scientists on short-term contracts. He is now mentioning with absolute horror the fact that some research institutes may go into the private sector. Would his party be prepared to take them back into the public sector? If so, how much would it cost the public purse?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that we shall judge the situation if and when we inherit power. The reality is that the Conservatives have to defend their policy of privatisation, but, in terms of BSE research and long-term basic research, they are attempting to defend the indefensible.
    There are three lessons that we can learn already from the BSE experience. First, we need a strong research base, a large basic capability among agricultural scientists within the Government sector. Secondly, there is no place for deregulation of food safety. Thirdly, food safety
    180
    regulations have to be enforced. They have to be enforced by public servants, which is why it is tragic that the Government have reorganised, rationalised and demoralised the state veterinary service to the extent that they have. Of course, on top of all that, we know that they are going to press ahead with the privatisation of ADAS.
    I would like to refer to a number of the research establishments threatened with privatisation and spell out to the House just how valuable and important their basic, long-term research is and why it should stay in the public sector, but time does not allow me to do that. Government science is of huge importance and the Government research establishments have a crucial role to play.
    We are against the growth of short-term contracts and the threat of privatisation—what an appalling way to manage Government science. For three years, those scientists have been under the threat of privatisation and, as I have pointed out, that threat is going to continue for many establishments. We support public science, we support the Government research establishments and we want an end to that uncertainty. That is why I ask hon. Members to vote for our motion tonight.
    7.39 pm
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to science, engineering and technology, as reaffirmed in the Forward Look 1996 (Command 3257-I); and endorses the programme of prior options reviews of public sector research establishments, which aims to secure the best possible quality science and technology for the United Kingdom with the best value for money from the substantial public resources spent on science.'
    I very much welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has given the House to outline the Government's position on the issues to which he referred and to respond to questions that he raised. I shall concentrate primarily on those issues for which I have a departmental responsibility and, in his reply to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology will respond to a range of the other issues that I am sure will be articulated in the debate.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will forgive me if I say that one of the themes that seemed to underlie his speech to the House was a profound disapproval of the process of privatisation. I detected in his speech a basic hostility to the process of transferring functions and activities from the public sector to the private sector.
    Mr. Marland: Old Labour lives.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has articulated the precise point. Much as I like and respect the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, none the less, in a very real sense, he represents the articulate but traditional voice of old Labour, and he sits on the Opposition Front Bench making policy.
    The hon. Gentleman's general observations sit uneasily with the huge benefits that have flowed from the process of privatisation. In real terms, telecom prices have fallen by 35 per cent., domestic gas prices by 18 per cent. and domestic electricity prices by 8 per cent. All those

    181
    industries were in the public sector at one stage. Those huge benefits flowed to the consumer through the process of privatisation. I know that the hon. Gentleman reads the Evening Standard. He will see today the huge benefits that flow to consumers of electricity, gas and the telephone through the process of privatisation.
    Let me make another point which is quite funny. The hon. Gentleman is basically against privatisation, he says, yet when—not very often, I should add—I read the house magazine of the Labour party, The Guardian, which I assume is fairly well informed on these matters, I find that the Labour party proposes to privatise certain parts of the Foreign Office. On the one hand, it displays a deep-rooted hostility to the concept of privatisation, yet on the other hand, although the hon. Gentleman may not know it, his colleagues propose to privatise some of the top ambassadorial posts in the Foreign Office. So there is a certain mismatch of ideas.
    I should like to make some general points and then to turn to the particular. First, the Government are committed to science. Our objectives are to maintain a strong and dynamic science and engineering base in the United Kingdom, to have access to the best scientific advice and to secure a strong underpinning of basic and strategic science and the supply of high-quality scientists. Those considerations have caused us to ring-fence and defend the science budget, which has risen in real terms by some 10 per cent. in the past 10 years.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister accept, however, that in the past 10 years there has been a reduction in science spending by the Government of £1 billion in real terms? This is plain for all to see in the "forward look" statistical supplement. The Minister does us a disservice by assuming that we are looking only at the amount that is spent by the Office of Science and Technology, as that represents a very small part of the Government's budget.
    Mr. Hogg: The science budget to which I have referred is designed primarily to maintain the strategic science base. Therefore, an important part of the research capacity is reflected in the expenditure committed to that. It is perfectly true that Departments have reduced expenditure. There are a variety of reasons for that. The first is the important need to move Departments away from near-market expenditure and into more strategic expenditure. That process was put in place in the mid-1980s, and it is extremely important.
    Secondly, it is right to inform private sector organisations that they have an important responsibility to fund research from which they themselves are the beneficiaries. Thirdly, any Government who intend to reduce public spending have to look critically at all heads of expenditure. It is difficult to say that, as a matter of definition, the science budget within any Government Department should be excluded from any economies. That is certainly not my view.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister. Will he address himself to a slightly wider issue and a genuine dilemma that all Governments now face? The greater complexity of the scientific problems with which they have to grapple—BSE is a classic example—
    182
    means that few people who advise the Minister do not have some direct commercial experience. Indeed, they may be inculcated with direct commercial experience. So the Minister is dependent for advice on a group of scientists whose background is in the particular industry and commercial undertaking that may well be affected by his decisions. He has to recruit his advice from a group of reformed poachers—perhaps only marginally reformed poachers—in undertaking his gamekeeper role.
    Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the only advice worth having is that from public sector research establishments. That is absolutely not my view.
    I should like to go through the points that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was making in support of his arguments for the public sector research facilities. He produced four important arguments and I do not find myself dissenting from them as general propositions. Indeed, they have great deal of force. My Ministry, being scientifically based, is as heavily reliant on science in all aspects of its work as any Government Department, and rather than more than most. For that considered reason, we invest about £125 million in scientific research. No doubt the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will say that we have reduced the amount. We have indeed made a small reduction over last year as part of a process of making economies that are justified and necessary if we are to reduce the volume of public expenditure.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Hogg: I shall make some progress.
    In the context of agriculture, we have shifted the main focus of research. I imagine that when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East began his professional career, he was concerned primarily with expanding food production, as that was the principal concern in the 1970s. That has changed somewhat. We are now seeking to make more effective use of resources by reducing inputs, trying to ensure that agriculture is truly sustainable and having regard to a range of environmental matters that were probably not sufficiently addressed some time ago.
    The Ministry has other important functions to perform for which it relies directly on scientific guidance— protection of the public and ensuring that food is safe and, of course, investigation into animal and plant diseases. All those functions have to be carried out effectively—in a cost-effective way. It is perfectly true that one has to be satisfied about the integrity of the advice that one receives, but I do not accept that one can be satisfied about it only if it comes from public sector research establishments.
    Dr. Jones rose—
    Mr. Hogg: I shall make some progress, then I shall give way.
    This is where the prior options review comes into play. It is part of a process that we have put in place to determine where research is best undertaken. The prior options review involves a serious consideration of whether the research undertaken by an establishment continues to be required; whether it should be funded by

    183
    the public sector; whether the research needs to be undertaken by a public sector body or whether it could be as well undertaken by a private sector body; whether there is scope for rationalisation with other public sector research establishments working in similar areas; and how the functions could be managed in future. Those are all proper questions to ask.
    As I understood him, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, fairly, that the asking of such questions was not driven primarily by a desire to make economies. Indeed, he argued that economies would not be made. He said that the review was a dogmatic approach to the process of providing the functions. Surely it is right from time to time to ask such questions of those departments so that we can ensure that the functions are performed in the best possible way.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Minister is absolutely right to say that such questions should be asked. What would he recommend in relation to the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council?
    Mr. Hogg: The recommendations are advice to Ministers. When we have come to our conclusions—I shall turn to the departments for which I have responsibility in a moment—we will have to announce them swiftly. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is quite right about staff morale. It is important that decisions are announced with all possible speed. We shall also have to explain the considerations that have led us to those conclusions, and we shall do that by way of a memorandum to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
    Dr. Lynne Jones rose—
    Mr. Hogg: I am going to make some progress.
    I turn to the prior options review in the areas for which I have departmental responsibility. Five Ministry organisations are involved: the research and development arm of ADAS, the Central Science Laboratory, Horticulture Research International, the Directorate of Fisheries Research and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The reviews of ADAS's R and D, the Central Science Laboratory, Horticulture Research International and the Directorate of Fisheries Research began in October. The review of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency started in February.
    The reviews are important and it is important that we carry them through thoroughly. The points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—the need to ensure continuity in contracts, the need to ensure the availability of high-class scientific advice and the other considerations to which he drew our attention—clearly have to be addressed in the reviews.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I represent a substantial number of growers. Doubtless I will represent more as time goes on. They are very successful, make use of research information from Horticulture Research International and are concerned not so much about whether HRI will be privatised as about whether smaller growers—as many of them are—will have access to
    184
    information on much the same terms in future. They are fearful of a major company taking over HRI, using the research for its own information and thus depriving smaller growers of access to it. Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on that?
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend's points are important. He has represented the interests of horticulturists in his constituency with considerable force and success over many years. I note from what he has said, and agree, that the horticulturists are not opposed to privatisation. They want to ensure that contracts are constructed in such a way as to ensure that horticulturists continue to receive a similar kind of advice on the same broad terms. Those are important considerations and we shall have to reflect on what my right hon. Friend has said.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is getting very upset, so I must give way.
    Dr. Jones: I am grateful that the Minister has eventually given way. He said a few moments ago that the review's advice was given directly to Ministers, yet the press release that announced the decision on 22 May specifically stated that the review found that the functions carried out by the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils should remain in the public sector. The press release omitted to mention what the review found in respect of other institutions. Why was that? What did the review find? Is it not a fact that the Government are determined to privatise those institutions and will continue with endless reviews until they get the answer they want?
    Mr. Hogg: No, I do not agree with that. As I am the most pragmatic of men, I do not start from any dogmatic position on such matters. There may be dogmatic positions that I would assert, but they do not apply in this area of policy. I assure the hon. Lady of that. On disclosing information, we shall, as I have said, submit memorandums to the Science and Technology Committee in respect of any decisions that, ultimately, we make and explain our reasons that way.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister said that he would "reflect" on the problems raised by HRI. Is he— or at least one of his junior Ministers—prepared to meet Dr. Flegg and his colleagues to discuss the matter in depth?
    Mr. Hogg: Any request for a meeting would clearly be seriously considered. I shall not give a commitment, because I do not know the gentleman in question and would like to reserve my position. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who I suspect is articulating just the points that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, will want a meeting with Ministers. Should that be so, I look forward to seeing him. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the way in which the House tends to operate. Members ask to see Ministers and Ministers are well advised to see Members promptly. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many such meetings, and no doubt there are many more to come.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Horticulture Research International is in the now

    185
    socialist-occupied constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, but a fair number of people who work there live in my constituency next door. I am very concerned about their future. Many are skilled people who have a great deal of expertise. I support privatisation—there is no question about that—but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not leave those good people in limbo for too long and will make a fair and considered judgment, bearing in mind the human element besides the best way in which to proceed.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly and well. It is important that, in respect of any review that affects people's livelihood and way of life, we come to a decision as speedily as possible and that such a decision is based on good judgment, sound science and considerations that we can defend in the House. I tell my hon. Friend that we shall do just that. We have demonstrated our commitment to the research that HRI undertakes by a substantial investment of about £40 million in recent years. Clearly, it is important for us to ask in an orderly way what is the best way, in the national interest, to provide the kind of service that it provides. We will come to a decision as soon as we can.
    In the case of the Directorate of Fisheries Research, the Government announced on 22 May that we had decided, following the review, that this marine research centre would become an executive agency of MAFF. We believe that that will lead to greater freedom to manage its own affairs and improve performance within a framework of targets. Decisions have not yet been taken in the case of other MAFF laboratories, and we are still considering the cases of ADAS research and development, the Central Science Laboratory and Horticulture Research International. We hope to announce our conclusions as soon as we can.
    Mrs. Lait: I welcomed the announcement on 22 May on the Directorate of Fisheries Research, but fisheries research is an inexact science. What progress does my right hon. and learned Friend expect the new agency to make in terms of reaching an agreement with the fishermen on the science of fish movements and stocks?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's question is so broad that to try to condense it into a few lines would not do justice to the issue.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to BSE, an important issue which has concerned the House for some months. He will know that we have substantially increased the amount spent on BSE research in the current year to more than £10 million, an increase of almost 50 per cent. on the previous year. I am anxious to ensure that we have enough resources dedicated to work on BSE.
    I have taken the opportunity from time to time to ask Professor Pattison, the chairman of the advisory committee, whether he thinks that the Government are devoting sufficient resources to the problem. His answer has been yes. Should that change, the Government will be anxious to respond to any demand from Professor Pattison or his Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
    186
    colleagues. The fact that we are spending more than 50 per cent. more than last year is an important sign of the significance that we attach to research in this field.
    Mr. John Garrett: Until 1991, 350 BSE-infected carcases were lobbed into an open landfill site not far from the river that supplies the city of Norwich with its drinking water. Later studies put down boreholes around that site and discovered the transmission through the water table of pesticides, herbicides and chlorides. I have been told by the Environment Agency that there has been no test for the transmissibility of BSE-infected material via leachate from such a site. MAFF gave permission for the dumping of those carcases. Who is responsible for establishing the transmissibility of BSE-infected material that might end up in a river that supplies a great city with its water?
    Mr. Hogg: Before giving a considered reply, one would have to look much more closely than the hon. Gentleman and I would have time to do in order to discover the detailed facts of the matter. We are now satisfied that we have identified appropriate ways of disposing of all the specified bovine material and the carcases destroyed under the 30-month rule. We believe that we have addressed all the environmental and health issues that arise out of the regime that we have in place.
    The Government are wholly committed to having a proper scientific base for this country. We realise the importance of having access to proper scientific advice, based on expert knowledge that is given with full integrity, but we do not necessarily accept that that can be provided only from within the public research facilities.
    When one is spending a considerable sum of public money, it is surely right to ask whether there are better or different ways of providing that quality of advice. Sometimes the conclusion will be that no change should be made, but sometimes it will be that privatisation or contractorisation is appropriate; but to deny oneself the ability to ask that question—as seems to be the position of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—is surely casting away the responsibility imposed on us.
    8.5 pm
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I begin by declaring an interest, in that I am a non-executive director of the Welding Institute, a research and technology organisation.
    It is obvious why the prior options review is being conducted. We have only to look at the projections for science spending for the next few years to realise that the Government are determined to save a great deal of money on the science budget. A headline in the New Scientist said:
    "The fall and fall of Britain's research funding."
    The science budget has fallen by £1 billion in real terms during the past decade, and it is due to fall by a further £500 million in the next four years. If that cut is not to be achieved by privatisation, I should like to know what other method will be used. How can the Government make those savings, except by selling off or privatising the public sector research establishments?
    There have been constant reviews since the Government came to office. I remember the Rayner reviews in the early 1980s, and there were reviews of

    187
    near-market research in the late 1980s. They continued until Sir Peter Levene's efficiency scrutiny in the 1990s, and we now have the prior options review. There has been an inconclusive response from the Government, which to me suggests a Cabinet split. The Cabinet were determined to make a decision, but found that they were unable to do so. I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister disagreed with the views of his colleagues and told them to go away and do their work again. That will mean further reviews by the Department, leading to yet more confusion, indecision and doubt. The result of those thousands of person years of effort is that a great deal of money has been wasted. In that time, we have seen outright privatisation of institutions such as the National Engineering Laboratory, the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, the Hydraulics Research Station, the Transport Research Laboratory, the National Resources Institute and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. There is a huge number of other institutions that I could mention. The prior options review is the latest in this catastrophic cutting exercise. Some 43 public sector research establishments, employing more than 20,000 staff, with a turnover of about £800 million a year, are involved. That is a huge exercise in privatisation. We are talking about something that is the size of one of our privatised utilities.
    I am pleased that the Opposition have selected this subject for debate. It is terribly important that the issues should be aired and not swept under the carpet, as the Government are determined to do. The questions that the prior options review is asking include: is the function needed? Must the public sector be responsible? Must the public sector provide the function? What is the scope for rationalisation? How will the function be managed? Such questions can lead only to the further question: is the institute ripe for privatisation? The Minister admitted that earlier. The Government's question is, "Can we privatise the function and get it as far away from Government as possible?"
    Only two years ago, Sir Peter Levene's efficiency scrutiny concluded that only ADAS—the Agricultural Development Advisory Service—and the Building Research Establishment were ripe for privatisation, yet the Government are putting scientists through an appalling exercise that is causing demoralisation. Scientists are leaving because of the uncertainty. The institutes' efficiency is being much reduced because they cannot work effectively when they are constantly being reviewed.
    A more important question concerns the role of Government research establishments. The Government need certain scientific functions to be performed. It has been interesting, during the BSE debate, to hear even the Prime Minister say, for the first time, that he is relying on scientific expertise and advice. We would have to look back over many years of Hansard to find senior Ministers making such statements. There has been a realisation that scientists have an important role to play in advising politicians and that it is important that we listen to them.
    How can independent scientific and technological advice, which the BSE crisis has proved to be necessary, be made available to the Government? What is the best way of doing public interest research to improve quality of life, health and safety and the environment? Such research will not be undertaken by commercial organisations. It will be funded only by the public sector. How can the Government respond quickly to the
    188
    emergencies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), such as oil spills? Such disasters require input from a range of Government Departments.
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: Would my hon. Friend like to add to her list the functions of the public health laboratory service? It has to respond to emergencies and must have the capacity to do so. It has to study disease and the best way to control it. Its scientists are worried about the Government's attitude to its functions.
    Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend picks an excellent example from the many public sector research establishments that are under threat. Ministers should pay close attention to that. The general public will be deeply concerned when they realise that the important functions of the public health service laboratories are under threat because they are no longer to be carried out by independent scientists.
    How can independent scientific advice be made available to policy makers? How can Government scientists' representational role best be performed? When I was working in a non-departmental public body, an important part of my role was to represent the UK Government and to advise them on scientific policy. Scientists in the UK have a reputation for integrity and impartiality. That is important, and should not be let go of easily.
    We need to ask how we can improve the flow of high calibre scientists into policy making. Too few scientifically qualified people have gone into senior civil service positions. Some improvements have been made in recent years, and it would be a pity if the flow of scientists into policy making was stopped by privatisations.
    Finally, we must ask what public sector research establishments contribute to the national economic effort and our quality of life. The Royal Society expressed its concern by saying:
    "We are concerned that the first tranche of reviews is already well advanced, without adequate time having been allowed for prior consultation with the scientific community."
    It was concerned about the haste and apparent secrecy with which the review was conducted.
    Professor Blundell, the head of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, chaired one of the three steering committees set up to review the sell-off plan. He is concerned that the Government may be overlooking the hidden costs of privatisation. He reckons that BBSRC pensions could cost £137 million. From my copy of Laboratory News, I understand that the total cost of pensions from all the institutes under consideration could be as high as £200 million. That explains why universities are not keen to take over some institutes. They are worried about being landed with the high costs of pension provision.
    Many scientists are uneasy about the Government's intentions. It has been said several times already that it is feared that, if the Government do not get the answer they want with one review, they will carry out more until they get the answer they want: that the institutes concerned should be sold off.
    We must also consider how constant reviews hit the institutes that are on the receiving end. The time and resource commitment of senior scientists during the

    189
    reviews has to be borne in mind. It is difficult to conduct high-quality research, whether basic or applied, if it is constantly being interrupted by requests for information and a demand to defend the status quo and undergo review.
    There are doubts about privatisation. Jasper Wall, the head of the Royal Greenwich Observatory in Cambridge said:
    "I am surprised to hear that you can go to the market place for skills that took 300 years to put together."
    If the Minister has not already visited the observatory, I suggest that he goes to see the amazing effort and the technical expertise in the organisation. That expertise is specific to the observatory and not to be found anywhere in the private sector—certainly not in the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, which is one of the suggestions that has been made for the contracting out of that work.
    Why is all this being done secretly? I would like a commitment from the Minister to publish the review report and the associated evidence. We have a right, as Members of Parliament, to see them. The scientific research institutes also want them published.
    How can the focus of the institutes be retained as a source of scientific advice to the Government if they are privatised, and therefore have very different commercial objectives? Would there have been any funds for specialists working on scrapie, which was described as a quaint disease of museum interest a few years ago, before its connection with BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was discovered? Why continue with this? The decision is based on political dogma rather than scientific necessity.
    There are four BBSRC institutes. The independent prior options review teams have recommended that the status quo is the preferred option, yet the signals from the Government suggest that that will not be the option that they adopt. One of the most important questions is whether funding from public sources will continue if the institutes are made even a little more independent than they are at present. The prior options review says that the function is needed, certainly in respect of the BBSRC institutes, but in the view of one director of a research council institute, that function cannot be delivered without underpinning finance, provided in the form of a rolling programme grant.
    Core research funding is vital to an institution—a fact that Ministers do not seem to have understood properly. It is recognised in the university sector that research organisations need infrastructure and core funding. It is also recognised by the dual funding support system, with the higher education funding councils supplying money for research infrastructure and core work, and the research councils providing money for specific research projects. One of my constituents has written to me to say:
    "High quality research requires a reasonable amount of stability, continuity and long-term planning."
    That cannot be achieved when scientists have to apply to research councils for grants for every project.
    Without an assurance of guaranteed long-term support, there is no way a young doctor or research scientist will commit the rest of his or her life to long-term studies. Without such a commitment, we shall never deliver the crucial information that is so important to the betterment of scientific research.
    190
    As a non-executive director of a research and technology organisation, I know at first hand how vital core funding is to any such organisation. Scientists have to be free to pursue areas of inquiry before they are ready to submit a full research application. Without core funding, that becomes increasingly difficult. They need to be able to close gaps in their collective knowledge and to pursue objectives that appear important for scientific, not commercial, reasons.
    The lack of core research will lead in the long term to increasing impoverishment of the work that scientists do. I hope that the Minister will deal with that problem when he replies to this debate.
    8.21 pm
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I strongly support the Government's intention to look into how scientific material is garnered by the state for the better information of Government policies. I believe that there is far too much reliance on Government-funded research and scientific bodies at the moment. They all have a vested interest in keeping Government funds—they are very large—flowing their way. Last year, more than £14 billion was spent on such research—a massive amount of public money. The Government are therefore right to evaluate the work of these institutions from the point of view of value for money.
    I declare a minor vested interest, in as much as I have worked in science all my working life—as a teacher and researcher, and afterwards developing scientific products which I marketed around the world. In the course of my long working life I have come into contact with a great many people and institutions involved in producing scientific advice and offering scientific opinions.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Lady accept the contention in the 1995 document "Forward Look"—that research is a long-term investment? How does she think these proposals will ensure stable investment in basic research; and does she think that the public will be reassured by advice or statements from Ministers, knowing that that advice has come from the private sector, with its vested interests?
    Mrs. Gorman: I agree with the hon. Lady to this extent: it is essential to do our best to find independent sources of research. Where I quarrel with her is over her belief that it is likely to come from Government-funded institutions. They are not independent, since they rely on Government grants and support for the work that they do. We need evidence that is not tainted by political expediency on the one hand or by the interests of commercial ventures which may rely on the research in question on the other. A great deal of excellent research, however, comes out of the pharmaceutical industry in the shape of the development of new products.
    Moreover, when evidence or advice emerges from the private sector, that sector is held responsible for the advice if it goes wrong. The development of thalidomide is a case in point. The organisation concerned is still being held responsible for the problems that that product caused. By contrast, the Government fund, endorse and then often insist on the use of pesticides. The fact that the Government have given these substances such strong backing often rules out any independent judgment by

    191
    Ministers when they have to decide whether certain pesticides may give rise to serious side effects. There is even one theory suggesting that pesticides may be involved in the BSE problem.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Lady has answered the question about where this independent advice is to come from.
    Mrs. Gorman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my arguments I will get to the answer.
    I do not question the need for the Government to act in loco parentis on behalf of the public when it comes to matters of public health and requiring advice on them. The question concerns where that advice should come from. I do not think we should rely exclusively on quasi-Government organisations such as the public health laboratory service, ADAS and the myriad other such institutions for that advice.
    The scientists working in such institutions are just the same as people in other organisations, commercial or Government-run. They are sometimes wrong; they are sometimes influenced by the need to keep their grants flowing, particularly when their grants are running out. I know of several examples of institutions rushing to publish evidence when a longer period of cogitation about their hypotheses might have been advisable—
    Mr. Garrett: HRT, for instance.
    Mrs. Gorman: Hormone replacement therapy is a treatment which has been evaluated and in use since the 1940s. It has remarkable effects, of which I am but one example.
    We tend to respond too hastily to what are thought to be emergencies. There is a distinction between genuine emergencies such as plane crashes or disasters at sea and scares generated by hypotheses that are published by groups of scientists who may be shroud waving so as to ensure that their grants come through again. Their intention is not to scare the public but to maintain their own positions by putting evidence in the public domain before it has been evaluated by their peer groups—an essential component of scientific progress.
    I believe, for example, that the salmonella scare—I have written the world's most authoritative book on it, called "Chickengate"—was partly caused by pressure from the PHLS laboratory near Bristol to keep its premises going. There had been a suggestion that a number of laboratories were to be closed down, and it was from that very laboratory that the salmonella scare emanated. Its diagnosis linked the infection to eggs, which was bogus science. I have done a great deal of research on eggs and infections in eggs, and I can tell the House that they are hermetically sealed by nature specifically to keep bugs out. What is more, bugs that do get in cannot, in that environment, reproduce enough to make anyone ill.
    The salmonella scare was nothing to do with farmyards; it was to do with kitchen hygiene. The people using the materials were not using them in clean vessels or in a clean environment. I shall not go into the background of that situation, but the Government rushed to do something as a result of evidence that eventually proved to be faulty. The Government eventually ditched the regulations that brought about the slaughter of almost 4 million chickens,
    192
    approximately 10,000 small egg production businesses going down the pan and goodness knows how many hundreds of millions of eggs being smashed in an orgy of public recrimination against the industry. The problem originated as a result of poor hygiene conditions in places that produce food, such as sandwich bars and hospital kitchens.
    That is just one example of a scare that was exacerbated, if not generated entirely, by a report from a Government health organisation. I urge the Government to bear in mind that scientists, just like the rest of humanity, are interested in their own survival—and sometimes that survival prompts them to do things that they might not do in other circumstances or if their lifeblood did not depend on it. There are mad scientists as well as mad cows. I urge the Government to keep an eye on the people who put out this research.
    I draw the attention of hon. Members to the organisation that deals with our environment—the IPCC—another Government-funded organisation. The organisation has not so much dreamed up, but it has given weight to and endorsed, the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is one of these scares that has generated all sorts of Government regulations—affecting the motor industry, for example. We have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and we have to look at the way in which we dispose of scientific and industrial materials. That scare has led to the IPCC's interference in other industries, quite separately from the original idea of keeping an eye on what was happening with our climate.
    Mr. Dafis: The hon. Lady needs to bear in mind that the IPCC's findings were verified through a rigorous process of peer review involving scientists from around the world. It is not as though one Government are funding one Government institute and producing inaccurate results—there has been exhaustive research over a long period.
    Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that much of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration's research and observations on the environment and on environmental changes contradicts a lot of the research of the IPCC. In fact, to have an institution called the International Panel for Climate Control is ludicrous—the idea that human beings, with our puny efforts, can control the climate is ludicrous.
    Mr. Dafis: It is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    Mrs. Gorman: It does not matter whether it is "change" or "control"—the institution has a vested interest in promulgating the idea that we, through our industrial processes, are causing terrible changes in our climate. NASA, another source of information in this regard, has made observations from outside our planet and it refutes that argument. I am inclined to take a balanced view. We should not impose regulations on industries—for example, the car industry in relation to carbon dioxide emissions—that may damage people's livelihoods rather than their health. We should not rush to judgment on the basis of research from institutions of that sort.
    I am calling for a much wider level of consultation when the Government have some kind of problem that the public may be concerned about. We have to remember

    193
    that a lot of these so-called problems are not generated by the public, or by people within the Ministry, but by many of these institutions. My point is that there is no independent evaluation of these institutions at the moment.
    I agree with Government funding of basic science, which includes some of the work carried out at Greenwich and Kew. Such work is valuable and useful, and it is difficult to say where they would get their money if not from the Government. However, I believe that that money could be better spent elsewhere. There is a difference between basic science and science that is based on what are considered to be rather immediate problems, and that is mostly what these Government scientific institutions are involved in.
    I believe that the mere fact that these organisations are Government-funded and endorsed gives them a degree of status and credibility that they may not deserve, but which people tend not to question. They are seen to produce Government information and therefore they have a degree of credibility that they may not deserve. The Government should use a number of research organisations—independent organisations that may be generated by groups of scientists currently working in state-funded institutions.
    When the Government are presented with a problem—such as cows dying from a disease which at present appears to have no clear origin—they should put out to contract, perhaps with more than one institute, the need to investigate it. The Government would then receive different advice—a number of hypotheses. BSE is in this situation at the moment. We have accepted the views of a group of people, the Edinburgh group, who have come up with a particular hypothesis that there could be a link—and we have instituted draconian measures as a result.
    I believe that an article in the Daily Telegraph this week will challenge the whole thesis that the foodstuffs that cows were eating are responsible for BSE. There are theories that BSE could be caused and transmitted by mites—many diseases are transmitted by insects or small crustacea. An example is malaria—no one has tested that route of investigation yet, but there is scientific evidence.
    As there is very little independent review, scientific evidence that is lying around in the archives could be introduced into the debate, but it is often ignored. Again, I refer to the BSE scare. Dr. Clive Bruton, who is working in my constituency, is one of the curators of the department of neuropathology's brain bank. Apparently, some little while ago, he published a paper—he did not make assertions that this was the last word—on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. He pointed out that there was plenty of old evidence about this so-called new strain of CJD, which is believed to be the problem. It is believed that this new strain is causing the problem in younger people. We all know that CJD has been around for a long time. It is a rare disease and the number of people in this country dying from it is reducing—I think there were 50 cases last year and 49 the year before.
    There is no impetus in an institution that has come up with an hypothesis to spend an adequate amount of time to research the views of its peers by looking through the literature. This is how scientists work: they examine publications from a variety of institutions to test their
    194
    hypotheses. Scientists who come up with an idea are under psychological pressure to prove their point and to make their hypotheses stand up. That is what has happened with the Edinburgh group.
    I am making the case for a longer period of investigation, particularly when the Government are responding with a knee-jerk reaction because of a scare that is being generated from a single quasi-governmental institution that is dependent on Government funding and support. If we did a little research, we might find a link between the scares and the proximity of the next round of grant allocations. Like everyone else, scientists wish it to appear that their services are vital and are essential to the maintenance of the Government's programmes.
    Therefore, I urge the Government not to rely on a single, Government-funded source, but to look instead at stimulating independent institutions that may arise out of the state organisations—as has occurred with other privatisations. The Government could commission them to investigate the problems with which they are presented.
    Such institutions may have a data bank to which they could refer to discover the views of other experts in the field. The Government could then refer to those views before reacting. When the Government react against a body of relatively untested evidence, they create the kind of hysteria that surrounded the salmonella crisis and that we are seeing again in the BSE crisis. That has huge knock-on costs in other industries—in this case, the £4 billion beef industry. The Government must now deal with the problems that their response has created in relation to rendering plants, for example. That is an on-going dilemma: one problem generates another. It is a very disruptive process and not how science should assist Government or the community.
    I believe that the Government have a strong responsibility to do what they can to establish independent institutions. They should not rely on a single source of evidence on which to base their view. The Government must balance the views of different institutions. That is how science works: people from different fields compare their results and arrive at a conclusion on which the Government can base policy decisions.
    On the basis of my examination of two cases—the egg scare and the beef crisis—I do not believe that the Government are obtaining good, independent scientific evidence. I am sure that papers yet to be published will conclude that the tenuous links that we are led to believe exist between Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans and bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle have no factual basis. They may find that BSE is not connected with contaminated food and may offer another scientific explanation. One can make a balanced judgment only when one has considered all aspects of the problem. At present we are rushing to judgment because we are relying too heavily on limited areas of investigation.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is getting rather repetitive and she is straying from the subject of the debate.
    Mrs. Gorman: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the advice being that I should shut up fairly soon.
    The Government often turn to special scientific advisers for assistance. Those advisers are attached to all Ministries and the Government obviously rely heavily on

    195
    their judgment in reaching their conclusions. I put it to the Government that those advisers must be vetted very carefully in order to confirm their independence.
    I draw the attention of the House to the special adviser in the Department of the Environment, Mr. Tom Burke—who I am sure is an honourable man and all the rest of it. He was formerly associated with the Greenpeace organisation and I believe that he has a tainted or biased view about the way in which the Government should handle environmental issues. As a consequence, the Ministry may not receive an independent view.
    Therefore, I return to my thesis that the Government could refer to basic science in universities as a source of advice. That might be better than seeking the views of special scientific advisers within Ministries.
    Finally, some scares have been generated by scientists. I refer to the Lacey and Lang combination, which was largely responsible for hyping the salmonella scare. Professor Lacey is always ready to offer an hysterical opinion. The newspapers also bear a responsibility for hyping the scares. The Government should seek an unbiased source of advice when taking decisions that have a profound effect on our economy. I believe that that is the right course of action.
    8.44 pm
    Mr. Nigel Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), as her remarks are always controversial and well worth listening to—even if one does not agree with them.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may have tested your patience during the sports debate last Friday, when I got rather carried away and spoke for 22 minutes. I know that several hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall be brief.
    The prior options review reminds me of the reorganisation of local government—the Government set up the review, obtain a reply, they do not like that reply, so they conduct another review. That is what has happened with the scientific research councils.
    I welcome the debate, and I am grateful to the Labour party for finding time to raise the subject on an Opposition day. We have not debated scientific issues for some time and on the last occasion hon. Members complained that, as it was a Friday, few hon. Members were present. Few hon. Members are present for tonight's debate—hon. Members may be attending the 60th birthday celebrations of Lord Holme of Cheltenham, but I suspect that their absence has more to do with the annual dinner of the parliamentary beer club.
    The challenges facing science today are legion. Appalling levels of pollution mean that solutions to environmental problems are vital for the survival of the planet. In the past 200 years, scientific breakthroughs have led to enormous improvements in health care. This year marks the bicentenary of the discovery of the smallpox vaccine by Edward Jenner, who spent much of his life in my constituency. That was an important breakthrough, and there have been many others since then.
    I shall refer tonight to the Medical Research Council units that form part of the prior options review. The MRC is funded mainly by Government grant in aid through the Office of Science and Technology and the Department of Trade and Industry. The grant in aid for 1994–95 was
    196
    £270 million, which was supplemented by£26 million from external sources, including industry, the national health service and the European Union.
    Five MRC units are included in the third tranche of the prior options review from July to December 1996, although there are implications for all 40 MRC units. The units currently included are the toxicology unit at the university of Leicester, the Dunn nutrition unit at the university of Cambridge, the reproductive biology unit at the university of Edinburgh, the radiobiology unit at Harwell and the virology unit at Glasgow. The people who work in those five units do not know how the units were selected for inclusion in the original scrutiny of public sector research establishments, or for the current round of the review. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us.
    The MRC's mission is to support high-quality research with the aim of improving and maintaining human health. Most MRC units and institutes are integrated within universities; most staff are employed by the MRC, and the director is accountable to the MRC chief executive. Units provide a special research environment that gives the MRC director and staff freedom to commit themselves to full-time research on a long-term basis.
    Health-related research develops as a continuum to basic strategic and applied research. Units are required to—and do—exploit the fruits of their research for the benefit of national health and wealth, but their primary purpose is to carry out the highest-quality basic research that the 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential" acknowledged should be supported by Government.
    Given the inclusion of those private units in the current round, the MRC is now required to devote resources to prior options reviews and to consider other models for ownership and management of its units. The recent announcement in the House about the first tranche of prior options reviews suggests that decisions are being made on the basis that the establishments reviewed so far would benefit from the greater freedom they would have if they were fully in the private sector, whether managed by companies limited by guarantee or by universities that would, for the purposes of the exercise, be seen as being in the private sector.
    The primary purpose of most of the public sector research establishments involved in the exercise is to deliver services to Government. The primary function of MRC units is to carry out research relevant to health. If MRC units were turned into companies limited by guarantee, their mission to provide an infrastructure for research into areas relevant to health would change dramatically, as the objective of raising income would become paramount. Similarly, transfer to university ownership where management has other objectives related to teaching, student numbers and income generation would create difficulties in the maintaining of the necessary stability and focus.
    The freedom of units to pursue basic research does not mean that they become uncompetitive or ossified. Each programme in their portfolio must compete for support from the council against other claims on its funds, such as grants to universities. If unit programmes fail to win support at peer review level, there are procedures for terminating work, and closing units where necessary. For example, 15 units have been closed in the past 10 years. That has led to staff redundancies where skills cannot be accommodated elsewhere in the council's service.

    197
    In the last round of reviews of the five units carried out in the original scrutiny exercise in 1994, many of the units' non-academic customers—for example, industry and the national health service—expressed concern that any change of ownership to the private sector would alter the nature of the well informed and independent policy advice that the units are able to provide: for example, the consultancy service to the food industry offered by the Dunn nutrition unit. The views of those customers will be sought again in the coming round of reviews, but there is no evidence that their position will have changed.
    MRC units provide essential freedom for the conduct of long-term basic research that benefits national health and wealth. Unlike that of most PSREs included in prior options reviews, their primary purpose is not to provide Government with services.
    "Realising our Potential" confirmed Government's role in funding basic research; it has never been clear why MRC units—which are already rigorously reviewed through independent peer review involving user input—were included in the exercise. Transfer to universities, or to other private sector management, could threaten their freedom rather than increasing it, and would require them to focus attention on activities that would divert them from their mission to improve and maintain human health.
    The units' present freedom does not mean absence of competition. They compete for MRC funds against grant proposals, and are closed if peer review standards are not met. Nor does it mean that they are not responsive to customer needs; indeed, customers such as industry and the NHS appear to value their present status and the quality of their independent advice in a range of sensitive policy areas, including the effects on human health of air pollution, radiation and nutrition—to name but a few.
    It was always likely that the debate would be hijacked by concerns about BSE. I do not want to go into those concerns, and I will shut up shortly. However, the effects of good scientific and technological developments on our quality of life are enormous. It should be the role of Members of Parliament, including Ministers, to make the public aware of what is going on and of the importance of scientific investment. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) drew attention to the cuts in investment in the scientific budget in recent years. Without proper funding, Britain will fall behind its major competitors—and we in this place must do all in our power to prevent that.
    8.55 pm
    Sir Richard Body: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) seems to have joined Labour speakers in the Luddite tendency. Agricultural research must move on. I was very disappointed by the speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who has probably been immersed in agricultural research for longer than any other hon. Member present. Many years ago, I learned to listen with respect to what he said on this subject. I must not allude to him further, because he is not in the Chamber; I will merely say that, when he began his career in agricultural research, the raison d'etre was quite different from what it is now.
    I have had the good fortune to visit—at least once, and in some cases two or three times—all the agricultural research establishments for which my right hon. Friend
    198
    the Minister is responsible. Most were established—certainly expanded—when their raison d'etre was to increase agricultural production: in other words, to induce our stock and soil to yield more, more and still more. The results have been fabulous, verging on the miraculous.
    On a farm that I have known since I was a child, yields of wheat used to be only 17 cwt per acre; now they are 3 tonnes per acre. That represents a fourfold increase in my lifetime—rather a long lifetime, admittedly—achieved largely as a result of expenditure, both private and public, on agricultural research over a comparatively short period. Similar marvels can be attributed to what has been done in livestock production. Our cows can now produce almost twice as much milk as they could at the end of the war.
    We must now put our farmers and growers on to a lower input-output ratio. We must cool it down, as it were. I do not believe that that can be done without considerable research, and I accept that much of that research must be undertaken in the public sector. That research should be publicly funded in our universities, because that is the proper place.
    I am much more sceptical about the public sector than some Opposition Members are. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will be familiar with Babraham on the outskirts of her constituency. The last time I visited that establishment I saw goats with their udders removed from their nether regions, where they normally are, and transplanted to the goats' necks to see whether they would yield more milk in that position. On the previous occasion I visited that establishment—no doubt I met some of the hon. Lady's constituents—the scientists had carried out an experiment with a buck rabbit to find out how many times it could copulate in 24 hours. I have great difficulty in believing it, but I think the answer was 127.
    Your money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and mine should not be spent in that way, but that is what happens to public expenditure in that area. Clever scientists—I take my hat off to the ability and brain power of our scientists in those establishments—do such experiments when they get public money. We must recognise that £125 million a year is spent on agricultural research, and we must ensure that we get our money's worth. We will not get our money's worth if the research establishments try to find ways and means by which farmers and growers can produce more and more, with high-tech methods, using ever more pesticides, nitrates and hormones.
    Some establishments are taking the opposite approach. In particular, I wish to mention Wellesbourne. Some years ago, I went there for the first time, and I have now been three times. The previous director so inspired me with Wellesbourne's approach that I went away and wrote a book of some 50,000 words about what Wellesbourne and similar establishments were trying to achieve. They are doing invaluable work, but it would be wholly wrong for that establishment to be privatised.
    Wellesbourne's research is enabling growers of vegetables to stop using excessive pesticide. If that establishment were sold to the highest bidder, I can imagine that ICI or some other pesticide manufacturer would be only too pleased to buy it up and inhibit the type of research that is undertaken there. Such establishments should continue to be publicly funded.
    I also hope that Wellesbourne will have a closer association with Birmingham university. It might be taken over by Birmingham university so that public money

    199
    could be spent on its research. I would be angry, and my constituents who are vegetable growers would be concerned and angry, if Wellesbourne were to change its role or have its work inhibited in any way. I therefore entirely support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) on the subject.
    Other establishments, not only Babraham, are being extravagant. I know Compton well, because it is close to where I live. At Compton, they are engaged in research into animal health. Some of that research is very important, but it is all directed towards helping intensive animal production to be more intensive and towards overcoming the diseases that affect intensive farms. That research should not be carried out at public expense: it should be done in the private sector. It is also wrong that that establishment should have nearly 2,000 acres of agricultural land, which is quite unnecessary for its research.
    I applaud what the Government are doing. We are right to reconsider this research. Much of it is valuable and must go on, because it would be quite wrong for it to be inhibited in the future. Much of it, however, is out of date and is no longer the kind of research that we farmers and growers need now. We want different research that will enable us to come down to a lower input-output ratio—as I have already called it—which needs much research that must be publicly funded.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture will know that it is almost impossible for a Minister of Agriculture to please the farmer, the taxpayer and the consumer at once, but on this occasion he deserves the support of all three.
    9.3 pm
    Mr. John Garrett: I shall make a few brief remarks about the threat to science and scientifically informed government posed by the prior options review—brief because of the inordinate time taken by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who managed to speak longer than the Front Benchers, and who selfishly rambled on about the same old thing.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Her needle got stuck.
    Mr. Garrett: Yes, I know.
    One of my concerns is the future of the Institute of Food Research, which employs 350 staff on the outskirts of Norwich—many of them my constituents. Its fate is to be decided by the end of this year, and my constituents are greatly concerned about their futures. The Ministry of Agriculture central science laboratory, which employs 200 staff, and the John Innes Institute, with more than 400 staff, are located in the same science park—which makes it the site of one of the biggest concentrations of bioscientists in Europe.
    The IFR's work is of considerable public importance to fundamental research and nearer to market. The institute's food safety work includes working with salmonella, listeria, clostridium botulinum and campylobacter. It also undertakes wide-ranging research into many aspects of nutrition as it affects health. That independent work is performed by highly skilled multi-discipline teams of scientists, many of international repute. It takes years to establish such research groups, and once they were broken
    200
    up, they would be lost to British science. That is the real risk posed to the three great research institutions located on the edge of my constituency.
    The stability of the support that the IFR's core work receives is vital. The provision of independent scientific information and advice must derive from the continuity that can only come from public funding, which allows the institute to attract funds from the European Union—where, in the case of the IFR, the United Kingdom is a net beneficiary—and Departments, in the form of short-term contracts, some of which are industry-linked. The Norwich research park contributes some £2 million a year to the UK's balance of trade.
    Severe problems will arise from the Government's preferred option. A break in the close relationship between the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and its supported institutes would inevitably put their future at risk. Furthermore, perhaps the Minister will refer to the cost of meeting the BBSRC's pension scheme and of any restructuring, which will require a Treasury commitment of several hundred million pounds. The IFR's staff are concerned about not only their future but that of independent research in Britain.
    To summarise, the institute is Britain's major independent base for all aspects of food research, including safety, nutrition, diet and health—and it provides independent research of significant public good and has multi-discipline teams of scientists of international repute. Stability and continuity are crucial to maintaining the IFR's independence and multidiscipline research teams. Significant public cost would be involved in making the changes outlined by the President of the Board of Trade.
    The John Innes Institute is equally distinguished in horticultural research. It was in the first tranche of prior options examinations, but the institute's 400 scientists and support staff have been told only that more work is needed—to prove, I imagine, that the institute must be privatised.
    I am concerned about the Government's policy of privatising as many public sector research establishments as they can, and about the damage that will do to the continuity, independence and integrity of the science base as a provider of information and advice in the public interests. The Government, by privatising and hiving off laboratories, are denuding themselves of people in the civil service, particularly in senior decision-making structures, who have a scientific and technical background, can provide intelligent customers for science, can interpret technically complex developments, and can advise on technically and scientifically complex policies—a need that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy issue has clearly highlighted.
    The Government have made it clear that the presumption will be to privatise or contract out, and that there will have to be strong reasons to prevent that happening. They have made it clear also that, if a private sector competitor is available, public sector bodies will not be allowed to compete for work—which is loading the decision against the Government establishment from the outset.
    That can be compared with what the Select Committee said in its comments on the efficiency study:
    "no major re-organisation should be undertaken unless there are clear benefits which outweigh the costs, both the financial and in terms of disruption to scientific activity.

    201
    if it is impossible to identify a structure for government science which is clearly better than the current model, then the aim should be to encourage gradual evolution in response to changing priorities."
    In other words, these are successful institutions, which have been built up over a long period. They are centres of excellence with a fund of experience relating to nutrition, health, horticulture and agriculture. It is pure vandalism to split them up and put them at risk of being flogged off to some private organisation which will not be able to provide the continuity and independence that is required.
    In their response, the Government said;
    "In the rapidly changing world of science and technology, the Government must have access to the best scientific and technological expertise and advice and must secure the availability of a supply of high quality scientists and a strong underpinning of basic and strategic science to industrial users."
    What is being carried out is just a whim of ideology. These important, successful, long-established and deeply serious organisations with international reputations are being put at risk to satisfy some ideological whim. That is the basis for the proposed policy. If it is private it is good, if it is public, no matter how good it has been in the past, it is bad, according to the Government's view. The scientists in my constituency will not forgive the Government for this act of vandalism.
    9.11 pm
    Mr. Paul Marland: This debate is astonishing. The attitude of Labour Members has been that anything in the private sector is bad and anything that is publicly funded is excellent. The entire nation has grown sick and tired of that ideology from the Labour party. I approve of this review, and all other reviews of Government expenditure. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, it is right that we should have the facilities to undertake these reviews and that the Government should carry them out. There is not a taxpayer in the country who does not want to ensure that the Government are getting the best value for the money that is handed over in taxation and that the spending is cost-effective. It is the Government's duty to ensure that that happens.
    I remember when housing associations were introduced and the responsibility for constructing houses was virtually taken away from local authorities. We heard a great deal of whining from the Labour party that it would be impossible and that house building would grind to a halt. It has not happened.
    Mr. Garrett:It has.
    Mr. Marland: No, it has not. In fact, I am going to the opening of a housing association building project in my constituency next week. Building has not stopped.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating housing.
    Mr. Marland: I accept the reprimand, but I am looking back at what has happened in the past and at how the Labour party, joined by the Liberal Democrats, has been so completely and utterly wrong. We will probably witness another U-turn in a few minutes.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: On housing associations, it was a Labour Government who funded publicly—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough about housing and the policies of Labour and Conservative Governments. I want to return to the subject of the debate.
    Mr. Marland: That was very even-handed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Dr. Jones rose—
    Mr. Marland: I will not give way again. The hon. Lady has been ruled out of order and I refuse to give way. I have the Floor now and I intend to take advantage of that.
    It is realistic for the Government to see how much duplication is taking place in research in Government establishments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, there is no doubt that those involved in Government research want to keep their establishment going.
    The Labour party will not be interested in any food research stations that have been privatised, but in Chipping Camden there is the Camden food and research Station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I know it well because I was brought up in Chipping Camden. It used to be in the public sector, but it has now moved into the private sector and it is flourishing. We must be forward-looking. It is wrong simply to look back, as the Labour party does. Indeed, that is the attitude of all the Opposition parties.
    I accept that we must carefully consider the people who will be affected by any changes the Government may introduce. It is right to focus attention on that point. I hope that when any decision is made in that respect the people involved will be dealt with carefully and fairly. It is quite clear that the Labour party rejects any thought of rationalisation. Indeed, its amendment actually states that. How on earth it can stand on that platform in any debate, on any issue, quite defeats me.
    When ADAS—the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service—grew out of an enterprise called NAAS—the National Agriculture Advisory Service—I remember the whingeing we heard from Labour Members about that. In fact, it has been a great success. When veterinary laboratories were set up as an agency and many of the stations were closed, we were told that it heralded disaster. One station just outside Gloucester was closed and I was told that it was the end of the world for some of the farmers in the district, but it has not turned out that way. In fact, there has been no deterioration in the service because use has been made of modern techniques and technology.
    On the question of current research and Government policy, I believe it absolutely right that the Government should not become involved in near-market research. They should create the conditions in which industry can flourish—something that they have been very successful in doing—and industry should pay for that research. Near-market research, on which the wealth creators will capitalise and cash in, should be funded by business. We should introduce a tax regime that encourages business to do that and create the trading conditions in which business can make a success of its research.

    203
    Some blue-sky research should be financed by the Government—[Interruption.] Yes, it should be financed, but that should be limited. As hon. Members have said, there is no reason why the Government should not contract with the private sector to do that research. It is not the Conservative party that is biased against the private sector, it is old Labour. We have heard a great deal today about what old Labour thinks. The old attitudes have been paraded in the Chamber. The wealth creators must be encouraged to carry out research.
    It is wrong to say that there are now fewer jobs in research because of changes in Government policy. In 1986, 134,000 people were employed in research; in 1993—the latest year for which figures are available—the number was 140,000. Therefore, the number of people employed in research has risen, despite the arrival of improved technology to help them with their jobs.
    On the question of BSE, I do not see what is wrong with the Government buying in the research they need. This is where the Labour party is parading its dogma—something that it always accuses the Conservative party of doing. I know that I am repeating myself, but I say again that the attitude of the Labour party is that anything that is financed by the private sector is bad, whereas anything that is financed by the Government and the poor old taxpayer is right and without bias. The reason why so many of the old Government-run enterprises were so unsuccessful was that they were badly managed. I again refer hon. Members to the Camden research station, which relished going into the private sector.
    We are getting on top of BSE and there has been no shortage of money spent in that cause. It has been a Government priority, and so far £30 million has been spent. Today, that has been increased to £10.4 million this year alone. We have always stood firm on the fact that the advice that we have received has been the best scientific advice available.
    It is a great shame that our European partners will not take notice of that advice, much of which—to the great joy of the Labour party—has come from Government—funded research stations. It is a pity that, together, we cannot persuade the Germans to take a bit more notice of that information because, as Professor Pattison—the chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—said, there has been no lack of resources for BSE research. The research is the best that is available, and we should be proud to stand by that.
    I am astonished that the Opposition have chosen to have this debate in their time. They have made it perfectly obvious that they do not want progress. In their speeches, Labour Members have emphasised that the attitude of old Labour lives on. That attitude has flowed over into the attitude of the Liberal party—which is the trouble with sitting so close to Labour Members. My good friend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) has caught the attitude, and it has flowed over into his thinking.
    The Labour party has been wrong on every major issue for the past 17 years, and it is wrong on this issue as well. It will not be very long before we see them doing another humiliating U-turn on this issue. I support the initiative, and I urge every hon. Member to do the same.
    9.20 pm
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Horticulture Research International, which is in my constituency, has been mentioned several times in the debate. I very much appreciate the support that has been expressed for that institution. There is certainly no case for destabilising it.
    The National Farmers Union describes HRI as
    "a highly efficient and effective organisation which provides a high quality service to the industry."
    Last year, the Select Committee on Agriculture reported:
    "Horticulture Research International received almost unqualified support for its work from those who gave evidence to us".
    Growers, the food industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are thoroughly happy with the way in which HRI serves them.
    It is one thing to ask the questions that are asked under the prior options review, but it is another to ask those questions repeatedly and continually, engendering permanent insecurity and permanent instability in the institutions that are affected by it. It is yet another thing to ask those questions while insisting, as do the Government, that they should receive only the answers that they want to hear. The Government seem determined to privatise wherever they can.
    Last November, it was indicated that the findings of the prior options review of institutions sponsored by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council would be provided by this March. On 22 May, however, the Minister for Rural Affairs said:
    "the future status of HRI is now to be considered by the Prime Minister's advisor on efficiency, Sir Peter Levene."—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 210.]
    In his closing, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what are Sir Peter Levene's terms of reference in relation to HRI, and when he is expected to report. If the Minister cannot answer those questions today, I should be grateful if he or a ministerial colleague will write to me. May I also have an assurance that the outcome of this review will not be vouchsafed during the summer recess, when it will not be possible for hon. Members to question it.
    If the Government do not get the answer they want, they simply ask the question again. The director of Imperial college is reported to have observed that there are only four answers that the Government are willing to receive in the prior options review:
    "abolition, privatisation, contracting out or rationalisation."
    All the public sector research establishments that are in the current review were included in the scrutiny review two years ago. If that is not evidence of dogmatism, I do not know what is. The Government's dogmatism certainly alarms the National Farmers Union in relation to HRI. It has stated:
    "Privatisation or further rationalisation will result in a reduction in the breadth of research carried out and the loss of critical staff, facilities and expertise."
    I remind Ministers that HRI, as it now is, is a product of rationalisation. Horticultural research was endlessly reorganised and restructured during the 1980s. While there was unhappiness at the continuing instability at that time, certainly there has been widespread satisfaction with the manner in which HRI was eventually established in 1990. The customers are happy, and independent

    205
    consultants have advised that it is not a suitable candidate for privatisation. Nor, of course, is it suitable for rationalisation, which means cuts.
    The unfortunate scientists at Wellesbourne are caught in the Government's pincer of the prior options review and the public expenditure survey round, with the cuts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's research funding that that has entailed. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a £1.2 million cut in funding for HRI while, at the same time, the threat of privatisation was held over the institution.
    As I have suggested, there is a history of destabilisation and starvation of funding at Wellesbourne. I secured an Adjournment debate on 20 March 1985, at a time when 28 posts had been lost at Wellesbourne in the previous two years and when it was anticipated that the cuts in the funding available to the Agriculture and Food Research Council between 1982 and 1987 would be of the order of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent.
    I said in that Adjournment debate;
    "What the NVRS"—
    or the national vegetable research station, as the establishment at Wellesbourne was then called—
    "would ask for—and I only endorse its plea—is level funding and a settled financial environment …Will Ministers accept that research needs a stable framework of finance and needs to be rescued from the hurly burly of politics? Will my hon. Friend"—
    the Minister—
    "acknowledge that, apart from the personal difficulties and distress that career disruption causes, research is a fragile, creative enterprise? Will he acknowledge that successful research depends upon complete and enthusiastic concentration and that present uncertainties and anxieties are demoralising and likely to be damaging to the quality of research?"—[Official Report, 20 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 960–3.]
    That is what I said in 1985.
    In March this year, the Royal Society, with vastly greater authority, said, in effect, exactly the same. It stated:
    "The continuing ongoing reviews of PSREs"—
    public sector research establishments—
    "are damaging to morale and are currently affecting adversely the ability of those concerned to get on with their scientific research, to the detriment of the nation's R+D base".
    "Plus ca change", as members of the Council of Ministers perhaps say to themselves when they listen to the Minister.
    There is a maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I greatly fear that HRI will be broken—not absolutely, but grievously damaged—by the combination of funding cuts and the threat of restructuring. As I said, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has announced a reduction in support for HRI of £1.2 million, despite having invested more than £40 million of taxpayers' money in improved facilities on the site.
    The effect of the cut is that up to 90 people will lose their jobs. That is twice as many as it might have been because the Government announced the cut so late in the 1995–96 financial year that savings on staff costs had to be made in six months instead of 12. More than 70 staff who have recently transferred to Wellesbourne face possible redundancy within 12 months of their transfer—what a way
    206
    to treat those scientists who, in the public interest, have moved their homes and jobs to Wellesbourne. My constituents might echo the words of Lear:
    "As flies to wanton boys"
    are we to Ministers. What a way to manage.
    Sir Peter Levene should really investigate Whitehall and the relationship between the Treasury and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The way to get better value for money from public research is for the Government to be efficient and to be an intelligent commissioner and customer and take a coherent view of their strategic responsibility to sustain the science that we need. Instead, we have randomness.
    The cuts at HRI form no part of any long-term strategy relevant to improving research or British horticulture. There has been no cost-benefit analysis. It beggars belief that the Government could invest £40 million of taxpayers' money in facilities, some of which have never been used, and then propose to pay more than £4 million in redundancy costs so as not to have those facilities used.
    By their failure to fund HRI, the Government have scuppered their own strategy for privatisation. Were HRI ever to succeed outside the public sector—I believe that it would not be wise to try to cause it to do so—it could do so only over time and provided that it had a sufficiently stable revenue stream to sustain the range of its basic and strategic research. That would require long-term Government support through guaranteed funding arrangements, but the volatility of Government funding and the latest reductions in MAFF commitments mean that such a Government policy is a pipe dream. Basic research cannot be managed profitably and there is no point in HRI if it does not undertake the full spectrum. The Government should be willing to underwrite that infrastructural research support for a valuable, innovative and successful industry.
    So why are the Government doing this? There will be no proceeds for tax cuts—certainly not this side of the general election. It is a piece of dogmatism. I believe that HRI and public sector research establishments are victims of a baleful dynamic of modern Government—the itch of newly appointed Ministers and officials to meddle in order to make their mark. The mischievous would say that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to win brownie points for privatisation with the right of the Tory party as he looks forward to open season for another leadership contest in the party, perhaps this summer and certainly by next summer. Happily, by next summer the Government will no longer be in office to inflict their dogma on the nation.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Adam Ingram: We have had an interesting and far-reaching debate and it has shown that there can be no question about the importance of public sector research establishments to Britain's science, engineering and technology base.
    As hon. Members have stated, the PSREs represent a considerable national resource employing some 30,000 people and constitute a significant proportion of total Government expenditure on the nation's research and development effort.
    At a time when the United Kingdom is struggling to maintain its place at the bottom end of the international competitiveness league tables, one would have thought

    207
    that, if any effort were to be expended on redefining our national science and technology needs, it would have resulted in the promotion of the PSREs, not their dismemberment. Instead, in recent years, those establishments have been subjected to rationalisation, fragmentation and privatisation. The morale of the people employed in those establishments has been seriously undermined, and a damaging air of uncertainty hangs over each of the establishments affected by the Government's manic and destructive drive towards privatisation.
    It is little wonder, therefore, that Britain's science and research community has universally condemned what the Government are doing to the science base of the nation in this as in other sectors. It is also little wonder that our international competitors are rubbing their hands with glee at the chaos that is being created by the Government's approach. They know that, if a nation's scientific and research community is demoralised because of lack of Government support, the capacity of that vital component in achieving truly international competitiveness is seriously handicapped. That is what constant reviews of the public sector research establishments are doing to the United Kingdom. They are disabling us, not helping us.
    The Government are clearly unwilling to accept the important role played by the PSREs in the overall fabric of the science and technology structures of the United Kingdom. The June 1994 publication by the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office on multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments stated:
    "PSREs exist for two main reasons: to provide support for the policy, statutory and regulatory activities of government departments; and to undertake research aimed more generally at improving wealth creation or enhancing quality of life; thus contributing to the maintenance of a strong science and technology base for the UK."
    That is probably the best description of what should be the overriding mission of PSREs. It is a great pity, therefore, that the Government are not prepared to accept the principle contained within that statement and are actively looking for ways to depart from it.
    The Government's statement of the specific stages of the prior options process made no mention of those essential functions of the PSREs. Instead, it focused purely on the extent to which they can be shunted out of the public sector. That stark and dogmatic attitude is all too symptomatic of the Government's overall approach to the country's science and research base.
    Before I deal in detail with the debate, it is worth placing on record worrying trends in the way in which the Government are undermining other key elements of our national science and research resources. I refer to the university research base, which works closely with public sector research establishments and is also under severe strain from a lack of Government commitment.
    I shall refer specifically to the report published last week by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the higher education funding councils on their survey of research equipment in United Kingdom universities. It is a detailed report and alarming in its conclusions. I shall give three extracts from a letter about the report written by Professor Gareth Roberts, chairman of the CVCP, which was sent to the Minister for Science and Technology, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
    The first comment that Professor Roberts makes is:
    "The report concludes that there has not been a significant improvement in the UK's academic research equipment since the first survey undertaken by PREST"—
    208
    the agency that was used to undertake the study—
    "for the ABRC in 1987. Nearly 80 per cent. of departments continue to be unable to perform critical experiments because of a lack of funding for equipment."
    Professor Roberts' second point is:
    "UK universities rank second among G7 countries in attracting income from industry. However, industry is telling us through this report that the cuts announced last year will put UK universities at an international disadvantage through under-investment."
    His third point is:
    "There are indications that multinational companies are beginning to switch their university research to other countries as a direct consequence of decay in the academic infrastructure. Firms already make a substantial contribution and stress that this does not absolve the Government of its responsibilities for supporting the infrastructure."
    I refer to that letter and the report because of the close working relationship between universities and public sector research establishments. I shall give one example of what I am driving at.
    This morning, I met the director of the Institute of Food Research. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke in some detail about the work conducted by that institute. He rightly said that the institute provides much of the research knowledge for the food industry in this country. It works closely with the university of Reading, the university of East Anglia and other universities elsewhere in the country.
    The food industry is important to the United Kingdom economy with annual sales of £60 billion—almost 4 per cent. gross domestic product. Of the top 25 food companies in Europe, 15 are located in the United Kingdom. They are located here for a number of reasons—but the publicly available science expertise in food safety ranks high among them. There is a real threat to the delivery of that service to the food industry. Research equipment in universities is in a sorry state, as the CVCP's report shows, and there is the added prospect of an unwanted privatisation being imposed on the Institute of Food Research.
    The Food and Drink Federation accurately summed up the situation when it said in a document:
    "A strong and relevant science and engineering base is essential to the technical development of the UK food and drink industry and hence to its future competitiveness. A programme of 'public good' research is also essential to continue to build consumer confidence in the food supply chain. The food and drink industry devotes substantial resources to R and B but it is not in the nature of short reaction-time industry to be able to sustain the necessary underpinning programme of long-term, multi-disciplinary basic research."
    The detailed document also refers to the technology foresight programme, the research councils and some of the helpful developments that have taken place. It says:
    "Consultation within the food and drink industry reveals, however, a serious concern that the outcome of the current prior options reviews may undo that progress."
    That is a worrying message from a very important trade association.
    What the CVCP report tells us and what the Government are doing through the repeated reviews can be described only as a headlong retreat from publicly funded science, which has already damaged the country and will prove devastating in the long run unless there is a change of direction.

    209
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) graphically highlighted the outrageous approach of the Government to the public sector research establishments. Other Opposition Members have made telling criticisms of the Government, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), for Norwich, South and for that old Labour bastion of Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I hope that, in the time available, the Minister will not duck the issues that they have raised, and he does not usually do that.
    My involvement in this issue goes back to 1988 when the Government made their first attempt to privatise the National Engineering Laboratory in my constituency. At that time, more than 650 people were employed there. The laboratory was recognised as a research establishment of international renown. It had
    "facilities which are unique in this country and, in some respects, in the world, for large-scale mechanical testing of structures and components, earthquake simulation, and … the world's most comprehensive facilities for measuring the flows and pressures of oil, air and water and mixtures of them."—[Official Report, 25 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 1232.]
    In case anyone thinks that that is a local Member of Parliament's hyperbole, those were the words used to describe the laboratory by the then Minister responsible for the Government laboratories in the DTI, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), during a debate on 25 May 1989.
    I do not have time to go into full and sad history of the privatisation of the laboratory, but what happened provides a salutary lesson for every establishment affected by the prior options review. Although the Government were prepared to recognise the uniqueness of the research work undertaken by this national resource, considerable efforts were made to sell it off to a French-owned company, backed by promises of massive state aid. However, the company pulled out of the deal. Within weeks of that decision, the Government appointed the firm of Touche Ross—at a cost calculated to be in excess of £100,000—to carry out a further evaluation of the laboratory.
    Following discussions with the laboratory's private sector customers, the Touche Ross report concluded:
    "Much of the work currently carried out is dependent in whole or in part on the Laboratory being seen to be independent. A number of potential buyers might also be seen as competitors to other potential customers. There is a view in some quarters that it would be inappropriate for national standards to be in the hands of a commercial organisation that might be interested in acquiring knowledge of any equipment being calibrated against primary standards."
    Those are not the words of old Labour, but of Touche Ross—the Government's consultants on the privatisation of the National Engineering Laboratory.
    The Government did not heed that message and announced 200 redundancies. In the run-up to the eventual privatisation of the laboratory, another 200 eminent scientists—some of the best in their field—left the facility. The whole sorry saga led to the resignation of the DTI's chief scientific adviser because of a disagreement with the President of the Board of Trade about the way in which the DTI was forcing privatisation on the laboratory.
    The laboratory was eventually sold in August last year to Assessment Services Ltd., a part of the Siemens group of companies. However, "sold" is undoubtedly the wrong
    210
    expression, as the Minister for Science and Technology described it as being disposed of for "a negative £1.95 million". What does that mean? In effect, we gave that company £1. 95 million of public money to take this national and unique resource off our hands. Similar cash bounties were applied to the disposal of the National Physics Laboratory and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. Clearly, all of us wish the purchasers of those facilities every success in the future—unlike the Government, they have the confidence to invest in the future of those facilities.
    A number of points were made in the debate about the disposal of the national public sector research assets. The Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists has described this as the "mad options approach". That is an accurate description of the way in which the Government are handling the issue.
    The House must consider what benefits will accrue to the nation from such an approach and in what way it will advance the delivery of the nation's science research and development activity. The scientific community and the industries that are dependent on the services provided by the establishments have a clear answer. They find no benefits flowing from the Government's approach and think that the nation's science and research base will suffer as a consequence.
    That view has been expressed right across the scientific community, by directors of national institutes, foreign-based scientists who use the institutes, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Society and a range of other eminent people. Even the Government's supporters in the other place have been known to criticise their actions. Lord Selborne, the Chairman of the Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, has described the prior options review as a "pointless exercise" and said that it was an incompetent way in which to operate.
    Unfortunately, we do not have enough time to debate at length many of the points that must be made. It is sad that a debate on a major issue affecting the country's national science and technology base had to be in Opposition time. There are many warning signals about what the Government are doing to that base. I have touched on only some of them. I hope that the Government will allow a detailed debate in their time on this issue and the wider ones around it.
    There are too many important matters associated with the matter for it to be ignored, swept away and kept in secret as the Government have done with the prior options review on public sector research establishments. We have to find solutions that can enhance our science and technology base and not undermine it in the way that the Government's approach has.
    9.46 pm
    The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): We have had a useful debate. I acknowledge the comment by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) that it was in Opposition time. Some revealing comments were made by Opposition Members, but we share a genuine appreciation of the quality of research being done in the research establishments. I do not think that it would be in any way undermined if the status of the establishments changed.
    We have a science base of which we can be proud. Our universities are performing research of the highest quality, which, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride said,

    211
    is recognised by the inward investors who come to Britain. There are a variety of reasons why they come, but the accessibility of the science base, both in our research establishments and in our universities, is a key factor to which often we do not pay enough credit. I regularly hear suggestions that things are better in Germany. If one talks to German enterprises that want to invest in Britain, one gets a different picture of their views about why they come and about the excellence of our research
    Sir Giles Shaw: On Germany, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies of BSE is that the scientific data have been thrown out by a veterinary committee of scientists in favour of a German view of what is necessary for their marketing endeavour? Does he agree that, although we endorse the quality of British science, any prior options review must protect basic science and the integrity of what is being done and that, if there has to be competition, it must not be at the risk of affecting the present high quality of British scientists?
    Mr. Taylor:I agree with my hon. Friend, who is the distinguished Chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee. The debate in Germany is far removed from scientific principles and is based more on emotion. We must deal with that in direct discussions with our German friends. The way in which Germany is reconsidering its research establishments is important. In discussions with me, the German Science Minister has openly identified the fact that the German Government will have to consider closely the way in which they distribute Government money. A similar process will take place there. Neither of us, however, has any intention of undermining the importance of the science base.
    Because of the shortage of time this evening, I will not have a chance to give credit to all who have made important points during the debate. The subject of Horticulture Research International, however, was raised by several of them—by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who mentioned its location in his constituency. It should be borne in mind that HRI was the subject of a rationalisation some years ago. We need continually to review the requirements of such institutions; they must therefore be continually assessed.
    I hear what has been said, but the review clearly shows that further work on the reorganised status of HRI must take place. That is why Sir Peter Levene's committee is taking a look at the details now. That is in no way intended to undermine the importance of its work or to suggest a diminution of MAFF's interest in it. Of course, like many other Government Departments' programmes, some cuts in its research have had to be made by MAFF; but it still provides about £10 million of contracted research out of a total income of £22 million. So HRI is already used to diversifying the sources of its research, and I am certainly not saying that we should conclude that MAFF's relationship with HRI, should its status change, would necessarily be a consequence of that change. In short, I recognise the importance of HRI and I see no reason why it should not continue.
    The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), a noted botanist herself, made several interesting points. I do not believe that the Royal Society was justified in
    212
    talking about haste. Indeed, there need be no argument between our parties on this subject—let us get on with the review. The Royal Society may, for once, not have been accurate.
    If all the pensions mentioned by the hon. Lady crystallised there would certainly be considerable liabilities, which is why Sir Peter Levene is examining the extent to which that problem can be mitigated. But the figure arrived at by Professor Blundell would not be reached unless they all crystallised at the same time. Nevertheless, it is worth looking into the matter, because flexibility when dealing with research establishments will mean at some point that we will have to recognise any liabilities that may arise.
    I should like to tackle head on another point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge, as I do not want the myth to be perpetuated. She is right to say that about £1 billion was removed by the Government from gross expenditure on research between 1986–87 and 1994–95, but most of that shortfall has come under defence spending. The hon. Lady's party would have cut that spending a great deal more savagely than anything the Government have proposed. Defence research is changing; much more research now spins into defence from the civilian sector, rather than the other way around. Spending on the science base during the period that I mentioned actually increased by £260 million, so the picture is much more positive than the hon. Lady suggested.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), in a trenchant speech making it clear that she is in favour of independent research conducted outside Government circles, was still able briefly to refer to her book "Chickengate", and found time to juxtapose her authorship of it with the word "orgy". Doubtless that will boost sales, perhaps to the point where they rival the sales of books by our hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie). However, I would not go quite as far as my hon. Friend and insist that independent research cannot be undertaken in the Government sector.
    I believe that the debate has been characterised by over-simplification—perhaps because of a desire for brevity. Research is not compromised because it is undertaken by the private sector, nor is it compromised because it is undertaken by the public sector. The research undertaken in both sectors is excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said that we need to have a careful assessment of where research would be best undertaken in every case. In a sense, that is what we are trying to do in the prior options reviews.
    Research is a continuing process: the conditions of research change, the objectives of the research change and research bodies sometimes need to change their relationships with each other. It would be foolish of the Government if they did not say from time to time, "We need to have a structured review right across the sector and we need to look at all the research establishments that are available." I am astonished that Opposition Members, in the new Labour context, are now such devotees of tight financial controls that they do not share my motivation in trying to get the best quality research and value for money for what the Government are trying to do.
    Departments and research councils spend approximately £1.3 billion in civil research establishments, which is one fifth of total Government expenditure on science and technology—it totals about

    213
    £6.2 billion. That is a significant amount, and it is not something for which I want to apologise. I emphasise that we have a considerable interest in ensuring that, when we spend that money, we spend it in the proper way and that the research establishments that provide the research are doing it in the most effective and considered manner. The sponsoring department—swhether they be Government Departments or research councils—also have a vested view, which is why they have been intimately involved in the research that has been carried out.
    Developments in science have obviously influenced our thinking in that regard. We are now moving into genetic, biological and biotechnological research, which needs to be taken into account in the way in which we work with the research establishments and the priority that we give to different areas of research.
    I refute the comments that have been made about the way in which the research establishments—including the National Engineering Laboratory—have been handled. Liabilities are attached to those establishments that crystallise at the point of transfer. The hon. Member for East Kilbride will be glad to hear that the National Engineering Laboratory has increased its employment in his constituency since the transfer to Assessment Services Ltd. The National Physical Laboratory—which is now managed as a Government company by Serco—is increasing the number of its scientists and the range of its work.
    Labour Members have not recognised that the reviews enable us to look more closely at some of the advantages of having the establishments in the private sector or at arm's length from Government. I do not accept that the prior options process means that privatisation will always be the result. One of the councils at which am looking—the Council of the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, which employs 1,800 people—still remains as it was, which is possible under the prior options review.
    We should not underestimate the potential benefits of the prior options review: it frees establishments from the constraints of public sector status, it encourages them to build links with a wider range of customers, it frees them from the constraints of ownership and it gives them greater freedom to commission or to support research from a wider range of suppliers. It does not free the Government from our responsibility to support the best quality science, but it gives us more freedom to determine how best to do it. Those are important objectives and, by themselves, they would justify the reviews that are taking place.
    I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—I will not have the time to mention them all in my reply. I listened to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) make his points. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) mentioned the Institute of Food Research. I have heard all the points that were raised and I shall try to take them into consideration, although I cannot refer to them in my winding-up speech.
    I conclude with a clear observation. Labour's motion refers to the
    "dogma-driven privatisation objectives of the Prior Options Review".
    214
    There is no dogma associated with the prior options review, and the status quo can be a part of it. The dogma is on the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members are so obsessed with their dislike of the private sector that they are not prepared to come to the House and admit that quality science can be conducted in that sector.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 281.

    Division No. 141]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Darling, Alistair

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Ainger, Nick

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

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Allen, Graham

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Alton, David

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

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Denham, John

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dixon, Don

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Dobson, Frank

    Ashton, Joe

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Austin-Walker, John

    Dowd, Jim

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Barnes, Harry

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Barron, Kevin

    Eastham, Ken

    Battle, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Bayley, Hugh

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Bell, Stuart

    Fatchett, Derek

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Fisher, Mark

    Benton, Joe

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Berry, Roger

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Betts, Clive

    Foulkes, George

    Blunkett, David

    Fraser, John

    Boateng, Paul

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bradley, Keith

    Galbraith, Sam

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Galloway, George

    Burden, Richard

    Gapes, Mike

    Caborn, Richard

    Garrett, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    George, Bruce

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Godsiff, Roger

    Canavan, Dennis

    Graham, Thomas

    Cann, Jamie

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Chidgey, David

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Church, Judith

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clapham, Michael

    Hall, Mike

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hardy, Peter

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Harvey, Nick

    Clelland, David

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Henderson, Doug

    Coffey, Ann

    Heppell, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hodge, Margaret

    Corston, Jean

    Hoey, Kate

    Cox, Tom

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Cummings, John

    Home Robertson, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

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

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    215

    Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

    Olner, Bill

    Hoyle, Doug

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Parry, Robert

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pearson, Ian

    Hutton, John

    Pickthall, Colin

    Illsley, Eric

    Pike, Peter L

    Ingram, Adam

    Pope, Greg

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jamieson, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Janner, Greville

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Reid, Dr John

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Rendel, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rogers, Allan

    Keen, Alan

    Rooker, Jeff

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

    Rooney, Terry

    Khabra, Piara S

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lewis, Terry

    Sheerman, Barry

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Litherland, Robert

    Short, Clare

    Livingstone, Ken

    Simpson, Alan

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    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

    McFall, John

    Soley, Clive

    McKelvey, William

    Spearing, Nigel

    McLeish, Henry

    Spellar, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stevenson, George

    MacShane, Denis

    Stott, Roger

    McWilliam, John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Madden, Max

    Straw, Jack

    Mahon, Alice

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mandelson, Peter

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Marek, Dr John

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Timms Stephen

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Tipping,Paddy

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    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)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Milburn, Alan

    Welsh, Andrew

    Miller, Andrew

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Morley, Elliot

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Wilson, Brian

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Winnick, David

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wise, Audrey

    Mudie, George

    Worthington, Tony

    Mullin, Chris

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Murphy, Paul

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Eric Clarke.

    O'Hara, Edward

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Amess, David

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Arbuthnot, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Ashby, David

    216

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Forman, Nigel

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Forth, Eric

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bates, Michael

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bellingham, Henry

    French, Douglas

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gale, Roger

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gallie, Phil

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Boswell, Tim

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowis, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gorst, Sir John

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butcher, John

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Butler, Peter

    Hannam, Sir John

    Butterfill, John

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hawksley, Warren

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hayes, Jerry

    Cash, William

    Heald, Oliver

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Churchill, Mr

    Hendry, Charles

    Clappison, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Colvin, Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Congdon, David

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Couchman, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cran, James

    Jack, Michael

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

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jessel, Toby

    Day, Stephen

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Devlin, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Dicks, Terry

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    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)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Elletson, Harold

    Knox, Sir David

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evennett, David

    Legg, Barry

    Faber, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lidington, David

    217

    Lord, Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Luff, Peter

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sims, Roger

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Madel, Sir David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Soames, Nicholas

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Malone, Gerald

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Mans, Keith

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Marland, Paul

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Marlow, Tony

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sproat, Iain

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mates, Michael

    Stephen, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Stern, Michael

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Stewart, Allan

    Mills, Iain

    Streeter, Gary

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Sumberg, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Sykes, John

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thomason, Roy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Norris, Steve

    Thurnham, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexil'yh'th)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tracey, Richard

    Page, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Paice, James

    Trotter, Neville

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Viggers, Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Pawsey, James

    Walden, George

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Pickles, Eric

    Ward, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Watts, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wells, Bowen

    Rathbone, Tim

    Whitney, Ray

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Whittingdale, John

    Richards, Rod

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Riddick, Graham

    Willetts, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wilshire, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wood, Timothy

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Yeo, Tim

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Sackville, Tom

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to science, engineering and technology, as reaffirmed in the Forward Look 1996 (Command 3257-I); and endorses the programme of prior options reviews of public sector research
    218
    establishments, which aims to secure the best possible quality science and technology for the United Kingdom with the best value for money from the substantial public resources spent on science.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.
    INSIDER DEALING
    That the draft Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) (Amendment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.
    COMPANIES
    That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.

    FINANCIAL SERVICES
    That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Uncertificated Securities) (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1996 (S. I., 1996, No. 1322), dated 16th May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    Question agreed to.

    LOCAL GOVT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, 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.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    Life Sentences
    10.14 pm
    Mr. David Jamieson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the relatives of Jean Crowie, who was murdered by her husband 17 years ago. Her body was buried in the garden of the marital home and not discovered until August 1994. Her family are outraged that her husband, William Crowie—who showed little remorse in court—was sentenced to only five years' imprisonment. The petition reads:
    To the House of Commons. The petition of the people of Plymouth and the South-West declares that in Lincoln Crown Court on 13 October 1995, William Crowie was sentenced to five years' imprisonment after murdering his wife and concealing the body in the back garden of his marital home for 17 years.

    219
    Therefore your petitioners request that the House of Commons pass legislation to provide for mandatory life sentences for those who commit murder. And your petitioners remain as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
    The petition is signed by Rose Hayes and Wendy Jasper, sisters of Jean Crowie; by Malcolm Westmore and Andrew Edwards, the brother and son of Jean Crowie respectively; and by 2,000 other people.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Postcodes (Beddington)
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Nigel Forman: It is my pleasant duty to present a petition signed by Mr. Brian Keenan of 22 Bristow road, Beddington, and a large number of local residents in the Beddington North ward in my constituency and their supporters.
    The petition draws attention to the problem of postcodes in Beddington and the fact that too many of my constituents feel disadvantaged by the way in which the Royal Mail persists in allocating a Croydon postcode when they want a Sutton postcode, reflecting their actual geographical location in the London borough of Sutton. The petition reads:
    To the House of Commons. The petition of the Residents of Beddington North ward within the London Borough of Sutton and their supporters declares that the petitioners wish for their addresses and postcodes to reflect truly the actual geographical location of their residences, in place of those of the neighbouring borough of Croydon, which have been imposed by Royal Mail.
    The petitioners therefore respectfully request the House of Commons to find time to debate and request the Minister of the Crown responsible to arrange for the necessary corrective action to be taken. The petitioners remain hopeful that their wishes will receive the favourable consideration of the House of Commons, for which they will be truly grateful.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Homepower (Closure)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Coe.]
    10.17 pm
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am most grateful for the opportunity to express my concerns and those of some of my hon. Friends about a situation that has led to more than 800 people mainly in Yorkshire, Humberside and the east midlands losing their jobs. Those job losses are a direct consequence of the Government's privatisation of the electricity industry and pose serious questions about the most basic right of employees when redundancies arise.
    I declare my membership of the Unison trade union, which represents many of the people directly affected. From my knowledge of the events leading to those huge job losses, the Unison officers concerned are to be strongly commended for striving long and hard to represent their members' interests in an extremely difficult situation. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Dave Mitchell, the Unison district officer, for the help that he has given some of my constituents.
    My interest in the matter started with concern for the future of the former Yorkshire electricity board showroom in Wood street, Wakefield. That showroom has existed for as long as I can remember, and has, over the years, given excellent customer service to many of my constituents, particularly elderly people and those with low incomes who have traditionally paid their electricity accounts there through regular contributions.
    Following privatisation, the regional electricity companies reviewed their retail operations, and in July 1993 Homepower Retail Ltd. was formed as a joint venture between Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity. Later that year, following a ballot, the Homepower Retail employees accepted substantial reductions in pay, in many instances by £3,500 per annum, and reduced holidays and other conditions, as part of an attempt to reduce the new company's cost base. Despite those changes, the sales performance remained poor; by early 1995, Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity were looking to sell Homepower, and a major shop closure programme was proposed in readiness for the sale, involving 27 of the 59 outlets in Yorkshire and Humberside.
    I raised my concerns about the future of Homepower at a reception held in the House of Commons by Yorkshire Electricity in March last year. A number of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber today were present at that time. I was concerned to be told that evening that the Wakefield showroom was to be included in the closures.
    The following morning, I arranged for my constituency researcher to visit the showroom for a dialogue about how we might support attempts to retain that important facility. The staff there had no knowledge of the closure proposal. I was told subsequently by Yorkshire Electricity that it had made a mistake, and that the Wakefield showroom was to stay open for the time being.
    Two severance packages were offered to those involved in the closure programme at the time. The first was a maximum payment of 18 months' salary to someone with 25 years' service leaving in 10 days. The second,

    221
    a reduced package for those refusing an offer of suitable on-going employment, was seven-and-a-half months' salary for someone with 25 years' service.
    PowerStore, which owns electricity stores in the south of England, bid for Homepower, and a business transfer agreement was made on 21 February 1995. However, the completion and actual transfer of the stores and employees did not take effect until 8 May 1995. Mr. Clive Vlotman, the chairman of the PowerStore group, issued a letter dated 10 March 1995 to the recognised trade unions giving assurances which said:
    "That as a minimum, the overall value of existing terms and conditions will be maintained and indeed, in some areas, more beneficial arrangements will be proposed
    That any member of staff transferring into Powerstore from Homepower Retail, who within the period of 12 months after completion, find themselves in a redundancy situation, receive the same terms as to compensation on termination of employment (except for those relating to occupational pensions) as those offered to redundant employees as a consequence of the business transfer "
    Staff transferring to the new employer received a payment of £1,300 in recognition of loss of benefits such as pension and share save entitlements. I understand that the purchase price for the business was only £2, and that an agreement was reached between the vendors and the purchasers to the effect that, if the number of employees to be transferred increased, Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity would reduce the purchase price of the stock by between£1,000 and £7,500 per employee, depending upon the category of the employee.
    In correspondence with me, the chief executive of Yorkshire Electricity confirmed that his company and East Midlands Electricity
    "did many things to give PowerStore a good start."
    One of Yorkshire Electricity's senior managers, in a telephone conversation with me on 20 May, denied that his company's actions in this respect were motivated by a wish to avoid severance costs in respect of Homepower employees. Those directly affected seriously question that point.
    As the Minister will be aware, Homepower went into administration on 29 April. He may have some knowledge of the circumstances from the contents of Mr. Clive Vlotman's affidavit and the report prepared by Arthur Andersen, the administrator. On 29 April, the trade unions were advised that redundancies could result, and that it might not be possible fully to comply with the consultation requirements in legislation.
    On 1 May, the trade unions had the first formal meeting with the administrators, with Unison stating that it considered the 29 April letter to be a declaration of redundancy, with the consequence that Clive Vlotman's guarantee of severance payments in the letter of 10 March 1995 must apply. At that stage, the administrators said that, while redundancies were likely, no definite decision had been made—although temporary and agency employees had already been removed from head office.
    The administrators would make no redundancy payments, and claims were to be against the Department for Education and Employment redundancy fund. Confirmation was given that, if another electrical retailer bought the business in whole or in part, transfer of undertakings legislation would be likely to apply.
    222
    On 3 May, the administrators advised by telephone that they intended to make 17 individuals redundant later that day. They withdrew the proposal after a threat from the trade unions to seek a court injunction. I am told that, at a meeting with the trade unions six days later, the administrators refused to produce information on prospective purchasers, detailed proposals on redundancies or information concerning selection criteria and the method of implementation. Health and safety concerns were raised at that meeting, because employees in shops had been threatened with violence by customers who had been refused either refunds or access to previously purchased goods, on the instructions of the administrators.
    On 13 May, the administrators stated that 31 stores were to be closed, with about 250 job losses and a further 20 to 25 job losses at the head office at Normanton near Wakefield. Employees were sent home immediately, and selection appears to have been based on who was in the shops at the time.
    Later—I believe on 20 May—the logistics department and all drivers were made redundant. The drivers received a letter calling them to a meeting at Normanton. They were told to bring their vehicles for inspection. Once they had all gathered at the meeting, their keys were collected and they were told that they were dismissed and should go home. Only after a protest were they given their bus fares.
    On 30 May, the administrators advised of an additional round of closures, again without prior consultation or notification, with a further 295 retailing jobs to go. That meant that trading was taking place in only 20 of the 85 shops originally taken into administration. By that point, only 56 employees remained at head office and 154 at the remaining 20 shops.
    As a consequence of the shop closures, an associated company—Powerdirect Receipting, which collects electricity accounts through its shops—had to advise its work force of 203 that their employment was being terminated, by reason of redundancy, with effect from 31 May. By that date, more than 800 people had lost their jobs as a result of the company being in administration, the vast majority of whom had no advance notification—merely being turned away from work or being told not to turn up the following day.
    A number of my Wakefield constituents have been directly affected, not only by the shabby way in which their employment was terminated, but by the financial implications.
    My constituent Mrs. Wendy Gosnay, of Thornes, Wakefield, worked for Yorkshire Electricity and its successor companies for eight years, including two on a youth training scheme. Her employment at the Castleford store ended on 17 May. She expects a baby at the end of August and will lose maternity benefits as a direct result of this affair. She has been advised that she is owed nearly —8,500 in redundancy payments.
    My constituent Mrs. Beverley Finnerty, of Alverthorpe road, Wakefield, lost her job at the Dewsbury shop on 31 May. She wrote to me on that day and said:
    "I am one of these poor unfortunates who worked for Yorkshire Electricity for 12 years, only to be sold like a piece of meat to a company owned by Clive Vlotman … along with my colleagues, I viewed this sell-out with some trepidation but I was assured by my Counsellors (one of who was employed by Yorkshire Electricity), that should the new venture fail within twelve months, we would be

    223
    entitled to the same redundancy package as staff not required by the new company in May 1995…suffice it to say that Yorkshire Electricity now denies all knowledge of their promise…to add insult to injury, the administrator, Arthur Andersen, has treated the workforce with the sensitivity of a military junta, laying people off as they come in to work, denying holiday entitlements etc.
    "To our tired and dispirited little workforce, it seems that everyone has washed their hands of us and this is the second time in a year that this has happened."
    Mrs. Finnerty has lost more than £13,000 in redundancy payments.
    Other staff who were counselled by Yorkshire Electricity before the transfer described the way in which certain counsellors employed by the company left the room to check with the main business before returning to confirm that the severance guarantee was underwritten by Yorkshire Electricity and by East Midlands Electricity.
    The staff I have spoken to are firmly of the opinion that those companies—the original owners—bear a very clear responsibility for the situation that their former employees now find themselves in. They firmly believe that the disposal of the company to Mr. Vlotman was undoubtedly a means by which to avoid what would otherwise have been substantial severance costs.
    The point has also been made that Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity should have ensured that Homepower was being sold to a reputable business man with the ability to safeguard the business and its employees. The business's failure within 12 months clearly suggests that that was not the case.
    In my view—I reflect the views of those who have lost their jobs—although Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity may be able to avoid a legal responsibility for the redundancy costs, they have a very clear moral responsibility for what has happened to their former employees.
    The Government brought about the privatisation of this industry, and they, too, have a responsibility to ensure that those companies properly compensate their employees for what has happened. At the very least, the companies should bridge the gap between the statutory redundancy paid by the state and the enhanced severance that would be due if the company had closed in May 1995.
    The Government also have a responsibility to ensure that laws on redundancy procedures are followed to the letter in relation to advanced warnings and consultation. They should ensure that administrators do not see themselves as above the law, and that they concern themselves with employment rights as well as with creditors' interests.
    There is a fear that, following the likely closure of all the stores, a management buy-out or external purchaser may then reopen a part of the business and recruit new staff in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
    I end with my concerns about the impact of this affair on consumers. Yorkshire Electricity has told me that customers can now pay bills at post offices. They cannot, however, query bills at post offices, or seek advice there on issues related to their electricity consumption. That facility is no longer available to those—particularly elderly people——who prefer and need face-to-face contact. I have been told of a queue of elderly people forming
    224
    outside one of the PowerStore shops in Huddersfield the day after it had closed. The people involved had no idea how to make alternative arrangements.
    It has also not gone unnoticed that, immediately before the Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity sale to PowerStore, the company had actively encouraged customers to buy through credit arrangements. Many customers took on such commitments and made their repayments to credit companies through the shops on a weekly or monthly basis. This is no longer possible, and may well result in serious difficulties for many consumers.
    I believe that the Government have a direct responsibility for all the problems I have identified. I hope that the Minister will face up to that responsibility and make it clear how the Government intend to deal with the various issues to which I have referred.
    10.35 pm
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): It is conventional on these occasions for the Minister to congratulate the hon. Member who has secured the Adjournment debate, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) wishes me to use that idiom, because he has raised an issue that is clearly of concern in his constituency and others. Indeed, it is an important matter that raises the question of the proper protection of employees on the transfer of their employer and in the unfortunate case of their employer becoming insolvent.
    The hon. Gentleman will understand that I was not privy to any of the arrangements and do not know where the residual liabilities lie, but there are courts and tribunals that can test those matters, and, if it is alleged that there has been behaviour of an even more serious nature, complaints can be made to the appropriate prosecuting authority.
    The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to the fact that, in his view—I am sure that he expressed it in good faith and that he speaks for others, too—the administrator did not comply with the redundancy consultation legislation. I should like to reply to him right away on that point on the record, because the questions that he raises are matters on which legislation provides for a complaint to be made by a recognised trade union or other representative—they do not necessarily have to be trade unions—to an industrial tribunal, which may award compensation. I ask the hon. Gentleman to examine that possibility with those whose advice he values. It is not for me to comment on the administrator's actions. If a complaint is made, it will be for a tribunal to determine whether there has been any breach of the law.
    It is always unfortunate when an employer becomes insolvent. Employees, of course, may be particularly vulnerable in such circumstances. Our law has long recognised that, and provided particular safeguards. I shall return to that issue later. Before then, and in view of the time constraints on Adjournment debates, I must ask the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of a conversation that we had before the debate began, that if there are any points which, through a lack of time—not an absence of willingness—I do not manage to get around to, please to mention them again to me, preferably in writing, and I shall ensure that they are all properly looked into.
    I understand that Homepower Retail Ltd. was a loss-making retail joint venture. It was owned by Yorkshire Electricity Group plc and East Midlands

    225
    Electricity plc. The company was acquired on 8 May 1995 by Homepower Stores Ltd., which is part of a larger group of companies headed by PowerStore Holdings Ltd.
    The hon. Gentleman outlined a litany of events. I can show him the timetable of events as I understand them, and send him a written version rather than take more of the time available tonight. I dare say that we agree on some of the core facts anyway, so a second recitation of them by me will not help the hon. Gentleman or his constituents.
    At the end of May, the administrators concluded that, because the industry had expressed no interest in taking on a major electrical retailer, a sale as a going concern would not be possible. Job losses on the scale that followed are always to be regretted. I am sure that we all hope that those people who have been made redundant are able to find suitable new employment quickly.
    The Government have long recognised that, when a business is sold over the heads of employees, special protection may be required to ensure that their interests are protected. Such protection is provided by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—commonly known as the TUPE regulations.
    Those regulations provide, among other things, for employees' contracts to be transferred to their new employment; for the dismissal of employees in connection with a transfer to be automatically unfair unless it is for a genuine economic, technical or organisational reason—for example, genuine redundancy that would have occurred irrespective of the transfer of the business; and for representatives of the employees to be informed and consulted about any measures to be taken in connection with the transfer. That was quite a central point of the hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction.
    The regulations provide a detailed package of measures aimed at providing protection for employees in such circumstances. It is not for me, however, to say when the regulations apply in specific cases; that is a matter for the courts and tribunals, but the proper statutory framework exists. In respect of the acquisition of Homepower, I understand that the arrangements for staff who transferred were discussed and agreed with the trade unions concerned.
    I also understand that, in addition to any statutory rights that the employees had on the acquisition of Homepower Retail, employees who transferred to the new company were given a guarantee that they would receive an enhanced redundancy payment if they were made redundant within 12 months of the transfer.
    I believe that there is some dispute about who is responsible for that commitment—whether it is Homepower Stores Ltd., which is now unable to meet it because it has become insolvent, or Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity. I believe that the two electricity companies and the administrator are all strongly of the view that it was an undertaking given by the purchaser of the business.
    Whatever the facts of the matter—it would not be right for me to comment further, as it was a purely commercial transaction in which the Government were not involved in any way—I fully appreciate the distress and worry felt by the employees concerned. Therefore, it may be helpful if I explain the assistance that my Department can give in such circumstances.
    226
    When an employer is insolvent, any employee who is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment may apply for payment from the national insurance fund. Payment is usually made within about six weeks and often, in a straightforward case, more quickly. I am aware that we have already received some claims from former employees of Homepower, and I can assure the House that we will make payments as quickly as possible. Indeed, I hope that the first payments will be authorised this week.
    My Department can offer help with other debts owed to the former employees. There is a guarantee covering any arrears of wages, holiday and notice pay due to them and we are also able to make contributions into the resources of a pension scheme in respect of unpaid contributions due from the employer.
    Unfortunately, at this stage, I am not clear what payments may be due to the employees, but I note from the hon. Gentleman's comments tonight and his early-day motion 916 that, for example, there may be an issue concerning deductions from the employees' pay in respect of union contributions that have not been paid over. We may be able to reimburse the employees, as it would count as arrears of pay.
    It has been suggested that the remaining solvent companies in the PowerStore group should take responsibility for the guarantees given to the Homepower employees at the time of its acquisition. It is, of course, not unknown for a parent company to support an ailing subsidiary and, at first thought, it is rather tempting to suggest that this might be underpinned by some statutory mechanism. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that the net result could be to pull down other companies in a group.
    It is not unusual to have a group of companies, some of which at any particular time are flourishing, and some of which are not. If one limited company were forced to underwrite the actions of another, the effect might simply be to damage the interests of employees in the profitable parts of the group, raising questions as to why the interests of employees and others associated with those parts of the group should suffer through the actions of another company. I respectfully say that that would not make sense.
    The hon. Member for Wakefield called for the establishment of an urgent inquiry into the affair. I understand that it is tempting, each time we see a situation with which we do not agree, to call for a Government inquiry. I must inform the hon. Gentleman, however, that, while the Secretary of State has powers of inquiry under the provisions of the Companies Acts 1985 and 1989, those powers may be exercised only when there is good reason to suspect fraud, misfeasance or misconduct in relation to the affairs of a limited company.
    It may be part of the hon. Gentleman's allegation that such things exist. If so, I shall not, of course, stand in the way of his advancing the giving of information and the laying of due process. The powers are not intended as a substitute for, or in any way to be supportive of, the usual civil remedies available to creditors, including employees or former employees who are in dispute about their contractual entitlements.
    To return to the main thrust of the debate, I think that there is substantial agreement between us that there is a need for proper protection for employees whose employer

    227
    is sold over their heads or who may be affected by corporate insolvency. We believe that we have established the proper framework through which such rights and protections may be exercised. It is a matter for the courts and tribunals to determine whether there has been any breach of the law. That is not a matter for the Government. In my experience, trade unions—the hon. Member for Wakefield has said that he is associated with one—have skills and knowledge in the general area, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be consulting them further.
    228
    I hope that hon. Member for Wakefield will take some comfort from the assistance that is available to former employees of Homepower. I am sure that, with the progressive and sustained improvement that we have seen in the economy, many of them will soon be back in suitable employment, but it is not for me to palliate, mitigate or in any way deny the sheer misery of losing one's job, especially in such circumstances.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many probation officers were on secondment working in prisons on 1 April in each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement; [30348]

  (2) how many probation officers he estimates will be working on secondment in prisons on 1 April in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, and (c) 1999. [30347]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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. Alex Carlile, dated 11 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the numbers of probation officers working in prisons on secondment.

  The requested information is given in the following table. Figures for 1989–1995 are for 31 March. The figures (rounded to the nearest whole number) are for whole-time equivalent seconded probation staff.

  Number

  31 March 1989

  530

  31 March 1990

  543

  31 March 1991

  550

  31 March 1992

  594

  31 March 1993

  625

  31 March 1994

  621

  31 March 1995

  646

  1 April 1996

  596

  1 April 1997 (Estimated)

  541

  1 April 1998 (Estimated)

  528

  1 April 1999 (Estimated)

  509

  The Prison Service remains committed to its partnership with the Probation Service to deliver the custodial and non-custodial parts of a prisoner's sentence effectively. Governors are responsible for ensuring that prisons deliver the right services to the right levels; they are in the best position to judge whether staff in the prison are providing value for money.

  Understandably, governors have difficulty forecasting their requirements for seconded probation staff for 1998 and beyond, because it is too early to tell what their budgets will be, and because staffing levels need to be flexible, to meet changing requirements. They have been asked to adhere to the principles of the National Throughcare Framework—signed by the Prison and Probation Services—in determining the number of seconded probation staff needed to deliver ex-offenders adequately prepared for post-release supervision.
  62

  Prison Escapes
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have escaped from escorts in each of the last three years; and what steps he is taking to reduce this number. [31063]

  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 Ms Janet Anderson, dated 11 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about escapes from escort in the last 3 years and about steps being taken to reduce this number.

  The table below shows the requested information.

  Escapes from escort (financial years)

  Year

  Escapes from escort

  1993–94

  1125

  1994–95

  166

  1995–96

  170

  1 These figures include escapes from contractor's escorts which were previously the responsibility of the police. There were 23 such escapes in 1993–94; 15 in 1994–95; and 34 in 1995–96.

  The prevention of escapes from escort is one of nine key performance indicators which are set out in the recently published Prison Service Corporate Plan, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The Corporate Plan outlines a reduction in escapes from escort as one of six strategic aims for 1996–1999.

  Steps being taken to reduce the number of escapes from escort include: the publishing of figures for all escapes, including escapes from escort, in the Service's monthly security briefing - this highlights any recurring problems; investigating escapes and passing, where appropriate, the findings to prisons and escort contractors; poster and other campaigns to prioritise security to staff; and the issuing of pocket handbooks on security in prisons and in escorting.

  A revised security manual is being compiled and will be trialled this year for issue early in 1997.

  Civil Defence Grant
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each local authority in Wales the total expenditure in 1996–97 approved as eligible for civil defence grant aid. [31086]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is as follows:

  Authority

  Grant approval £

  Flintshire

  70,000

  Wrexham

  70,000

  Denbighshire

  70,000

  Powys

  179,655

  Newport

  224,000

  Blaneau Gwent

  1—

  Caerphilly

  1—

  Monmouth

  1—

  Torfaen

  1—

  Isle of Anglesey

  100,000

  Conwy

  62,000

  County of Gwynedd

  62,000

  1 Newport acting as host authority.

  63
  I will write to the hon. Member about the other 10 authorities when the figures become available at the end of June.

  Rehabilitation of Offenders Legislation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those offences which people are not required to declare under rehabilitation of offenders legislation; [31605]

  (2) what plans he has to review the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. [31604]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 provides that convictions are deemed to be "spent" after varying periods of time. Spent convictions do not have to be declared other than in certain specified circumstances. The key determinant of when an offence becomes spent is the length of the sentence passed in each case, not the offence itself. Sentences of more than two and a half years imprisonment never become spent.

  We have no plans to review the Act itself. However, we are reviewing the scope and scale of the exceptions to the Act as part of a wider review of employment vetting arrangements. A revised list will be published shortly as part of a White Paper setting out our proposals.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the number of items that have been(a) smuggled into and (b) thrown over the fence of Doncaster prison since it was opened; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of total smuggling caused by items being (i) brought in and (ii) thrown over the prison fence; [31496]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the training given to prison officers at Doncaster prison in suicide awareness; and if he will list the dates when this training has been reviewed; [31440]

  (3) how many hours of education and training were available to prisoners and those on remand at Doncaster prison during the last 12 months; how many hours were used by inmates; and if he will make a statement. [31485]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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. Martin Redmond, dated 11 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about education and training; training in suicide awareness; and estimates of smuggling at Doncaster prison.

  Over the last 12 months, 179,419 hours of education and training were made available to prisoners at Doncaster prison, including those on remand, of which 127,623 hours were used by prisoners.

  Every prison custody officer at Doncaster prison receives a minimum of four hours suicide awareness training before they take up post. This is supplemented with a minimum of four further training sessions as part of the annual training plan in the prison. The suicide awareness training is reviewed monthly by the establishment's suicide awareness management group.
  64
  It is not possible to estimate the number of items that have either been smuggled into or thrown over the wall at Doncaster prison. A total of 87 visitors have been arrested for attempting to smuggle either money or drugs into the prison and nearly 500 prisoners have been charged for possession of drugs.

  Any contraband found in Doncaster will have been smuggled in as it is not possible to throw items over the wall. This is because the prison operates a system of enclosed secure walkways and prisoners do not have access to areas next to the wall. The wall is also continually monitored internally and externally by closed circuit television.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rehabilitation courses are currently held at Doncaster prison; how many applications have been made to attend these classes; what has been the number of places available in each month since the opening of the prison; and if he will make a statement. [31564]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter have 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. Martin Redmond, dated 11 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about rehabilitation courses at Doncaster prison.

  Doncaster prison runs a selection of rehabilitation courses which are available to all prisoners there. They are provided over a two to three month period to meet the changing needs of prisoners. There is a major emphasis on cognitive thinking skills as a generic programme which is appropriate for all prisoners.

  Doncaster prison runs courses on alcohol misuse, drug rehabilitation, anger management, relationships, lifer groups, social skills, life skills (personal development) and parenting. There are also pre-release/employment courses, presentation workshops and gamblers anonymous and alcoholics anonymous courses. Probation staff also advise prisoners about employment, housing, training and unemployment benefits.

  In May 1996 there were 267 applications for rehabilitation courses at Doncaster prison. Between January 1995 and May 1996, 1910 prisoners applied for and have received individual guidance interviews concerning employment, education, training, housing and state benefits.

  The numbers of places available for rehabilitation courses since the prison has opened are shown in the attached table.

  Numbers of places available on rehabilitation courses at Doncaster prison since the prison opened

  1994

  1995

  1996

  January

  —

  81

  228

  February

  —

  69

  284

  March

  —

  89

  314

  April

  —

  115

  326

  May

  —

  185

  324

  June

  37

  132

  —

  July

  57

  147

  —

  August

  49

  156

  —

  September

  85

  225

  —

  October

  37

  165

  —

  November

  37

  305

  —

  December

  49

  230

  —

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to making Doncaster prison a mixed prison; and if he will make a statement. [31563]
  65
  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. Martin Redmond, dated 11 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about consideration being given to making Doncaster a mixed prison.

  Although Doncaster holds both adult and young offenders, there are no plans to change it to a mixed-sex prison.

  Ethnic Minority Employees
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those serving in(a) the police forces and (b) the Prison Service, are from ethnic minority groups. [32188]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest figures available show that the percentage of members from ethnic minority groups serving in police forces in England and Wales was 1.75 per cent. as at September 1995, and 2.96 per cent. in the Prison Service as at December 1995.

  Euro 96
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the extra cost of policing the Euro 96 competition in respect of visitors(a) during transit and (b) during their stay in the United Kingdom. [32257]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that the cost of policing for the European football championships could be around £5.5 million.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prison officers were required to work a double shift at Buckley Hall prison on 29 April; and what were the reasons for the requirement; [31921]

  (2) how many prison officers were transferred from Wolds prison to Buckley Hall prison in April; what was the total number of shifts carried out by the transferred staff; and if Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons was

  Re-conviction rates within one and two years of discharge from prison or of commencement of probation or community service orders in 1992. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to change1

  Discharged from custody

  Commencing probation or community service

  Police authority

  Number sampled

  1 year percentage re-convicted

  2 year percentage re-convicted

  Number sampled

  1 year percentage re-convicted

  2 year percentage re-convicted

  Avon and Somerset

  338

  47(7)

  65(7)

  360

  44(6)

  56(6)

  Bedfordshire

  197

  31(9)

  44(9)

  111

  37(11)

  52(11)

  Cambridgeshire

  191

  40(9)

  52(9)

  129

  50(11)

  61(11)

  Cheshire

  351

  43(7)

  55(7)

  206

  49(7)

  57(7)

  Cleveland

  253

  41(8)

  62(8)

  236

  46(8)

  61(8)

  Cumbria

  172

  48(10)

  64(9)

  178

  51(9)

  64(9)

  Derbyshire

  325

  34(7)

  49(7)

  189

  44(8)

  53(8)

  Devon and Cornwall

  354

  40(7)

  54(6)

  335

  41(7)

  57(7)

  Dorset

  136

  34(11)

  46(11)

  150

  40(10)

  49(10)

  Durham

  205

  44(9)

  55(9)

  185

  39(9)

  53(9)

  Essex

  427

  27(6)

  47(6)

  253

  46(7)

  59(7)

  Gloucestershire

  106

  46(12)

  59(13)

  190

  44(9)

  58(9)

  66
  informed of temporary prison officers working at Buckley Hall prison when it visited the prison following the escape of four prisoners on 23 April. [31922]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 11 June 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the doubling of prison custody officer shifts at Buckley Hall prison on 29 April 1996 and about the use of detached duty staff at Buckley Hall prison.

  On 29 April one member of staff was asked to work a double shift and one member of staff was asked to extend his shift, both for operational reasons.

  Four members of staff from the Wolds prison performed detached duty at Buckley Hall prison in April. They were deployed to support their colleagues at Buckley Hall prison and to gain experience in a different work environment. Each member of staff worked a total of five shifts each; these shifts were worked on a supernumerary basis.

  Although an inquiry was commissioned into the escape of four prisoners on 23 April 1996, there was a no visit by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons at this time.

  Re-convictions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest re-conviction rates in the(a) one year and (b) two years following (i) release from custody and (ii) completion of community supervision for each police authority in England and Wales; if he will indicate the methodology used and the associated research; and if he will make a statement. [31387]

  Miss Widdecombe
  With respect to (i), the most recent available information relates to a sample of sentenced prisoners discharged from custody during 1992. The table additionally contains re-conviction rates within one and two years of commencement of probation or community service based on a sample of offenders commencing orders in 1992.

  Differences between re-conviction rates cannot simply be taken to show that one disposal is better than another. For example, the type of offenders will vary between disposals and there are other important factors discussed later in my answer.
  67

  Re-conviction rates within one and two years of discharge from prison or of commencement of probation or community service orders in 1992. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to change1

  Discharged from custody

  Commencing probation or community service

  Police authority

  Number sampled

  1 year percentage re-convicted

  2 year percentage re-convicted

  Number sampled

  1 year percentage re-convicted

  2 year percentage re-convicted

  Greater Manchester

  1,313

  45(4)

  59(4)

  928

  49(4)

  65(4)

  Hampshire

  425

  39(6)

  52(6)

  369

  45(6)

  56(6)

  Hertfordshire

  236

  34(8)

  44(8)

  158

  40(9)

  52(9)

  Humberside

  383

  33(6)

  52(6)

  268

  41(7)

  61(7)

  Kent

  420

  33(6)

  49(6)

  296

  39(7)

  55(7)

  Lancashire

  555

  42(5)

  60(5)

  403

  42(6)

  59(6)

  Leicestershire

  348

  37(7)

  54(7)

  174

  41(8)

  57(9)

  Lincolnshire

  125

  40(11)

  52(11)

  157

  47(9)

  59(9)

  London City of2

  51

  16(15)

  20(15)

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  641

  44(5)

  60(5)

  427

  54(5)

  68(5)

  Metropolitan

  4,256

  25(2)

  39(2)

  1,310

  33(3)

  47(3)

  Norfolk

  220

  42(9)

  51(9)

  146

  42(10)

  55(10)

  Northamptonshire

  210

  42(9)

  65(9)

  124

  47(10)

  54(10)

  Northumbria

  597

  42(5)

  59(5)

  382

  42(6)

  57(6)

  North Yorkshire

  182

  42(10)

  63(9)

  169

  50(9)

  63(9)

  Nottinghamshire

  516

  34(6)

  48(6)

  197

  42(7)

  54(7)

  South Yorkshire

  469

  34(6)

  55(6)

  358

  44(6)

  59(6)

  Staffordshire

  341

  38(7)

  58(7)

  286

  36(7)

  53(7)

  Suffolk

  190

  31(9)

  49(9)

  130

  40(10)

  54(10)

  Surrey

  148

  30(10)

  39(10)

  157

  39(9)

  58(9)

  Sussex

  473

  31(6)

  43(6)

  268

  48(7)

  61(7)

  Thames Valley

  434

  31(6)

  45(6)

  385

  43(6)

  57(6)

  Warwickshire

  154

  40(10)

  53(10)

  84

  40(11)

  53(12)

  West Mercia

  282

  34(7)

  51(8)

  225

  40(8)

  53(8)

  West Midlands

  1,466

  36(3)

  51(3)

  829

  43(4)

  56(4)

  West Yorkshire

  903

  38(4)

  55(4)

  740

  44(4)

  56(4)

  Wiltshire

  108

  40(13)

  48(12)

  167

  43(10)

  61(9)

  Dyfed Powys

  95

  33(11)

  45(13)

  114

  47(11)

  57(11)

  Gwent

  165

  33(9)

  56(10)

  151

  43(10)

  56(10)

  North Wales

  209

  37(8)

  56(9)

  114

  41(10)

  55(11)

  South Wales

  535

  43(5)

  61(5)

  536

  50(6)

  62(5)

  England and Wales

  19,509

  36(1)

  51(1)

  12,591

  43(1)

  57(1)

  1 This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent. confidence interval, ie. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. For example, the two-year rate for custody in Avon and Somerset is 60 per cent. and the 95 per cent. confidence interval has upper and lower bounds of 72 and 58 per cent. respectively.

  2 Figures are not provided for the City of London police for the probation and community service sample because rates would be based on only 13 offenders.

  The methodology used to produce the rates for custody is described in the "Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1994", Cm. 3087; a similar methodology was used to produce the rates for community supervision, described in "Probation Statistics, England and Wales, 1994". Some categories of offender were sampled more intensively than others to obtain better estimates for sub-groups.

  The Police Authority was identified by reference to records relating to the last conviction for a standard list offence prior to release from prison or commencement of an order; usually this is the conviction that gives rise to the custodial sentence or the community supervision.

  The samples for analysis were drawn with the purpose of producing results at the England and Wales level. Reconviction rates at the local level need to be interpreted with some caution as the size of the samples can be relatively small. For this reason, information on the numbers of offenders on which rates are based is included in the table, as well as information on the likely range of chance variation for estimates.
  68
  It should also be noted that comparisons between reconviction rates are affected by differences in the age, sex, previous convictions and other characteristics of offenders receiving the sentences, as described in detail in Home Office research study No. 136, "Explaining reconviction rates; a critical analysis".

  This study mainly discusses reconviction rates within two years of release from prison or commencement of an order. A two year follow-up period is more usual than a one year follow-up as a significant number of offenders are usually reconvicted in the period between the one and two year points.

  It should be noted that an ex-prisoner discharged from prison is less likely to be convicted of offences committed before the release date—such offences could be dealt with while an offender is in prison—than an offender commencing community supervision would be in respect of offences committed before the commencement date for his or her order. Results in the study indicate that removing such offences from consideration is likely to decrease reconviction rates within two years of commencement of an order relative to those for immediate custody by about 4 percentage points.
  69
  Factors such as police clear-up rates are likely to be related to regional variations in reconviction rates. It is also known that the recording of convictions by the Metropolitan police between 1987 and 1992 was not complete and this will have had some effect on the results. This is discussed in appendix 2 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1994", Cm 3010.

  With respect to (ii) the most recently available information relates to a sample of offenders commencing probation or community service during 1987.

  Re-conviction rates within one and two years of completion of probation or community service based on a sample of offenders commencing orders in 1987. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely vary according to chance1

  Excluding reconvictions on termination date

  Including re-convictions on termination date

  Police authority

  Number sampled

  1 year percentage reconvicted

  2 year percentage reconvicted

  1 year percentage reconvicted

  2 year percentage reconvicted

  Avon and Somerset

  469

  32(6)

  48(6)

  43(6)

  54(6)

  Bedfordshire

  115

  25(10)

  44(12)

  33(11)

  50(12)

  Cambridgeshire

  228

  20(8)

  41(10)

  39(10)

  49(10)

  Cheshire

  173

  30(8)

  45(8)

  40(8)

  50(9)

  Cleveland

  155

  34(9)

  55(9)

  51(9)

  62(9)

  Cumbria

  182

  48(10)

  61(10)

  53(10)

  64(10)

  Derbyshire

  128

  32(8)

  45(9)

  43(9)

  51(9)

  Devon and Cornwall

  266

  33(7)

  51(8)

  46(8)

  58(7)

  Dorset

  155

  29(10)

  48(10)

  39(10)

  53(10)

  Durham

  153

  27(9)

  42(10)

  36(9)

  47(10)

  Essex

  253

  34(8)

  43(8)

  36(8)

  44(8)

  Gloucestershire

  172

  28(9)

  54(11)

  43(11)

  60(11)

  Greater Manchester

  980

  35(4)

  50(4)

  43(4)

  54(4)

  Hampshire

  398

  24(5)

  40(6)

  33(6)

  47(6)

  Hertfordshire

  203

  23(8)

  35(9)

  31(9)

  40(9)

  Humberside

  183

  33(8)

  45(9)

  45(9)

  53(9)

  Kent

  253

  26(6)

  40(7)

  35(7)

  45(7)

  Lancashire

  514

  33(6)

  51(6)

  44(6)

  57(6)

  Leicestershire

  96

  29(10)

  46(11)

  38(11)

  51(11)

  Lincolnshire

  92

  47(11)

  60(11)

  56(11)

  65(10)

  London City of2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  447

  35(6)

  50(6)

  45(6)

  54(6)

  Metropolitan

  1,069

  25(3)

  36(3)

  30(3)

  40(3)

  Norfolk

  117

  45(11)

  64(11)

  55(11)

  70(10)

  Northamptonshire

  140

  38(11)

  52(11)

  52(11)

  60(11)

  Northumbria

  305

  31(6)

  44(6)

  37(6)

  48(7)

  North Yorkshire

  129

  35(10)

  45(10)

  43(10)

  50(10)

  Nottinghamshire

  153

  29(7)

  45(8)

  40(8)

  53(8)

  South Yorkshire

  397

  32(5)

  48(6)

  43(6)

  54(6)

  Staffordshire

  190

  28(7)

  48(8)

  38(8)

  53(8)

  Suffolk

  95

  35(11)

  52(11)

  48(12)

  60(11)

  Surrey

  169

  28(10)

  39(11)

  29(10)

  40(11)

  Sussex

  336

  22(6)

  37(7)

  31(7)

  42(7)

  Thames Valley

  323

  24(5)

  36(6)

  34(6)

  43(6)

  Warwickshire

  70

  32(12)

  47(13)

  37(12)

  51(12)

  West Mercia

  165

  37(8)

  50(8)

  45(8)

  56(8)

  West Midlands

  497

  25(5)

  42(5)

  39(5)

  49(5)

  West Yorkshire

  544

  26(4)

  41(5)

  36(5)

  47(5)

  Wiltshire

  108

  26(10)

  47(11)

  33(11)

  52(12)

  Dyfed Powys

  98

  28(13)

  42(14

  32(13)

  45(14)

  Gwent

  69

  40(12)

  58(12)

  45(12)

  61(12)

  North Wales

  93

  37(10)

  60(10)

  43(11)

  62(10)

  South Wales

  383

  35(6)

  54(7)

  45(7)

  59(7)

  England and Wales

  11,083

  30(1)

  45(1)

  39(1)

  50(1)

  1 This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent. confidence interval, ie., the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions.

  2 Figures are not provided for the City of London police because rates would be based on only 15 offenders.

  70
  Reconviction rates that are usually quoted relate to reconviction within a set period following commencement of an order. Completion of an order does not necessarily imply completion without reoffending and a proportion of those completing orders will be reconvicted on the date of termination. For this reason, the following table quotes rates that both include and exclude reconvictions on the termination date. The overall reconviction rate within two years of completion is 45 per cent. if one excludes reconvictions on the termination date, but rises to 40 per cent. when they are included.
  71

TREASURY

  Smuggling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs and Excise anti-drug smuggling officers there were in(a) the west midlands and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1990; and what plans he has to decrease the number during (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [31096]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Anti-smuggling officers are not confined to the detection of drugs. It would not be in the public interest to reveal the number of officers deployed in the west midlands.

  As some anti-smuggling activity is performed on overtime and some is performed by multi-functional staff, resources are recorded in staff years rather than numbers of posts.

  The number of staff years allocated each year since 1990–91 was as follows:

  1990–91: 3,630

  1991–92: 3,558

  1992–93: 3,420

  1993–94: 3,100

  1994–95: 3,347

  1995–96: 3,170.

  There are no plans to decrease the number of officers in 1996–97.

  The 1994 Customs fundamental expenditure review of prohibitions and restrictions recommended that staff reductions could be made, subject to enhanced targeting, and 292 posts were withdrawn in 1995–96, including 50 diverted into additional intelligence activity. The effects of this reduction are being carefully monitored in 1996–97 before a decision is taken as to whether further reduction of 300 or some lesser amount should take place in 1997–98.

  Departmental Software
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's involvement in the development of a software package to allow PAYE/NICS/VAT/CSO requirements to be integrated; and when he expects this to be possible. [31902]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: The Inland Revenue, Contributions Agency and Customs and Excise have a number of projects under way as part of their joint working programmes, as indicated in the reply of 21 May, Official Report, column 358. The programmes are focused in particular on ways to ease business burdens in meeting their obligations, but there are no plans to integrate information technology systems.

  Value Added Tax
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total revenue from VAT in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and what it would have been if the level and scope of VAT remained unchanged since(a) May 1979, (b) March 1991 and (c) April 1992. [31600]
  72
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Net receipts of VAT for financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as follows:

  1993–94: 38.9 billion

  1994–95: 41.8 billion

  1995–96: 43.1 billion (provisional).

  Estimated net VAT receipts if the level and scope of VAT had remained unchanged since (a) May 1979, (b) March 1991 and (c) April 1992 are as follows:

  (£ billion)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a)

  18

  19

  20

  (b)

  33

  35

  36

  (c)

  39

  41

  42

  These estimates take account only of the main changes in the scope and level of VAT. They make no allowance for the behavioural changes which would result from changes to the tax regime.

  Income Tax
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from one penny of the basic rate of income tax in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [31601]

  Mr. Jack
  Information is available in table 6 of the tax ready reckoner, copies of which are available in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will state for the latest year for which figures are available the number of abducted children returned to the United Kingdom from other EU countries and the number of abducted children returned by the United Kingdom to other EU countries. [32292]

  Mr. Streeter
  Figures are available only for the number of cases or requests for the return of children dealt with by the child abduction unit with respect to England and Wales. The number of cases dealt with in respect of children(a) brought to England and Wales from other EU states; and (b) taken to other EU states from England and Wales, in 1995, the latest year for which figures are available, is given in the table. The table distinguishes between those cases in which children were returned under judicial direction and those where they were returned voluntarily, and also shows the number of cases in which an application to a court for the return of children was unsuccessful.

  1995—The Hague and European convention cases European Union contracting states

  Judicial return

  Voluntary return

  Judicial refusal

  Children brought to England and Wales

  42

  11

  7

  73

  1995—The Hague and European convention cases European Union contracting states

  Judicial return

  Voluntary return

  Judicial refusal

  Children taken from England and Wales

  16

  27

  2

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will state the number of requests for return to the United Kingdom of abducted children made to each country under The Hague convention by his Department in the latest year for which figures are available [32303]

  Mr. Streeter
  Applications made by the Central Authority for England and Wales for the return to the United Kingdom of abducted children under The Hague convention are not separately recorded. The number of applications made under both The Hague and European conventions for the return of children and the enforcement of access orders in 1995, the latest year for which figures are available, is given in the table:

  Country application made to

  Number of applications made

  Australia

  9

  Belgium

  2

  Canada

  7

  Cyprus

  3

  Denmark

  8

  Finland

  1

  France

  15

  Germany

  17

  Greece

  4

  Ireland

  35

  Israel

  2

  Italy

  5

  Netherlands

  9

  New Zealand

  6

  Norway

  3

  Portugal

  2

  Spain

  17

  Sweden

  2

  Switzerland

  1

  USA

  38

  Total

  186

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will state the expenditure on legal aid in child abduction cases in the latest year for which figures are available and the estimated amount of that expenditure that was paid to legal aid claimants from overseas who were seeking the return of their children from the United Kingdom to a country overseas. [32293]

  Mr. Streeter
  The net cost to the legal aid fund of child abduction cases closed in the year 1995–96—that is, cases where the final bills were received—was £1.6 million. This does not include payments made on account in respect of cases that were not closed in 1995–96. Of the expenditure on child abduction cases in 1995–96, £905,000 was applied to overseas residents.
  74
  Information on cases involving legal aid claimants resident overseas is not collected centrally. Many claimants from abroad will be United Kingdom citizens. Nationality is not a factor in determining qualification for legal aid; legal aid is available to anyone having a justiciable cause falling within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, provided they satisfy the statutory requirements governing financial means and legal merit.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the number of children known to his Department to have been abducted out of the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [32302]

  Mr. Streeter
  This information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what assessment he has made in relation to his Department's responsibilities of whether The Hague convention of the civil aspects of international child abduction requires either amendment or clarification of the working practices under the convention; and what steps he will take to try to secure improvement; [32301]

  (2) what assessment he has made in relation to his Department's responsibilities of whether The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction requires either amendment or clarification of the working practices under the convention; and what steps he will take to try to secure improvements. [32299]

  Mr. Streeter
  Assessments were made in advance of meetings of the convention states at The Hague in October 1989 and January 1993 to review the operation of the convention. In general, the convention has operated satisfactorily from this country's point of view. A new area of difficulty has arisen, however, and this is being pursued with the country concerned. There is to be another review meeting at The Hague early next year.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many new cases his Department's child abduction unit carried out work relating to The Hague convention on child abduction and the European custody convention in each year since 1990. [32300]

  Mr. Streeter
  The number of new cases in which the chid abduction unit for England and Wales(a) received applications for the return of children or applications for the enforcement of an access order from other states, and (b) made applications to other states for the return of children or for the enforcement of an access order, in each year since 1990, is given in the table:

  Year

  Applications received

  Applications made

  1990

  62

  109

  1991

  83

  106

  1992

  118

  117

  1993

  128

  145

  1994

  161

  163

  1995

  188

  186

  Total

  740

  826

  75

PRIME MINISTER

  European Union (Non-co-operation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to relax the policy of non-co-operation with the EU and its institutions until the EU world-wide ban on exports of British beef has been lifted. [32181]

  The Prime Minister
  I made it clear in my statement of 21 May,Official Report, columns 99–101, that progress would not be possible in the intergovernmental conference or elsewhere until we had agreement on the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives—which we have now achieved— and a clear framework for the lifting of the wider ban.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the membership of the group set up to oversee the policy of non-co-operation with the EU; how often it is planned that it should meet; and if he will make a statement. [31221]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: A committee meets regularly under my chairmanship to oversee the policy of non-co-operation. Members of the Committee include the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Agriculture. Other Ministers are invited as appropriate.

  I welcome the decision taken by the Commission on 5 June to lift the ban on beef derivatives with effect from 10 June. We now need early progress on agreement on a framework to lift the wider ban.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which the United Kingdom has not co-operated with the European Union nations since he made his oral statement on 21 May,Official Report, columns 99–101; and if he will make a statement. [31222]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: I made it clear in my statement of 21 May, Official Report, columns 99–101, that we would not be able to agree decisions requiring unanimity until the ban on beef derivatives was lifted and we have an agreement on a framework for the lifting of the wider ban.

  I welcome the decision taken by the Commission on 5 June to lift the ban on beef derivatives with effect from 10 June. We now need early progress on agreement on a framework to lift the wider ban.

  Since my statement on 21 May we have withheld agreement on over 60 measures at various EC meetings.

  Health Risks (Tobacco and Beef)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the health risk to Germans from(a) smoking tobacco and (b) eating British beef; and if he will instruct the United Kingdom representative to raise that issue at the European Court of Justice as evidence of discrimination against the United Kingdom. [32083]

  The Prime Minister
  No. I have no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [31176]
  76
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [31177]

  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.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) of 17 May,Official Report, column 720, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of co-ordination between Government Departments in respect of the issuing of public interest immunity certificates in relation to the Lockerbie case; and what factors underlay their issue. [32291]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that the interested Government Departments consulted with each other in connection with the signing of public interest immunity certificates by their respective Ministers. Public interest immunity was claimed in these certificates where the relevant Minister considered that it would be injurious to the public interest for particular matters to be the subject of evidence.

  Mr. T. T. Tsui
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates in August 1991 he met in his official capacity Mr. T. T. Tsui at 10 Downing street; how many civil servants were present at the meeting; and what subjects were discussed. [32159]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: So far as I am aware, none.

  Uniformed Services (Compensation)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the circumstances in which damages or compensation are payable to(a) the police and (b) other uniformed services. [31827]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: No. Where someone claims negligence, it is for the courts to decide whether damages are payable, taking into account all relevant circumstances, which will sometimes include the applicant's occupation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Research Councils
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the total number of applications claiming post-transfer staff costs on behalf of research councils; and what was the total number of these that were awarded for each of the financial years 1990–91 to 1995–96; [31587]

  (2) what was the total of staff costs awarded for pre-transfer and post-transfer staff groups involving research councils for each of the financial years 1990–91 to 1995–96; what was the breakdown of staff numbers by staff group; and if he will list those groups, supported as direct costs involving research councils for each of the financial years 1990–91 to 1995–96. [31586]
  77
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 18 March 1996,Official Report, columns 47–50, which contains schedules covering allocations to the research councils, the number of awards and a breakdown of the main components of these awards under various categories of cost. Information on the further breakdown of staff costs and numbers now sought could be obtained only through an analysis of paper records at a disproportionate cost to each of the six research councils.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31529]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This Department uses executive search agencies under the supervision of its personnel staff to help recruit staff to the senior civil service to improve the effectiveness of the DTI in meeting its objectives and to broaden the skills base at senior management levels. Such agencies work strictly in accordance with the code of practice drawn up by the civil service commissioners. Recruitment at other levels has been negligible.

  Child Labour
  Mr Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will write to FIFA and UEFA to urge them to investigate whether their officially licensed merchandise is produced by child labour. [32251]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not my intention to do so.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will support the adoption of a code of conduct, using internationally recognised standards, for all manufacturers and sub-contractors of licensed products to ensure that products are not made by child labour. [31790]
  78
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: The Government deplore any exploitation of children and we press all countries which have signed labour conventions to meet their obligations. It is for firms themselves to consider whether to operate according to a code of good practice. Some already do.

  Motor Bikes
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of after-market components for motor bikes(a) sold in the United Kingdom and (b) exported; and how many people are employed in the after-market component industry in the UK. [32197]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: There are no official figures available for this sector.

  Cars (Trade Balance)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the deficit in the United Kingdom trade in cars in real terms in each of the last four years; and what estimate he has made of future trends in the balance of trade. [32089]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: The information requested is given in the table. The depressed level of consumer demand for cars in Europe has slowed improvements in the United Kingdom's balance of trade in cars. However, in the longer term, the decision by major manufacturers to expand production in the UK should boost exports.

  Year

  Deficit in trade in cars, at 1990 prices (£ billion)

  1992

  -1.9

  1993

  -2.7

  1994

  -2.4

  1995

  -1.4

  79

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards are applied by his Department to ensure diversity of ethnic origin in the appointments to lay membership of industrial tribunals. [32026]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In making appointments, the Secretary of State is required to consult organisations representative of employers and employees. In the 1995 appointments exercise, as previously, such organisations were notified of the criteria for appointment and asked to encourage applications from the ethnic minorities. The Commission for Racial Equality was also asked to propose names for the organisations consulted to consider. The percentage of ethnic minority lay members rose to 4.6 per cent. after the 1995 appointments round, from 4.1 per cent. previously.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a breakdown of those people who applied for, but were not appointed to, lay membership of industrial tribunals in the 1995 round of appointments, by nominating body. [32023]

  Mr. Taylor
  The breakdown is as follows:

  Bodies

  Numbers

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  78

  Confederation of British Industry

  236

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  4

  NHS Management Executive

  85

  Engineering Employers Federation

  56

  Federation of Small Businesses

  20

  Forum of Private Business

  21

  Association of Independent Businesses

  0

  Institute of Directors

  18

  Local Government Management Board

  52

  British Retail Consortium

  30

  Employers Forum on Disability

  4

  Union of Independent Companies

  5

  Institute of Personnel and Development

  32

  Council of Managerial and Professional Staffs

  26

  Association of Teachers and Lecturers

  33

  Federation of Managerial, Professional and General Associations

  37

  Royal College of Midwives

  1

  Royal College of Nursing

  3

  Trades Union Congress

  609

  National League of the Blind and Disabled

  15

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  5

  Total

  1,370

  In addition, there were 59 unsuccessful applications by temporary London, North members who had been nominated in 1992 by the following bodies:

  Bodies

  Numbers

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  6

  Confederation of British Industry

  10

  NHS Management Executive

  2

  Institute of Directors

  1

  Local Government Management Board

  3

  British Retail Consortium

  1

  Council of Managerial and Professional Staffs

  1

  Federation of Managerial, Professional and General Associations

  1

  Trades Union Congress

  34

  Total

  59

  80
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people who were nominated by the local government management board and who served as temporary lay members of the London, North industrial tribunal between 14 November 1994 and 24 October 1995 have been subsequently re-appointed. [32019]

  Mr. Taylor
  One.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people applied to become lay members of industrial tribunals in the 1995 round of appointments. [32021]

  Mr. Taylor
  In the 1995 round of appointments, 2,087 people applied to become lay members of industrial tribunals.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were appointed to lay membership of industrial tribunals in the 1995 round of appointments. [32022]

  Mr. Taylor
  In the 1995 round of appointments, 658 people were appointed to lay membership of industrial tribunals.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a breakdown of those people who applied for, but were not appointed to, lay membership of industrial tribunals in the 1995 round of appointments, by ethnic origin. [32025]

  Mr. Taylor
  The information is not readily available at the moment, but I will write to the hon. Member when it is.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a breakdown of those people who were appointed to lay membership of industrial tribunals in the 1995 round of appointments, by ethnic origin. [32024]

  Mr. Taylor
  The information is as follows:

  Ethnic group (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Classification) of industrial tribunals lay membership—October 1995

  Ethnic group

  Number

  Per cent. of total membership

  White

  2,362

  94.6

  West Indian

  33

  1.32

  Indian

  43

  1.72

  Pakistani

  10

  0.4

  Bangladeshi

  4

  0.16

  Chinese

  2

  0.08

  African

  4

  0.16

  Arab

  0

  0

  Mixed

  6

  0.24

  Other

  12

  0.48

  Not Known

  21

  0.84

  Total

  2,497

  100.00

  "Tackling Cartels and the Abuse of Market Power"
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the companies, organisations and individuals that have been sent a copy of his Department's consultation paper "Tackling Cartels and the Abuse of Market Power". [31369]
  81
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: My officials have sent the consultation paper to a wide range of interested parties. The document has also been available for collection from DTI headquarters. A list of those who have been sent the document has been complied. A copy of that list is being placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Local Government Archives
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to monitor conformity with his "Guidance on the Care, Preservation and Management of Records," June 1995. [31100]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 4 June,Official Report, column 372.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31394]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:

  Amount spent

  Staff recruited1

  1994–95

  £162,478.22

  23

  1995–96

  £166,453.88

  27

  1 Does not include staff engaged for a year or less.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31409]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office and Cadw, the Welsh Historic Monuments agency, did not use executive search agencies or employment companies to fill vacancies in the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years. They would consider doing so if this offered a cost-effective means of recruitment consistent with the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) women and (b) men have been appointed to public bodies in the past year; and to which public bodies (i) women and (ii) men have been appointed. [32495]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is contained in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales, 1 June 1996", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.
  82
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many women(a) applied to be on the public appointments register and (b) were placed on the public appointments register, in each year since 1993–94; [32491]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the success of his Department's campaign, Diary 1995–96, to persuade more women to apply for inclusion on the public appointments register; [32493]

  (3) what measures he intends to take to increase the participation of women on public bodies; and if he will make a statement; [32494]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the success of the 1995–96 campaign of the NHS Opportunity 2000 unit to persuade more women to apply for inclusion on the public appointments register. [32492]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office has taken a number of steps, including involvement in the NHS Opportunity 2000 campaign, to encourage more women to volunteer for public appointment.

  The number of women on the register has increased from 470 in April 1993–749 in April 1994 and 983 in April 1995—to 1,068 in April 1996. The percentage of appointments made by the Secretary of State held by women has risen from 18 per cent. in 1990 to 24 per cent. as at 1 June 1996.

  The Welsh Office is committed to a policy of equal opportunities for all candidates; all candidates are considered on their merits and suitability for a particular post. We will continue to encourage women to volunteer for public appointment.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representation he has received on the lack of provision of indoor/outdoor wheelchairs for severely disabled people by the NHS in Wales; and what plans he has on this matter. [32503]

  Mr. Hague
  In addition to representations from hon. Members, I have received representations from five voluntary organisations representing the disabled. My officials, in discussion with NHS representatives are identifying possible means of improving the provision of wheelchair services in Wales.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 373, what representations he has received from 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. [32504]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The Welsh Office discusses these issues, and others, with ambulance NHS trusts as part of the regular monitoring process.
  83

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Street Children
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the amount of grants to the Consortium for Street Children from the Overseas Development Administration in (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96 and (b) the projected grant for the financial year 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [32189]

  Mr. Hanley
  During the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96, the ODA provided a total of £30,000 to the Consortium for Street Children in support of the production of a resource directory. In addition, in 1995–96, £16,100 was provided for the development of a pilot project on girl street children. A further project proposal is currently under consideration.

  Agency

  Country

  Project name:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Childhope

  Brazil

  Casa De Passagem

  26.287

  53.738

  —

  —

  —

  Childhope

  Philippines

  Development of Education in the Street—an Appropriate Response

  15,645

  34,920

  19,275

  —

  —

  Childhope

  Brazil

  Projeto Ibeji for the Street Children

  —

  54,642

  50,684

  50,077

  47,182

  Cleveland Council for Voluntary Service

  Peru

  Care, Education, etc. for Street Children

  —

  32,683

  32,683

  —

  —

  Homeless International

  India

  Support for Street Children

  —

  22.562

  22,619

  23,101

  —

  International Childcare Trust

  Kenya

  Street Children's Project

  31,512

  36,250

  30,227

  35,352

  —

  International Children's Trust

  Ecuador

  Street Children of Guayaquil

  58,986

  85,500

  88,200

  99,000

  —

  Toybox Charity

  Guatemala

  The Tower—Rehabilitation Centre for Street Childen

  15,428

  16,750

  18,500

  —

  —

  Total

  147,858

  337,045

  262,188

  207,530

  47,182

  Funding has also been provided to those agencies which receive block grants through the JFS in support of a variety of small-scale street children projects in Brazil, Angola, India, Bangladesh and the Philippines. The level of funding in 1995–96 was:

  Catholic Fund for Overseas Development: £17,347

  Christian Aid: £18,535

  OXFAM: £2,444

  Save the Children Fund: £359,779

  The year 1995–96 is the latest for which information is available in respect of the block grant agencies.

  Prisoners of Conscience (Ghana)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on prisoners of conscience in Ghana; and what recent representations he has received on this subject. [31981]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are not aware of any prisoners of conscience in Ghana and have received no representations on this subject recently.
  84
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will be represented at the European conference on street children worldwide in Amsterdam on 20 to 23 June. [32186]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ODA will not be represented at the European conference on street children worldwide. We understand that this is a conference for non-governmental organisations to exchange information on the problems facing street children.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and which non-governmental organisations are being funded by the Overseas Development Administration for street children rehabilitation projects; in which countries they are based; what are these projects; what is the amount of funding granted; and for what length of time. [32185]

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of the joint funding scheme— JFS—grants provided to non-governmental organisations for current street children projects are shown in the table:

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Emissions (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many owners or operators of cars and lorries have been prosecuted for emitting noxious fumes, in each of the past five years for which records are available; how many of such prosecutions have led to convictions; and what penalties were imposed. [32170]

  Mr. Norris
  Very few emission offences are taken to court because most offenders rectify defects quickly when faced with the prospect of prohibition or prosecution.

  The precise information requested is not available because the records kept by the Home Office do not separately identify any emissions offences prosecuted by the police.

  Oceanic Air Traffic Control System
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to change the terms of the competition for the new oceanic air traffic control system from those set out in the invitation to tender; and what is the timetable for the final decision. [32469]
  85
  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority, which will let the tender, has no plans to change the terms of competition for the new oceanic air traffic control centre from those set out in the invitation to participate which was issued in July 1995. The timetable for the final decision—January 1997—remains unchanged.

  Fatal Accidents (Foreign Licensees)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of drivers of motor vehicles not holding driving licences in the United Kingdom but holding licences of nations whose licences are recognised, who have been found guilty of driving offences where fatalities were involved since 1990; and if he will inform the relevant Governments of the name and licence number of the persons convicted, together with the circumstances of the accident. [32349]

  Mr. Norris
  Information from the national driver licensing register is treated in strict confidence under the provision of the Data Protection Acts. Except for law enforcement purposes, information is not disclosed without the consent of the individual.

  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency informs other driver licensing authorities of the details whenever driving licences are revoked.

  Ramsgate Harbour Approach Road
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report of his inspector on the compulsory purchase orders for the Ramsgate harbour approach road; when he expects to reach his decision on the inspector's report; and if he will make a statement. [32424]

  Mr. Norris
  We still await the report. I am not able to say when the decision on the orders will be issued. My officials are fully aware of the need for an early decision and I can assure my right hon. Friend that matters will be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

  Vehicle Testing Station (Purfleet)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions his Department has had with the Health and Safety Executive in relation to the Vehicle Inspectorate and the Driving Standards Agency at the heavy goods vehicle testing station at Purfleet; and what action is planned by his Department; [32403]

  (2) what action his Department has taken to replace the boundary fence surrounding the heavy goods vehicle testing station at Purfleet; and what warning signs and traffic management barriers have been erected to separate the Driving Standards Agency and Vehicle Inspectorate traffic routes. [32402]

  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 11 June 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about replacement of the boundary fence at Purfleet Goods Vehicle Testing Station and discussions with the Health and Safety Executive.
  86
  A replacement fence was erected on three of the boundaries in March. There have been no further complaints of children using the site as a short cut, since this action has been taken. The fence on the final front boundary requires planning permission and is affected by highway alternations needed by the Channel Tunnel Link. A planning application has been submitted and it is anticipated that it will take 6 weeks to process.

  A traffic management barrier has also been erected on the site to assist segregation of the Vehicle Inspectorate and Driving Standards Agency's work.

  Further works to be undertaken this summer include additional tarmacking to ease traffic movement and parking within the site, and renewing directional signs. Discussions on the latter will involve the Driving Standards Agency to establish their particular requirements. Discussions have been held with the Health and Safety Executive regarding the proposed improvements and we are advising them of progress as it occurs.

  British Rail (Objectives)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what objectives he has set for the chairman of British Rail for 1996–97. [32644]

  Sir George Young
  I have written to the chairman formally recording the objectives that had been agreed for the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to change the light dues system when the Decca navigation system comes to an end. [32499]

  Mr. Norris
  No decisions have yet been made regarding the future of the Decca navigator system. We have no plans to change the light dues system.

  Northolt Airport
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy not to increase permitted aircraft movements from Northolt airport; and if he will make a statement. [30992]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: The station continues to operate on the basis of 7,000 civil movements a year.

  In its recent report on UK airport capacity, the House of Commons Transport Committee included a number of conclusions and recommendations relating to increased civil use of RAF Northolt. The Government will respond in due course to these and to the other recommendations of the Committee.

DEFENCE

  Colchester Military Training Centre
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications of the Colchester military corrective and training centre becoming a young offenders' institution; and if he will make a statement. [30895]

  Mr. Soames
  The creation of a young offenders institution within the military corrective training centre will have no implications for Britain's defence.
  87

  Joint Rapid Deployment Force
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the role of the joint rapid deployment force; and if he will make a statement. [30896]

  Mr. Portillo
  The joint rapid deployment force will strengthen the UK's capability effectively and rapidly to deploy military forces worldwide in support of our interests. It will be capable of fulfilling a wide range of combat or non-combat missions.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the improvement to Britain's defence capability from the introduction of the joint rapid deployment force. [30907]

  Mr. Soames
  The military response to future challenges will almost certainly be on a joint service basis. The joint rapid deployment force will enhance the UK's ability to respond very rapidly to future crises, drawing from all three services. The core of the JRDF will be three Commando Brigade and five Airborne Brigade, but it will also draw on other elements across the services.

  Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to procure Tomahawk cruise missiles. [30897]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in the House on 13 July 1995,Official Report, column 1092, that we were proceeding with the procurement of Tomahawk. On 16 October 1995 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced during the defence debate Official Report, column 51, that an order had been placed that day for 65 conventionally armed Tomahawk cruise missiles with the US Department of Defence. There are currently no plans to purchase further missiles.

  Polaris
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to decommission Polaris submarines. [30898]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The process of decommissioning the Polaris submarines involves de-fuelling, de-equipping and laying up the vessels for storage afloat before their final disposal. This process has been completed for HMS Revenge, but not yet for the other Polaris submarines.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on NATO's peace implementation force in the former Yugoslavia. [30899]

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to replace his Department's stocks of anti-personnel land mines. [30900]
  88
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We plan to destroy nearly half our current stocks of anti-personnel mines without replacement. We have reached no decisions on our future requirements.

  Procurement Projects
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total expenditure his Department has identified in the last year which is due to cost overruns on procurement projects. [30901]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information on Defence equipment cost control performance was published in December 1995 in the MoD's performance report, Cm 3055, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  RAF Aircraft Crashes
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF aircraft crashed in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [30903]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of nine RAF aircraft have crashed in eight accidents. Separate RAF boards of inquiry are carrying out thorough investigations to determine the causes of seven of the accidents and to consider what action may be necessary to minimise the risk of recurrence. In line with normal policy, a summary of the findings of each of these inquiries will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in due course. An investigation into the most recent accident, which occurred on 26 May in Portugal, is being carried out by the Portuguese authorities in line with the NATO standard agreement on such matters.

  Surface Ships
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about present procurement plans for new surface ships for the Royal Navy. [30904]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of new surface ships are planned. These include the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean; five type 23 frigates, seven Sandown class mine-hunters, and the survey vessel HMS Scott, all currently on order. In addition, we are in negotiations with VSEL over a contract for up to two assault ships; we continue to make good progress on the common new generation frigate; and we have issued an invitation to tender for up to two auxiliary oilers.

  Married Housing Stock
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he had with members of the armed forces before he announced his plans for the married housing stock. [30905]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The proposal to transfer ownership of the married quarters estate in England and Wales to the private sector has been developed over many months in full consultation with the services. We have also had regular contract with the service wives' organisations and have taken their views fully into account.
  89

  Joint and Combined Exercises
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority he attaches to joint and combined exercises; and if he will make a statement. [30906]

  Mr. Soames
  I attach the very highest priority to both joint and combined exercises. We have recently completed the highly successful exercise, Purple Star, with the Americans, which saw a major amphibious landing and the largest parachute drop since the second world war. Key elements of the joint rapid deployment force, which becomes operational on 1 August this year, were involved including three Commando Brigade and five Airborne Brigade, an aircraft carrier and amphibious group as well as RAF front line and supporting aircraft. Responsibility for planning and conducting joint and combined exercises now rests with the new permanent joint headquarters at Northwood, which has been formed as a centre of excellence in preparing for and executing joint operations.

  Propeller Factories
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to visit a propeller factory. [30909]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited Dowty Aerospace recently. The company is involved in supplying propellers for the RAF's C-130J programme, and is also a member of the Lockheed Martin team offering the Orion 2000 in response to the invitation to tender for RMPA. All three tenders for RMPA are currently being assessed and we are working towards letting a contract with the selected prime contractor later this year. I cannot comment on the bid at this stage, but I can assure my hon. Friend that all the bids are receiving full and equal consideration.

  School Cadet Forces
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) boys and (b) girls are currently enrolled in school cadet forces; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [30911]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently(a) 33,300 boys and (b) 6,100 girls enrolled in the combined cadet force in schools. My Department's contribution to the cost of the combined cadet forces in 1994–95 was £7.4 million.

  In addition, more than 200 units of the sea cadet corps, Army cadet force, and the air training corps meet in local education authority school property.

  My colleagues and I are very much aware of the immense benefit that the cadet forces can bring to the education and well-being of the young people of this country. Parents and teachers alike recognise the value that cadet membership can bring to the broad education of young people.

  Small Arms
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many small-arms weapons declared surplus to requirements by each of the armed services have been sold on the open market; and if he will make a statement. [31428]
  90
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Disposal Sales Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Keith Ellender, to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 7 June 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the sale of surplus small-arms weapons on the open market, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.

  A total of 40,700 surplus small-arms weapons were sold in the 3 years since June 1992. 40,000 of these were to Section 5 Licenced firearms dealers for export, and 700 were directly to overseas governments. These figures were given to your parliamentary colleague Dr David Clark, MP by Mr Arbuthnot in a written answer on 10 July 1995, Official Report, column 468. There have been no further sales since then. We are unable to give a breakdown between armed services, because the weapons are declared by a single service source on behalf of the other services, but they would be predominantly of Army origin.

  Great Care is exercised in the sales of surplus small arms to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands. To this end the long standing policy of the MOD is not to sell weapons to UK traders for stock. Mr Arbuthnot explained the full current policy in another written answer on 10 July 1995. This appeared in the same column as the answer referred to earlier.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the last four years, for each of the armed services, the number of small-arms weapons declared surplus to requirements that have been(a) destroyed and (b) sold; and if he will make a statement. [31427]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our records are not maintained in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, in the last four years a total of 150,200 small arms have been destroyed and 40,700 sold.

  SHL Software
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts his Department and his agencies have with SHL software computer system; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; and what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract. [31435]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I assume that the company referred to is SHL Systemhouse UK Ltd., a member of the Canadian SHL Systemhouse Inc. group. While the MOD procurement executive has direct dealings with this company, there are only a few contracts and to divulge the cost and termination date details would be a breach of commercial confidence.

  Ministry of Defence contracts generally contain a standard "break" condition which enables the Ministry to terminate a contract after a given period without penalty. There may also be other termination provisions, but these would be tailored to the circumstances of the particular contract.

  Where chief executives of my Department's agencies exercise their responsibilities for this matter under the terms of their framework documents, I have asked them to write to the hon. Member direct.
  91
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 11 June 1996:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence for details of contracts his Department and Agencies have with SHL software computer system. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  I can confirm that DERA has no current contracts with SHL. We have, in the past, had a number of small value contracts with the company but these are all now completed.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 11 June 1996:

  I am replying to your question to the Defence Secretary concerning SHL computer systems, as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office.

  We currently have no contracts with the company.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from S. Parnell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 11 June 1996:

  1. You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question about contracts the Ministry of Defence or its agencies have with SHL software computer system. As the issues raised fall within the responsibility of the Chief Executive your question has been referred to the Hydrographic Office for the provision of a response.

  2. In the normal course of events my Chief Executive, Rear Admiral Clarke, would reply to you personally but unfortunately he is at present on official business overseas. In light of this I have been asked to respond.

  3. In answer to your question the Hydrographic Office does not have any form of contract with SHL software computer system.

  4. I hope this has been helpful.

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress his Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31539]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department and its agencies continue to strive to improve the opportunities for women at all levels in the organisation, and though we recognise that we still have far too few women in senior positions, there are clear signs that the position is improving. For example, in each of the last three years almost a quarter of those promoted to grade 5 level in the administration group were women, compared with 9 per cent. in 1991 an nil in 1992.

  Initiatives aimed at improving opportunities for women in my Department and its agencies include: the provision of nursery facilities; career breaks and flexible working; equal opportunities training for promotion board members; positive action training for women staff; and— newly established this year—a working group chaired by the chief scientist to advise on the recruitment, retention and promotion of women engineers.

  BMARC
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of his investigation into the BMARC affair; and if he will publish the findings of the investigation. [32198]
  92
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Work undertaken by my Department to examine allegations that BMARC supplied naval guns to Iran via Singapore in the mid to late 1980s, including the work involved to assist the Trade and Industry Committee with its current BMARC inquiry, necessarily involved a number of officials in different parts of the MOD to varying degrees over the past 15 months. Records have not been routinely kept on time spent on this activity by officials and it is not therefore possible to provide the information requested.

  My Department has submitted a written memorandum to the Committee and officials have appeared to provide oral evidence relevant to the inquiry. We stand ready to provide any further assistance that the Committee may require.

  Explosives (Lunan Bay)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many explosive devices have been found at Lunan bay; what is their origin; and how they came to be at Lunan bay. [32536]

  Mr. Soames
  Some 600 world war two practice bombs have been discovered at Lunan bay. Their presence is consistent with the beach being used as a practice bombing range. Complete records of wartime activity are not available, but a surviving 1940 RAF air navigation chart indicates a bombing range at Lunan bay.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the numbers of explosive devices still to be uncovered at Lunan bay; and if he will make a statement. [32539]

  Mr. Soames
  A reconnaissance is to be conducted at Lunan bay by 33 Engineer Regiment to assess the situation.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of explosive devices have been found at Lunan bay; and if he will list the number and purpose of each type of explosive device. [32537]

  Mr. Soames
  Remnants of some 600 101b, 11.51b and 251b world war two practice bombs have been uncovered at Lunan bay. The practice bombs were used to test aircraft and crews for all aspects of bombing operations.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the explosive devices found at Lunan bay have been live; and how they were disposed of. [32538]

  Mr. Soames
  Explosive ordnance disposal teams have treated all remnants of world war two practice bombs as if they may have some residual active component, and disposed of them by controlled detonation using standard procedures.

  Radiation, Menwith
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department took in respect of the report to the senior police officer at Menwith on radiation around radome 4—No. 512–91—dated 29 September 1991. [32354]

  Mr. Soames
  There was no need for action by my Department. The comments regarding radiation around radome 4 were written in error. There is a zone around
  93
  the radomes which is fenced off for security reasons to deter protesters and activists, who have regularly targeted the site, from damaging the equipment. There is no reason for any personnel employed at RAF Menwith Hill to avoid any particular radome for health and safety reasons.

  Trident D5 Missiles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the unit cost of purchasing Trident D5 missiles from the United States of America. [32053]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: For commercial and other reasons, it is not our practice to speculate about future prices. For estimates of the cost of the total Trident missile buy, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 14 March 1996, Official Report, column 678.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery Funds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the projects within the London boroughs of(a) Camden, (b) Islington, (c) Hackney, (d) Kensington and Chelsea, (e) Lambeth, (f) Southwark, (g) Tower Hamlets and (h) Westminster, that have received funding from each of the national lottery funds. [31491]

  Mr. Sproat
  There have been 120 awards to date, totalling £196.4 million, made to projects in the London boroughs listed. The information is as follows:

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Award amount £

  Camden

  Arts Council

  Calthorpe Project

  13,500.00

  Arts Council

  The Place

  19,000.00

  Arts Council

  Interchange Studios (The Hamden Trust)

  22,500.00

  Arts Council

  Survivors Poetry

  61,802.00

  Arts Council

  Artsline

  85,947.00

  Arts Council

  W.A.V.E.S.

  97,200.00

  MC

  British Museum

  30,000,000.00

  NLCB

  Bengali Women's Association

  3,000.00

  NLCB

  Camden Volunteer Bureau

  58,020.00

  NLCB

  Camden Family Service Unit

  117,179.00

  NLCB

  Cancer Research Campaign

  201,800,00

  NLCB

  Scope

  314,867.00

  Sports Council

  Castlehaven community Association

  60,700.00

  Hackney

  Arts Council

  London Fields School

  5,830.00

  Arts Council

  Hackney Festivals Support Group Ltd.

  31,030.00

  Arts Council

  Quicksilver Theatre for Children

  48,379.00

  NHMF

  Stoke Newington Boundary Scheme

  34,500.00

  NHMF

  Geffrye Museum

  3,750,000.00

  NLCB

  City and Hackney Alcohol Counselling Services

  94,150,000

  NLCB

  Stamford Hill Playgroup

  5,000.00

  NLCB

  Hackney Law Centre

  28,500.00

  94

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Award amount £

  NLCB

  Disability, Education, Play, Resource Project

  35,927.00

  NLCB

  Hackney Coalition of Disabled People

  59,870.00

  NLCB

  African Welfare and Education Centre

  60,200.00

  NLCB

  Lower Clapton Community Nursery

  4,905.00

  Sports Council

  London Borough of Hackney

  4,895,000.00

  Islington

  Arts Council

  The Sam Collins Theatre

  27,000.00

  Arts Council

  Out of Joint

  87,449.00

  Arts Council

  Raw Material Music and Media

  97,423.00

  Arts Council

  The Pleasance Theatre Trust

  97,741.00

  Arts Council

  Sadler's Wells Foundation

  30,000,000.00

  NHMF

  St. Luke's Churchyard

  112,791.00

  NHMF

  New River Walk, Cannonbury Grove

  175,000.00

  NLCB

  Islington Women's Advice Group

  3,600.00

  NLCB

  Mitford Under 5s

  6,397.00

  NLCB

  King Square Playgroup

  15,000.00

  NLCB

  Islington Victim Support

  36,448.00

  NLCB

  Chance

  115,000.00

  NLCB

  St. Mary's Church and Community Centre

  166,191.00

  NLCB

  North Islington Law Centre

  9,000.00

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Arts Council

  The Tabernacle

  150,000.00

  Arts Council

  The European Theatre Company Ltd.

  19,347.00

  Arts Council

  Ebony Steelband Trust

  60,519.00

  NHMF

  Chelsea Physic Garden

  100,000.00

  NHMF

  National History Museum

  6,058,000.00

  NLCB

  Handicapped Children's Pilgrimage Trust

  3,000.00

  NLCB

  Women's Education in Building

  9,500.00

  NLCB

  Many Hands

  15,000.00

  NLCB

  Chelsea Social Council

  87,783.00

  NLCB

  Action DisabilityKensington and Chelsea

  89,520.00

  NLCB

  Crossroads Care—Kensington and Chelsea

  95,447.00

  NLCB

  Maxilla Nursery Centre

  126,495.00

  NLCB

  The Pepper Pot Club

  525,000.00

  Sports Council

  North Kensington Amenity Trust

  329,689.00

  Lambeth

  Arts Council

  The Young Vic Theatre

  13,500.00

  Arts Council

  The Institute for Performing Arts

  99,000.00

  Arts Council

  Musicworks Music Resource Centre Ltd.

  1,155,885.00

  Arts Council

  Royal National Theatre Board

  31,590,000.00

  NHMF

  Anti-Slavery International

  88,000.00

  NLCB

  Colombo Street Playgroup

  6,000.00

  NLCB

  Waterloo Breakaway

  10,000.00

  NLCB

  Incognito Theatre Company

  34,000.00

  NLCB

  Streatham Youth Centre

  50,400.00

  NLCB

  The Brix at St. Matthew's

  85,246.00

  NLCB

  Lambeth Accord

  103,700.00

  NLCB

  Oasis Children's Venture

  31,956.00

  Southwark

  Arts Council

  Bankside Gallery Ltd.

  17,000.00

  Arts Council

  William Penn Steel Band

  29,357.00

  95

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Award amount £

  Arts Council

  Opera Factory

  41,470.00

  Arts Council

  Strathcona Theatre Company

  44,059.00

  Arts Council

  Method and Madness

  411,375.00

  Arts Council

  Shakespeare's Globe Trust

  12,400,000.00

  MC

  Tate Gallery of Modern Art

  50,000,000.00

  NLCB

  Amott Road Pre-School Nursery

  800.00

  NLCB

  Edward Henry Housing Co-op

  4,500.00

  NLCB

  Pelican Estate Tenants and Residents Association

  5,000.00

  NLCB

  Dachwyng Supplementary School

  12,000.00

  NLCB

  Bird in the Bush Community Centre

  21,414.00

  NLCB

  Phoenix House Glasgow Project

  25,000.00

  NLCB

  12th Camberwell Scouts

  27,406.00

  NLCB

  Downtown Community Project

  30,000.00

  NLCB

  Elephant Jobs Charity

  57,850.00

  NLCB

  The Lorrimore

  172,000.00

  NLCB

  The Southwark Branch of Arthritis Care

  3,000.00

  NLCB

  Southwark Victim Support scheme

  25,500.00

  Sports Council

  London Borough Southwark

  350,000.00

  Tower Hamlets

  Arts Council

  City of London Sinfonia

  98,990.00

  Arts Council

  Spitalfields Arts Projects

  235,000.00

  MC

  Mile End Park

  12,322,010.00

  NLCB

  Bangladeshi Sports Association

  9,000.00

  NLCB

  Island Neighbourhood Project

  35,518.00

  NLCB

  Youth Action Scheme

  53,000.00

  NLCB

  Globe Town Community Association

  56,500.00

  NLCB

  Island House Community Centre

  75,000.00

  NLCB

  St. Hilda's East Community Centre

  75,145,00

  NLCB

  Training and Development Consortium

  220,000.00

  NLCB

  Stepney Settlement

  357,500.00

  NLCB

  5th Tower Hamlets Cub Scouts

  997.00

  Sports Council

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  962,470.00

  Sports Council

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Bethnal Green High School)

  801,520.00

  Westminster

  Arts Council

  The Other Cinema/Metro Cinema

  22,288.00

  Arts Council

  Yaa Asantewaa Arts and Community Centre

  52,855.00

  Arts Council

  Institute of Contemporary Arts Limited

  344,540.00

  Arts Council

  Flamboyan Community Association

  100,000.00

  Arts Council

  City Screen (Exeter) Limited

  577,173.00

  Arts Council

  City Screen (Exeter) Limited

  692,250.00

  Arts Council

  Union Pictures Limited

  795,846.00

  MC

  The Zoological Society of London

  2,200,000.00

  96

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Award amount £

  NLCB

  The Westminster Society for people with learning disabilities

  5.000.00

  NLCB

  North Westminster Victims Support Scheme

  21,000.00

  NLCB

  St. John's Housing Association

  30,000.00

  NLCB

  Westminster Childrens Society

  42,000.00

  NLCB

  The Bayswater Hotels Homelessness Project

  50,000.00

  NLCB

  Catholic Children's Society (Westminster)

  58,190.00

  NLCB

  Westminster Volunteer Bureau

  61,367.00

  NLCB

  Soho Family Centre Trust

  89,559.00

  NLCB

  Age Concern Westminster

  108,000.00

  NLCB

  Westminster Advocacy Service For Senior Residents

  131,893.00

  NLCB

  Westminster Cathedral—St. Vincent de Paul

  35,000.00

  NLCB

  Westminster Women's Aid

  73,133.00

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what instructions were issued to her Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31508]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 6 June 1996 Official Report, column 518.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the figures for the distribution of national lottery grants will be made available on a constituency or local authority basis. [32046]

  Mr. Sproat
  We estimate that constituency and local authority based information will be available by early July.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list each of the grants made by each of the lottery boards for projects in Northamptonshire. [32239]

  Mr. Sproat
  There have been 32 awards to date, totalling £4.4 million, made to projects in Northamptonshire. The full list is as follows:

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount £

  Arts

  21 September 1995

  Moulton Players

  Northampton

  60.000.00

  Arts

  24 May 1995

  Northamptonshire County Council

  Northamptonshire

  7,500.00

  MC

  11 September 1995

  Countryside Access for All

  Northamptonshire

  736,000.00

  NHMF

  14 February 1996

  English Heritage: Pool Farm

  Malvern Hills

  300,000.00

  NHMF

  20 December 1995

  St. Andrews and All Saints Church

  Northampton

  19,000.00

  97

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount £

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Hartville Playgroup

  Ashton

  500.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Teamwork Woodbridge

  Corby

  230,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Rural Support Group

  Harksome Hill

  2,195.00

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Northampton Active Group

  Northampton

  5,000.00

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Northampton Unwaged Training Resource and Advice Centre

  Northampton

  57,591.00

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Northampton Womens Aid

  Northampton

  52,488.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Be Positive, Northampton

  Northampton

  90,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Northampton and District CAB

  Northampton

  24,354.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Northampton Physically Handicapped and Abie-Bodied

  Northampton

  28,600.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Northampton YouthCounselling and Information Service

  Northampton

  56,300.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Council On Addiction For Northamptonshire

  Northamptonshire

  242,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Northamptonshire Victims Support Scheme

  Northamptonshire

  28,820.00

  Sports

  11 March 1996

  Bringtons and Nobottle Cricket Club

  Northampton

  2,500.00

  Sports

  3 April 1996

  Harpole Bowls Club

  Northampton

  27,650.00

  Sports

  13 May 1996

  Northamptonshire Association of Youth Clubs

  Northampton

  714,825.00

  Sports

  4 May 1995

  Kislingbury Bowls Club

  Northamptonshire

  42,500.00

  Sports

  4 May 1995

  Moulton Football Club

  Northamptonshire

  35,067.00

  Sports

  4 May 1995

  Western Favell Upper School

  Northamptonshire

  505,000.00

  Sports

  4 May 1995

  Potterspury Sports and Social Club

  Northamptonshire

  23,300.00

  Sports

  5 July 1995

  Bugbrook Playing Fields Association

  Northamptonshire

  205,000.00

  Sports

  5 July 1995

  Daventry District Council

  Northamptonshire

  614,000.00

  Sports

  9 August 1995

  Long Buckley Community Centre

  Northamptonshire

  7,200.00

  Sports

  8 November 1995

  Scaldwell Sports Club

  Northamptonshire

  9,871.00

  Sports

  6 December 1995

  Brackley Tennis Club

  Northamptonshire

  91,000.00

  Sports

  1995 10 January 1996

  Nether Heyford PC

  Northamptonshire

  52,000.00

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Northampton Sailing Club

  Northamptonshire

  35,000.00

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Wellingborough Rugby Football Club

  Northamptonshire

  131,690.00

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask Secretary of State for National Heritage in what circumstances she would reconsider the national exhibition centre in Birmingham for the millennium exhibition. [32501]

  Mrs. Viginia Bottomley
  The Selection of the site for the millennium exhibition is a matter for Millennium Commission.I have no independent role in this matter as Secretary of State.
  98
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will meet officials of the NEC in Birmingham to discuss their proposed plans to hold the millennium exhibition there. [32500]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The selection of site for the millennium exhibition is a matter for the Millennium Commission. As chairman of the commission, I met representatives of the NEC together with other commissioners on 3 April.

SCOTLAND

  Cairngorm Funicular Railway
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the (i) economic viability and (ii) likely passenger numbers in respect of the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm; if he will list the costs to his Department of the research and indicate if it is in the public domain. [31300]

  Mr. Kynoch
  None. Questions regarding the economic viability of the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm, including the related issue of the likely passenger numbers, are essentially matters for the applicant to address in consultation with those organisations from whom it is seeking funding.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive from the Cairngorms Partnership Board its proposed management strategy for the area; if he has requested proposals to conserve the montane zone; and what assessment he has made of the main threats to the successful conservation of this zone. [31304]

  Mr. Kynoch
  When my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland established the Cairngorms Partnership last year he asked it to produce within 12 months a draft management strategy for the area including, as a priority, proposals for the conservation of the montane zone. I understand that the Cairngorms Partnership Board will shortly issue for consultation a draft management strategy which will include a section dealing specifically with the montane zone.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Cairngorms Partnership Board concerning the proposed construction of a funicular railway on Cairngorm; and if he will make a statement. [31302]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has received two letters from the Cairngorm Partnership Board. The chief executive wrote on 4 July 1995 asking that he issue a direction requiring the planning authority to notify the application to him if they were minded to grant consent.

  A further letter, dated 13 February 1996 was received from the board's chairman, Mr. David Laird, in which he advised my right hon. Friend of how the partnership viewed the way matters were developing.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 375, what is the predicted cost per job (a) created and (b) retained in the application by

  99
  Highlands and Islands Enterprise to incur expenditure on the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm, currently being considered; and how these costs per job compare with the average in the highlands and islands area. [31340]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The overall cost per job of the proposed Highlands and Islands Enterprise assistance as recorded in the request for the approval of my right hon. Friend is £7,616. Such a figure is comparable with that for similar large capital-intensive projects to which Highlands and Islands Enterprise has contributed.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 375, if the application by Highlands and Islands Enterprise to incur expenditure on the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm takes account of the redundancies recently announced by the chairlift company. [31339]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The request for the approval of my right hon. Friend of the proposed financial contribution by Highlands and Islands Enterprise to the funicular railway project takes account of a range of factors, including the employment consequences, which in its view justify its proposed assistance to the project. No decision has yet been taken on the request.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research has been commissioned by(a) his office and (b) the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to compare the value for money of grant aid to the proposed Cairngorm funicular railway with grants to other options for modernising the skiing facilities. [31303]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No research into such matters has been commissioned by the Scottish Office. The research commissioned by Highlands and Islands Enterprise is an operational matter for that organisation and I have asked the chairman of its board to write to the hon. Member.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances he requires notification of planning applications where a planning authority is minded to grant permission that would constitute a departure from an approved structure plan. [31301]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Under the current planning legislation, it is entirely a matter for the authority to determine what constitutes a significant departure from the structure plan thus requiring an application to be notified to my right hon. Friend.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31396]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My Department and its executive agencies, excluding the Scottish Prison Service, spent approximately £429,000 in the 1994–95 financial year to recruit 144 staff and £436,000 in 1995–96 to recruit 201 staff.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what use his Department and its executive agencies have 100
  made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31411]

  Mr. Forsyth
  My Department used executive search agencies on three occasions in 1994–95. The agencies employed were Goddard Kay Rogers and Associates Ltd., Korn Ferry International and Thompson Partners Ltd. The total cost was £82,884.35. The value of individual contracts is a matter for the companies themselves and is regarded as commercial in confidence. Neither my Department nor its executive agencies used executive search agencies during 1995–96.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer in the Scottish Grand Committee in Dunfermline on 20 May, if the Crown Office will ask Professor Brian Caddy to include in his report, an assessment of the work of Dr. Fereday and Dr. Hayes at Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment in relation to Lockerbie. [31882]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The review being conducted by Professor Brian Caddy is directed towards determining in which cases contamination might have occurred and to make recommendations for further action in order that a recurrence might be avoided. The terms of Professor Caddy's review did not invite him to undertake a general scrutiny of the work of any employees, or former employees, engaged in work at the forensic explosives laboratory in relation to any particular case or cases.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 71, about the implications for the Lockerbie inquiry of developments in respect of the forensic science laboratory in Kent, on what evidence the charges against the two Libyans depend. [31944]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate cannot discuss details of evidence while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Legal Service (Tayside and Fife)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions the interim procurator fiscal has appeared in the sheriff court at Arbroath since his appointment. [32527]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The interim procurator fiscal at Arbroath has not appeared personally in the sheriff court there since his appointment.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many trials were fixed and how many and what percentage of trials proceeded with evidence led in respect of (i) the sheriff courts of Arbroath and Forfar and district
  101
  courts of Arbroath, Brechin and Forfar and (ii) the remainder of the sheriff courts and district courts within the sheriffdom of Tayside Central and Fife between (a) January and December 1994, (b) January and December 1995 and (c) December 1995 and April 1996. [32508]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures for the district courts are not held centrally. Figures for the sheriff courts are as follows.

  Trial fixed

  Trials evidence led

  Percentage of trials evidence led to trials fixed

  January to December 1994

  Arbroath

  578

  147

  25

  Forfar

  438

  100

  23

  Remaining courts

  9,314

  2,390

  26

  January to December 1995

  Arbroath

  486

  90

  19

  Forfar

  398

  68

  17

  Remaining courts

  8,768

  1,916

  22

  December 1995 to April 1996

  Arbroath

  175

  18

  10

  Forfar

  75

  25

  33

  Remaining courts

  3,379

  733

  22

  NHS Trusts (Staff Compensation)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the costs to each NHS trust from(a) damages, (b) legal fees and (c) administration and management time arising from compensation claims by members of staff in each of the last three financial years. [32505]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Health Service (Lifting and Handling Regulations)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Scottish hospitals have not had appropriate lifting equipment for use by nursing staff in continuous use since the introduction of EU lifting and handling regulations; and what action has been taken in each case. [32507]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  New Car Assessment Programme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department expects to make a statement on the reliability of the information collated as part of the research on the feasibility of a new car assessment programme; and when this information will be published. [32426]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply. The work is not yet finished. An announcement will be made as soon as possible after the report on this work is completed.
  102

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Claimants (Personal Details)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to pass on the personal details of benefit claimants to advertisers and direct mail companies. [30397]

  Mr. Heald
  None. There is a standard clause in contracts awarded by this Department that information obtained for the administration of social security benefits remains the property of the Department. All information is held in confidence and used only for the purpose for which it is collected.

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [30569]

  Mr. Burt
  None.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unitary authorities are failing to make the first payment of housing benefit within 14 days of the completed forms. [30971]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not yet available.

  Apart from the Isle of Wight, which commenced unitary status in April 1995, no other new unitary authorities commenced operations before April 1996. The most recent information available centrally is for 1994–95.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total sum paid out in any readily available period of housing benefit on account. [30973]

  Mr. Evans
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many visits his officials have made to unitary authorities to monitor the payment of housing benefit. [30969]

  Mr. Evans
  None.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local authorities are making payments on account of housing benefit. [30972]

  Mr. Evans
  This information is not collected centrally. Regulations provide that all local authorities shall make payments on account when appropriate.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the sums paid on account of housing benefit for each authority and the average delay in completing the formal claims and estimate for each authority at the latest available date. [30974]

  Mr. Evans
  This information is not available.
  103
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to instruct his officials to visit unitary authorities to monitor the payments of housing benefit. [30970]

  Mr. Evans
  None. However, the need to visit new unitary authorities will be taken into account when planning future visits.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated annual saving from reducing the reduced earnings allowance for people with disabilities over retirement age. [30834]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 28 February 1996,Official Report, column 625.

  Family Credit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the last five years the amount claimed in respect of family credit; and if he will make a statement on the effect of the abolition of the wages council on the amount claimed. [31352]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  £ million

  1991–92

  626

  1992–93

  929

  1993–94

  1,208

  1994–95

  1,441

  1995–96

  1,682 (estimated outturn)

  Source: 1996 Departmental Report

  We have no evidence to suggest that the abolition of wages councils has had a direct impact on the amount of family credit claimed.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to public funds of increasing the Christmas bonus to regain the purchasing value which obtained when it was first introduced. [31306]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated additional gross cost would be £790 million in 1996–97.

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress his Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31537]

  Mr. Burt
  All business units have action plans covering a range of personnel procedures to encourage the recruitment, retention, development and promotion of women, such as the setting of numerical goals across the 104
  Department for improving the representation of women at middle management levels and above and self development programmes aimed specifically at women.

  Women make up 68 per cent. of the Department's work force, a proportion which has not changed since 1992. The percentage of women in management positions has, however, continued to grow. The proportion of women in junior and middle management positions has increased from 51 per cent. to 58 per cent. in the past five years, and 28 per cent. of senior management positions are now held by women, an increase of 5 per cent. in the past 12 months.

  National Insurance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total revenue raised from national insurance in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and what the figures would be if the rate had remained unchanged since April 1992. [31602]

  Mr. Heald
  The information requested is in the table.

  Total class 1 contribution revenue for employers and employees

  (£ billion)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Actual revenue1

  38.70

  41.55

  43.10

  April 1992 rates2

  37.65

  39.50

  41.20

  1 Figures show the amount due for each tax year and will differ slightly from the amount actually paid by employers and employees during the tax year due to the normal delays inherent in the collection system.

  2 Assumes that the contribution rates and level of contracted-out rebates in force in April 1992 remained in force from 1993–94 to 1995–96, but the lower and upper earnings limits and earnings bands for those years still apply.

  Note:

  Estimates of rates other class 1 have not been provided as the effect will be negligible.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the impact on the rehabilitation of ex-offenders seeking accommodation for the first time after leaving a prison institution of the change to housing benefit being paid in arrears under the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996; and what consultation his Department has had with(a) the Home Office and (b) organisations representing ex-offenders on the impact of these regulations. [31884]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Ex-offenders seeking accommodation in the private rented sector will be treated in exactly the same way for housing benefit purposes as any other claimant. Housing benefit will be paid in arrears in respect of all new claims made on or after 7 October 1996, rather than wholly or partly in advance as at present.

  Our proposals for the change, which is expected to reduce the number of overpayments of benefit, were subject to consideration by other Departments, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was also involved. Our proposals were, in addition, referred to the local authority associations and to the Social Security Advisory

  105
  Committee, SSAC, which consulted widely with interested organisations. The SSAC report drew attention to the position of ex-offenders, but none of the several organisations concerned with the rehabilitation of ex-offenders which responded to the SSAC consultation exercise reported fears that their prospects of rehabilitation would be damaged or unduly affected by the change.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to ensure that Mr. S. Sadler of 57 Central road, Rudheath, North received the regular maintenance payments due from his wife as the Child Support Agency. [32204]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Child Support Agency has been successful in securing maintenance for Mr. Sadler. As it does in all such cases, the agency will make every effort to ensure this continues.

  The chief executive, Miss Ann Chant, will write to the hon. Member separately with a further update on the details of this case.

HEALTH

  Prescribing Research Unit, Leeds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his letter of 1 April, when he expects the publication of the report of the prescribing research unit at Leeds university based on a large cohort study of general practitioners both fundholding and non-fundholding. [31201]

  Mr. Malone
  The report is currently in preparation. No date has been set for publication.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the annual cost to the national health service of dietary related diseases stemming from insufficient and inappropriate nutritional intake, for each year since 1990, and give this figure as a percentage of the overall annual health care budget; and if he will make a statement. [31851]

  Mr. Horam
  Diseases and conditions to which nutrition is a contributory factor include coronary heart disease and stroke, obesity, osteoporosis, bowel disorders, diabetes, dental caries, and a number of cancers. The contribution of diet to these conditions is variable and information on which to base an estimate of costs is not available.

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress his Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31538]
  106
  Mr. Horam
  The Department has a plan to improve under representation of women in certain grades. Measures include the development of stock targets for women by grade, development and implementation of a comprehensive policy on flexible working patterns and development and implementation of a programme of positive action training for women. The numbers of women in management grades overall has increased since 1992 as shown in the table.

  Women in the Department of Health

  1992

  1996

  Grade

  Percentage

  Grade

  Percentage

  3

  22

  3

  25

  4

  30

  4

  37

  5

  33

  5

  30

  6

  33

  6

  37

  7

  30

  7

  35

  SEO

  25

  SEO

  27

  HEO

  46

  HEO

  46

  EO

  54

  EO

  53

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31526]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health and its agencies use executive search or employment agencies to fill appointments requiring specialist skills which may not be available internally.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the annual cost to the national health service of treating(a) skin cancer and (b) any other conditions resulting from over-exposure to ultra-violet light, for each year since 1990, and give this figure as a percentage of the overall annual health care budget; and if he will make a statement. [31852]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not available centrally on which to base such an estimate.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to tackle the specific problems of health care provision for the homeless; and if he will make a statement. [31850]

  Mr. Bowis
  Homeless people are entitled to the full range of health service provision and the weighted capitation formula used to calculate health authorities' allocations takes into account the number of officially homeless. From 1996–97, a new adjustment to the formula takes account of rough sleepers.

  Homeless people can experience difficulty in accessing services to which they are entitled. The Department is therefore funding 26 projects in England to address this problem by providing general practitioner sessions in hostels and other places where homeless people gather. In addition, the homeless mentally ill initiative is providing

  107
  a high level of care and support for rough sleepers with mental health problems in London. In February the Government announced that a further £2 million a year was being made available to expand the initiative in London and a number of other centres.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private patients in NHS pay beds underwent

  Ordinary admissions and day cases: number of first order episodes indicating that an operation has been performed on private patients, Category code 20–22, for each chapter heading of the OPCS Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures NHS Hospitals, England,1990–91 to 1994–95

  OPCS-4 Chapter

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  A Nervous system

  1,851

  2,479

  2,232

  2,619

  2,452

  B Endocrine system and breast

  1,185

  1,197

  994

  1,101

  1,146

  C Eye

  6,790

  7,487

  7,198

  7,915

  8,309

  D Ear

  1,523

  1,534

  1,341

  1,230

  1,044

  E Respiratory tract

  2,893

  3,035

  3,012

  3,347

  2,780

  F Mouth

  2,948

  2,554

  2,109

  2,151

  2,094

  G Upper digestive tract

  3,722

  4,299

  3,980

  4,262

  4,570

  H Lower digestive tract

  3,297

  3,760

  3,668

  4,055

  3,945

  J Other abdominal organs

  1,239

  1,910

  1,851

  1,925

  1,920

  K Heart

  3,093

  4,010

  4,464

  4,923

  4,873

  L Arteries and veins

  2,228

  2,370

  2,336

  2,740

  2,703

  M Urinary

  3,106

  3,459

  3,937

  4,350

  4,828

  N Male genital organs

  1,938

  1,829

  1,312

  1,173

  1,065

  P Lower female genital tract

  675

  586

  597

  620

  675

  Q Upper female genital tract

  6,010

  5,575

  5,510

  5,302

  5,250

  R Female genital associated with pregnancy and childbirth

  1,572

  1,783

  1,918

  1,545

  1,711

  S Skin

  2,529

  2,412

  2,162

  1,884

  2,022

  T Soft tissue

  2,888

  3,231

  3,070

  3,367

  3,302

  V Bones and joints of skull and spine

  1,572

  1,693

  1,592

  1,899

  1,898

  W Other bones and joints

  5,379

  5,931

  5,666

  6,798

  6,081

  X Miscellaneous

  1,448

  1,989

  2,822

  3,308

  3,709

  Operation not known

  572

  413

  454

  799

  1,041

  Total

  58,458

  63,536

  62,225

  67,313

  67,418

  Source: Hospital episode system.

  Data in this table is grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Mental Illness
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the Royal College of Psychiatrists publishes a consensus statement agreed with other professional groups on discharge and aftercare procedures for mentally ill patients, as recommended in 1988 by the inquiry into the care and aftercare of Miss Sharon Campbell (Cm 440). [31943]

  Mr. Bowis
  The agreement and publication of such a statement is a matter for the royal college and the other professional organisations.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of hospital beds which will continue to be needed for some patients for periods of over one year; and, of those, how many will be in(a) ordinary psychiatric hospitals and (b) medium secure units. [31941]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is the responsibility of health authorities to assess the needs of their population and to ensure that sufficient beds are available to meet those needs.

  Asthma
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new cases of asthma have been 108
  surgery in (a) total and (b) each chapter of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys operation short list in 1990–91 and each year since then. [31935]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally relates to finished consultant episodes. The table shows the number of episodes where a private patient had an operation in their first episode of care within a spell in hospital, for each chapter heading of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys operation short list.

  recorded so far in 1996; what were the annual figures for newly reported asthma cases for the previous five years; and if he will make a statement. [31853]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, according to data collected by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the mean weekly incidence of new episodes of asthma per 100,000 population was as follows:

  1991: 46.3

  1992: 48.3

  1993: 50.3

  1994: 49.2

  1995: 40.3

  1996: 38.5 (first 21 weeks)

  The encouraging recent reduction in general practitioner episodes is mirrored by a fall in the number of hospital admissions and day cases.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that health authorities should routinely screen all babies at birth for cystic fibrosis; and if he will make a statement. [31549]
  109
  Mr. Horam
  A systematic review of screening for cystic fibrosis has been commissioned. The findings, which are expected in 1997, will guide decisions on the introduction of a national screening programme.

  Poverty
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to incorporate ill health due to poverty in future statistics; and if he will make a statement. [31849]

  Mr. Horam
  Through its public health information strategy, the Department of Health has agreed a common information framework to ensure that information about the health status of the population is collected and analysed in a consistent way. That framework includes a number of socio-economic variables, to enable analysis of the association between health and socio-economic status.

  Water Tower Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 501, which water tower mental hospitals are currently open; and when he expects to receive information on (a) their planned closure dates and (b) the number of patients at each hospital on 31 March 1995 and 31 March 1996. [32463]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 1 April at columns 48–50. The National Health Service Executive will shortly be undertaking a further national survey of the closure of the water tower mental hospitals in England.

  Breast Screening
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors explain the(a) fall in the total amount and (b) fall in the percentage of the total budget of the money spent by his Department under the national health service breast screening programme on screening women aged 65 years and over between 1993–94 and 1994–95. [31883]

  Mr. Horam
  Under the national health service breast screening programme, women aged 65 and over are not invited routinely for screening. However, some women who should be screened at 64 may not in fact be invited for screening until they have reached the age of 65. There was a fall in the number of these women invited for screening between 1993–94 and 1994–95, provisional figures. A factor which may explain the fall in 1994–95 is that more women of 64 were screened on schedule before they reached their 65th birthday.

  Women aged 65 and over may continue to be screened every three years on request. The number of women requesting screening remained constant between 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of people in long-term residential care who are self-funding. [32200]

  Mr. Bowis
  We estimate that around 25 per cent. of people in residential care currently meet their own costs in full.
  110
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total annual cost to public funds of raising the capital disregards for long-term residential care from 1 April. [32201]

  Mr. Bowis
  With regard to the cost to English local authority social services departments, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on 5 March at column 189.

  The cost to the Department of Social Security of raising the capital disregards in relation to income support for residential accommodation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total annual cost to public funds of raising the lower and upper capital disregards for long-term residential care from £10,000 to £15,000 and from £16,000 to £21,000. [32202]

  Mr. Bowis
  No such estimate has been made.

  AIDS Conference
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if representatives from his Department will be attending the 11th international conference on AIDS in Vancouver in July. [32203]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 29 April at column 342. In addition, the Medical Devices Agency may also be represented.

  Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996 the United Kingdom has made written requests that the Committee on Proprietory Medicinal Products consider matters relating to the safety of medicines. [27358]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 30 April 1996]: On one occasion in 1995; there have been no such occasions in 1996.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Forum
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where the Northern Ireland forum will meet. [30837]

  Mr. Ancram
  The forum will meet in the Interpoint Centre, York street, Belfast.

  Cattle Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the cattle exported for slaughter from Northern Ireland in 1995 were(a) under six months and (b) certified as destined for EU abattoirs. [31116]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In 1995, no cattle under six months of age were exported for slaughter from Northern Ireland.
  111

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) pursuant to his answer of 1 April,Official Report, column 68, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested; [31443]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 27 March, Official Report, column 613, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31456]

  Sir John Wheeler
  More than £450, the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.

  Paramilitary Arsenals
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate has been made of the scale of the IRA and loyalist paramilitary arsenals. [30884]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There is continuing public speculation about the nature and extent of illegal weapons holdings and supplies. However, it is not in the public interest to comment on or record information based on intelligence reporting.

  School Meals
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schoolchildren in Northern Ireland currently receive(a) free and (b) subsidised school meals; and what were the figures (i) five and (ii) 10 years ago. [32174]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is provided in the following table:

  Year

  Pupils receiving free school meals

  Pupils receiving subsidised school meals

  19951

  83,073

  99,549

  1991

  77,005

  87,189

  1986

  98,233

  66,600

  1 Latest year available.

ENVIRONMENT

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union Flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31506]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Thursday 6 June Official Report, column 518.

  Landfill Tax
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the respective roles of his Department and the new Environment Agency in implementing the landfill tax, with special reference to what new steps will be taken to 112
  prevent illegal dumping and fly tipping in the countryside, and to relieve landowners on whose property such waste is deposited from liability to pay the tax when they transport it to designated landfill sites. [31616]

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is responsible for the overall regulatory framework for waste management in England and Wales. Regulations implemented on 1 May 1994 introduced a new waste management licensing system. The associated duty of care for waste came into force on 1 April 1992. The penalties that can be imposed for offences relating to waste are already severe, and these controls provide a strong regulatory framework to support the introduction of the landfill tax. My Department will also write to the courts before the start of the tax on 1 October 1996, to draw their attention to the financial gains that can be made by those who dispose of waste illegally.

  The Environment Agency is the competent authority for the purposes of waste management licensing. The agency has the resources and the expertise to advise on the legal and sound management of waste, to investigate offences and to carry out enforcement action. The Government's guidance to the agency on its objectives and contribution to sustainable development, which will be laid before Parliament very shortly, will clarify its role in this area. Ministers will expect the agency to act upon its powers and to review procedures for preventing and handling cases of fly tipping.

  The Government have no plans to relieve the occupiers of land on which waste is deposited illegally from liability to pay landfill tax where they dispose of the waste to licensed landfill sites.

  Disabled People (Water Supplies)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department gives to water companies in(a) identifying in advance and (b) providing alternative water supplies for customers with mobility problems, when due to exception circumstances, water is available only from standpipes or bowsers. [31874]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department has issued two formal directions under the Water Industry Act 1991 to all water and sewerage companies whereby they are required to formulate plans to provide an essential water supply at all times and notify the relevant local authority and district health authority during water supply emergencies. The arrangements made by water companies under these provisions cover supplies to all the affected householders, with particular emphasis on providing for vulnerable members of the community, including those with mobility problems.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue guidance to local authorities and housing associations on the maintenance of a list of their accessible properties for disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [31875]

  Mr. Clappison
  Paragraph 13(f) of the annex to Department of the Environment circular 10/92 "Housing and Community Care" advises local authorities to consider maintaining a record of special needs or adapted
  113
  housing in their areas to help match those available against an assessment of individuals' needs. I understand that the Housing Corporation has recently commissioned research into the use of databases of adapted properties with a view to issuing advice to housing associations on good practice in this area.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation to provide for the compulsory inclusion of tenants on the boards of housing associations. [31983]

  Mr. Clappison
  The appointment of board members to housing associations is for individual associations to determine in accordance with their rules. The Government encourage associations to involve tenants in all aspects of the management of their associations, but they do not consider it appropriate to legislate for the inclusion on the board members from any single interest group.

  Water Consumption
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the estimated average domestic household water consumption in each water company area(a) in the last year, (b) two years ago and (c) five years ago; [32496]

  (2) what was the estimated average water consumption per household in (a) England, Wales and (b) Scotland in each year since 1986; [32497]

  (3) what was the overall water consumption by water company for each of the past 10 years. [32498]

  Mr. Clappison
  The water delivered to each household in England and Wales over the past three years, and the number of households in each water company area, are given in the Office of Water Services' reports on the "Cost of Water Delivered and Sewage Collected". Figures prior to 1992–93 are not available on a comparable basis. Estimates and projections of household water consumption for Scotland are contained in the Scottish Office research report "Domestic Water Consumption in Scotland in 1991".

  Copies of these reports are in the House Library.

  Estimates of the total water put into public supply in England and Wales between 1983–84 and 1994–95 are given in the table. Individual water company estimates are available from their respective associations.

  Public water supplied 1983–84 to 1994–95 (million litres/day)

  England and Wales1

  Unmetered

  Metered

  Non-potable

  Total

  1983–84

  11,842

  3,996

  516

  16,354

  1984–85

  11,956

  3,990

  558

  16,504

  1985–86

  12,036

  3,965

  575

  16,576

  1986–87

  12,195

  4,088

  571

  16,854

  1987–88

  12,216

  4,059

  604

  16,879

  1988–89

  12,177

  4,114

  605

  16,896

  1989–90

  12,424

  4,135

  714

  17,273

  1990–91

  12,549

  4,256

  576

  17,381

  1991–92

  12,399

  4,258

  552

  17,209

  1992–93

  11,669

  4,457

  503

  16,629

  1993–94

  11,999

  4,034

  521

  16,554

  1994–95

  12,350

  4,139

  526

  17,015

  1 Includes water supply companies.

  114

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he is taking to monitor the take-up of grants under the home energy efficiency scheme, following changes to eligibility criteria on 1 April; and if he will make a statement; [32042]

  (2) how many claimants over the age of 60 years registered for a 100 per cent. grant under the home energy efficiency scheme before the change in eligibility criteria on 1 April. [32043]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We receive regular reports on the operation of this successful scheme, which has helped almost 2 million vulnerable householders to keep their homes warmer with less fuel, from the company which manages it for us.

  By 1 April, 372,000 applicants had registered their claims under the special arrangements we set up following the Budget statement. Between 1 April and 31 May, 112,000 grants were paid.

  Opencast Coal, Sharlston
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report on the public inquiry on the proposals for opencast coal operations in the village of Sharlston. [32261]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The report of the inspector who conducted the public inquiry into the proposed opencast coal mining operations at Sharlston, West Yorkshire has been received in the Department. A decision by the Secretary of State on the case will be announced as soon as possible.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to ensure that the stormwater system at Menwith hill station meets environmental protection standards; when the last inspection was carried out, and by whom; if the previous high quantities of oil have been removed from the oil/water separators; what action has been taken to ensure that these levels will not be repeated; what centralised listing of above and underground tank locations, history, and records now exists; and what action has been taken to ensure that the management of underground petroleum oil and lubrication tanks meet necessary standards and requirements. [31951]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: I understand that the stormwater system has been refurbished and that the Environment Agency has consented to the associated discharge. An inspection of the site by the agency earlier this month indicated that the oil interceptors in the system are removing oil from stormwater and that the quantity of oil evident in the separator was not substantial. The station now keeps records of underground tanks, which are regularly maintained and inspected.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission an analysis of the soil, air and water at RAF Menwith Hill. [31955]
  115
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: I have no plans to do so.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what use her Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within her Department or executive agencies administered by her Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31419]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department and its executive agencies have used the following executive search agencies or employment companies to fill the following posts:

  (i) St. James's Management Recruitment was used to fill the post of head of financial services branch and head of the accountancy profession for the former Department of Education group in 1994–95.

  (ii) Price Waterhouse was used to fill the post of permanent secretary to the former Department of Employment group in the same year.

  (iii) Korn/Ferry Carre/Orban International is currently being used to fill the post of chief executive of the Employment Service.

  Details of the individual contracts concerned are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department spent in recruiting staff to her Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31404]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department and its executive agencies spent a total of £119,366 on staff recruitment during 1994–95, and £85, 484 on staff recruitment during 1995–96. In 1994–95, 734 permanent staff, 59 fixed-term appointees and 1,482 casual staff were recruited by the Department and its executive agencies. In 1995–96, 212 permanent staff, 284 fixed-term appointees and 4,227 casual staff were recruited.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances her Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within her own Department or its executive agencies. [31532]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department uses executive search agencies primarily to fill senior vacancies. Once a decision has been made to fill such a vacancy by open competition, the decision whether to use an executive search agency is taken on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the post, the type of person being sought and whether advertisement alone would produce a satisfactory field of candidates. For members of the senior civil service, the Department follows advice in "Guidance 116
  on Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment to Senior Posts", a procedural guide to Departments produced by the civil service commissioners.

  Apart from occasional use of employment agencies to provide agency staff, other recruitment is handled by internal personnel staff and line managers involving the civil service recruitment and assessment services where appropriate.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1), pursuant to her answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 433, how much her Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested; [31464]

  (2), pursuant to her answer of 26 March, Official Report, column 484, how much her Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31462]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  More than £450, which is the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.

  School Meals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities have awarded their school meals contracts to Rentokil. [32074]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department does not collect this information centrally.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy that answers to parliamentary questions that are referred to the chief executive of the Student Loans Company to answer are published in the Official Report; and if she will make a statement. [31492]

  Mr. Forth
  Arrangements for publishing chief executive letters responding to parliamentary questions in the Official Report apply only to the next steps agencies and Defence agencies. The Student Loans Company is a non-departmental public body—NDPB. There is no approval by the House authorities for broadening the scope of the Official Report to include letters from chief executives of NDPBs. Copies of replies from NDPB chief executives are, however, placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools voted to become grant maintained during each financial year since 1993–94; and, in each case, what proportion of parental ballots ended in a yes vote. [31844]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is given in the table:
  117

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of ballots

  Number (proportion) of yes votes

  Number of ballots

  Number (proportion) of yes votes

  Number of ballots

  Number (proportion) of yes votes

  Primary

  274

  201 (73 per cent.)

  94

  55 (59 per cent.)

  61

  37 (61 per cent.)

  Secondary

  171

  107 (63 per cent.)

  43

  13 (30 per cent.)

  31

  13 (42 per cent.)

  Mr Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools voted to become grant maintained during the academic years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1995–96, and in each case, what proportion of parental ballots ended in a "yes" vote. [31843]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is given in the tables:

  1992–93

  Number of ballots

  Number (proportion) of yes votes

  Primary

  310

  252 (81 per cent.)

  Secondary

  392

  291 (74 per cent.)

  1993–94

  Number of ballots

  Number (proportion) of yes votes

  Primary

  165

  105 (64 per cent.)

  Secondary

  104

  52 (50 per cent.)

  1994–95

  Number of ballots

  Number (proportion) of yes votes

  Primary

  59

  37 (63 per cent.)

  Secondary

  26

  13 (50 per cent.)

  1993–94

  Number of ballots

  Number (proportion) of yes votes

  Primary

  56

  34 (61 per cent.)

  Secondary

  35

  13 (37 per cent.)

  Local Education Authorities (Delegation)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) mechanism and (b) requirement exists for schools to be consulted by their local education authorities over the level of delegation within the local management of schools scheme. [31838]

  Mr. Squire
  The precise level of delegation to schools in any local education authority—(LEA)—is not a matter upon which consultation is required, although an LEA

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  Rank Local Education Authority

  Percentage Potential schools budget delegated

  Percentage Potential schools budget delegated

  Rank

  Percentage Potential schools budget delegated

  Rank

  1. Dudley

  96.1

  95.8

  (1)

  92.5

  (1)

  2. Brent

  94.6

  93.5

  (7)

  90.0

  (6)

  3. Solihull

  94.4

  94.0

  (3)

  90.4

  (4)

  4. Waltham Forest

  93.9

  93.9

  (4)

  89.8

  (9)

  5. Sunderland

  93.8

  92.3

  (15)

  88.0

  (28)

  118
  would be required to consult upon a proposal to amend any scheme provision which sets a minimum delegation requirement. The method by which an LEA consults schools on changes to local management of schools schemes is for the authority itself to determine.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the items of local education authority expenditure on schools that her Department considers impracticable or undesirable for delegation as stated in the 1996 departmental report; on what criteria each is considered impracticable or undesirable for delegation; and if she will make a statement. [31834]

  Mr. Squire
  Items excluded from the potential schools budget—PSB—are conveniently listed in schedule 1 to the Education (School Financial Statements) (Prescribed Particulars etc.) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No 208). Reasons for their exclusion were set out in part 4 of the Department's circular 2/94, except in the case of three items, the removal of which from the PSB was the subject of subsequent decisions. These items are: expenditure on inspections carried out by local education authorities for the Office for Standards in Education, which self-evidently cannot be delegated to schools; expenditure on the insurance of LEAs against liability in negligence, which it seemed reasonable to place on the same footing as governors' liability insurance; and expenditure on provision for ethnic minority pupils, much of which was previously excluded from the PSB by virtue of being supported by section 11 grant. The Government have been reviewing policy on delegation, and their conclusions will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper on self-government for schools.

  School Funding
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each local education authority in England the percentage of the potential schools budget which has been delegated in the aggregated schools budget in each year since 1990, ranked according to the highest levels of delegation. [31837]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested for the financial years 1994–95 to 1996–97 is shown in the table. Information on earlier years is contained in the answer given on 5 July 1993 to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman),Official Report, columns 16–20.
  119

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  Rank Local Education Authority

  Percentage Potential schools budget delegated

  Percentage Potential schools budget delegated

  Rank

  Percentage Potential schools budget delegated

  Rank

  6. Leeds

  93.7

  93.4

  (8)

  89.9

  (8)

  7. Hertfordshire

  93.6

  94.1

  (2)

  91.3

  (3)

  8. Berkshire

  93.5

  93.1

  (9)

  90.0

  (7)

  9. Rochdale

  93.3

  92.9

  (11)

  88.7

  (21)

  10. Greenwich

  93.1

  92.6

  (14)

  89.3

  (12)

  11. Knowsley

  93.1

  93.9

  (6)

  89.1

  (13)

  12. Staffordshire

  93.0

  92.8

  (12)

  87.9

  (30)

  13. Northamptonshire

  92.9

  92.9

  (10)

  89.3

  (11)

  14. Wigan

  92.9

  92.7

  (13)

  86.9

  (44)

  15. Liverpool

  92.7

  92.2

  (16)

  86.5

  (60)

  16. Islington

  92.6

  93.9

  (5)

  92.5

  (2)

  17. Suffolk

  92.6

  90.6

  (38)

  87.6

  (37)

  18. Bury

  92.5

  91.8

  (20)

  88.3

  (27)

  19. Bedfordshire

  92.4

  91.2

  (27)

  88.7

  (18)

  20. Wolverhampton

  92.2

  91.9

  (19)

  88.7

  (19)

  21. Havering

  92.1

  91.7

  (23)

  88.3

  (26)

  22. North Tyneside

  92.0

  91.8

  (21)

  85.9

  (81)

  23. Isles of Scilly

  91.9

  85.1

  (109)

  86.3

  (68)

  24. Bexley

  91.9

  91.2

  (28)

  87.6

  (36)

  25. Oxfordshire

  91.8

  91.6

  (24)

  88.7

  (20)

  26. Shropshire

  91.8

  88.2

  (91)

  85.4

  (91)

  27. Manchester

  91.8

  92.0

  (17)

  89.1

  (14)

  28. Redbridge

  91.4

  90.6

  (40)

  87.0

  (41)

  29. Sutton

  91.4

  90.2

  (47)

  86.0

  (79)

  30. Croydon

  91.3

  90.0

  (51)

  90.1

  (5)

  31. Birmingham

  91.3

  90.3

  (44)

  86.8

  (49)

  32. Cumbria

  91.3

  91.8

  (22)

  86.5

  (59)

  33. Richmond

  91.3

  90.4

  (41)

  88.9

  (15)

  34. Cheshire

  91.3

  90.9

  (31)

  88.7

  (22)

  35. Gloucestershire

  91.2

  91.1

  (29)

  86.4

  (64)

  36. Hammersmith/Fulham

  91.2

  90.8

  (35)

  86.6

  (57)

  37. Devon

  91.2

  91.9

  (18)

  87.8

  (31)

  38. Norfolk

  91.2

  91.4

  (25)

  87.8

  (33)

  39. Somerset

  91.2

  91.1

  (30)

  86.2

  (72)

  40. Stockport

  91.2

  90.9

  (32)

  89.3

  (10)

  41. Hampshire

  91.1

  88.6

  (84)

  86.6

  (56)

  42. Northumberland

  91.1

  90.8

  (36)

  88.9

  (16)

  43. Essex

  90.9

  89.0

  (73)

  85.9

  (82)

  44. Coventry

  90.9

  91.3

  (26)

  87.1

  (40)

  45. Bristol

  90.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46. Kingston

  90.8

  89.2

  (67)

  85.5

  (89)

  47. Oldham

  90.7

  90.6

  (39)

  86.8

  (50)

  48. Wirral

  90.7

  90.3

  (42)

  86.3

  (67)

  49. Kensington/Chelsea

  90.7

  90.0

  (50)

  85.6

  (85)

  50. Salford

  90.6

  90.7

  (37)

  87.8

  (32)

  51. North Yorkshire

  90.5

  89.8

  (54)

  86.9

  (45)

  52. Barking/Dagenham

  90.5

  89.1

  (72)

  85.3

  (93)

  53. Surrey

  90.5

  89.8

  (55)

  86.9

  (46)

  54. Ealing

  90.5

  89.9

  (53)

  86.1

  (75)

  55. Stockton on Tees

  90.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  56. Hereford/Worcester

  90.3

  90.8

  (34)

  88.3

  (25)

  57. Enfield

  90.2

  89.4

  (62)

  87.9

  (29)

  58. Hillingdon

  90.2

  89.9

  (52)

  86.6

  (52)

  59. Harrow

  90.1

  90.1

  (49)

  88.8

  (17)

  60. Hounslow

  90.0

  88.8

  (80)

  86.4

  (65)

  61. Wiltshire

  90.0

  89.6

  (58)

  86.0

  (77)

  62. St. Helens

  89.9

  89.5

  (59)

  85.5

  (88)

  63. East Sussex

  89.9

  88.9

  (77)

  86.2

  (69)

  64. Walsall

  89.9

  90.3

  (43)

  87.7

  (35)

  65. Tameside

  89.9

  89.3

  (64)

  86.0

  (80)

  66. Corporation of London

  89.9

  88.9

  (75)

  87.0

  (43)

  67. North East Lincolnshire

  89.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  68. Isle of Wight

  89.8

  90.2

  (45)

  86.9

  (47)

  69. Hull

  89.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70. Warwickshire

  89.8

  88.4

  (89)

  85.7

  (84)

  71. Lewisham

  89.8

  87.6

  (99)

  84.6

  (104)

  72. South Gloucestershire

  89.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  73. Bath and North East Somerset

  89.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74. Bradford

  89.7

  88.5

  (86)

  86.5

  (58)

  75. Dorset

  89.7

  89.7

  (56)

  86.6

  (54)

  120 121

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  Rank Local Education Authority

  Percentage Potential schools budget delegated

  Percentage Potential schools budget delegated

  Rank

  Percentage Potential schools budget delegated

  Rank

  76. Merton

  89.7

  89.2

  (69)

  88.3

  (24)

  77. East Riding

  89.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  78. North Somerset

  89.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79. Rotherham

  89.6

  89.4

  (63)

  86.2

  (71)

  80. Cambridgeshire

  89.5

  89.3

  (66)

  86.2

  (70)

  81. Wandsworth

  89.5

  85.4

  (108)

  82.4

  (109)

  82. Barnet

  89.4

  90.2

  (48)

  86.6

  (55)

  83. Westminster

  89.4

  90.2

  (46)

  88.5

  (23)

  84. Hackney

  89.4

  86.9

  (104)

  83.5

  (107)

  85. Sefton

  89.4

  88.7

  (82)

  87.0

  (42)

  86. Southwark

  89.3

  88.0

  (94)

  86.1

  (74)

  87. Lincolnshire

  89.3

  89.5

  (60)

  86.9

  (48)

  88. Derbyshire

  89.2

  89.3

  (65)

  85.0

  (99)

  89. West Sussex

  89.2

  88.9

  (78)

  87.2

  (38)

  90. Sandwell

  89.2

  88.1

  (92)

  86.5

  (62)

  91. Calderdale

  89.1

  89.1

  (71)

  87.7

  (34)

  92. Buckinghamshire

  89.1

  88.4

  (87)

  85.1

  (96)

  93. Hartlepool

  89.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94. Tower Hamlets

  89.0

  90.9

  (33)

  86.2

  (73)

  95. Newcastle

  89.0

  88.2

  (90)

  85.4

  (90)

  96. Kirklees

  89.0

  87.1

  (103)

  84.2

  (106)

  97. Kent

  89.0

  87.5

  (100)

  85.2

  (95)

  98. Nottinghamshire

  88.9

  88.8

  (79)

  86.7

  (51)

  99. South Tyneside

  88.9

  89.2

  (68)

  86.5

  (61)

  100. Lancashire

  88.9

  87.7

  (98)

  85.3

  (94)

  101. North Lincolnshire

  88.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  102. Barnsley

  88.7

  89.1

  (70)

  85.0

  (103)

  103. Bolton

  88.5

  88.9

  (76)

  85.0

  (101)

  104. Trafford

  88.5

  88.6

  (83)

  86.6

  (53)

  105. Durham

  88.3

  88.5

  (85)

  86.0

  (78)

  106. Cornwall

  88.3

  89.0

  (74)

  87.1

  (39)

  107. Camden

  88.2

  87.4

  (101)

  83.0

  (108)

  108. Middlesbrough

  88.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  109. Leicestershire

  88.0

  88.4

  (88)

  86.4

  (66)

  110. Doncaster

  87.9

  89.7

  (57)

  85.0

  (100)

  111. Lambeth

  87.4

  86.4

  (107)

  84.2

  (105)

  112. Sheffield

  87.4

  87.8

  (96)

  85.0

  (98)

  113. Wakefield

  87.2

  87.9

  (95)

  85.4

  (92)

  114. Bromley

  86.9

  87.8

  (97)

  86.4

  (63)

  115. Gateshead

  86.8

  86.6

  (105)

  86.1

  (76)

  116. Haringey

  86.4

  87.2

  (102)

  85.1

  (97)

  117. Newham

  85.1

  86.5

  (106)

  85.0

  (102)

  Redcar and Cleveland

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  —

  York

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the representations her Department has received(a) for and (b) against increasing the minimum proportion of the potential schools budget which must be delegated to school governing bodies by local education authorities; and if she will make a statement. [31833]

  Mr. Squire
  We discuss all aspects of local management of schools—LMS—with a range of interests from time to time. In particular, the Department has held meetings in recent weeks with representatives from local authority associations, chief education officers, teacher

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Number of ballots

  Number(proportion) of yes votes

  Number of ballots

  Number(proportion) of yes votes

  Number of ballots

  Number (proportion) of yes votes

  Primary

  308

  239 (78 per cent.)

  130

  83 (64 per cent)

  56

  35 (63 per cent.)

  Secondary

  237

  169(71 per cent.)

  70

  26 (37 per cent.)

  30

  14 (47 per cent.)

  122
  associations, GM organisations and other national bodies, about LMS delegation levels, among other things. The Government will set out their policy on LMS delegation in the forthcoming White Paper on self-government for schools.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools voted to become grant maintained during each calendar year since 1993; and, in each case, what proportion of parental ballots ended in a yes vote. [31845]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is given in the table:
  123

  National Curriculum
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals, by local education authority areas, have been made by parents to date about failures to deliver the national curriculum in schools. [32045]

  Mr. Paice
  To date, the Department has collected information on formal complaints about failure to comply with the national curriculum for the school years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in the case of local education authority-maintained schools, and 1993–94 in the case of both LEA-maintained and grant-maintained schools. The numbers, where supplied, are as follows. There were nil returns for 75 LEAs across all years. The data do not distinguish parents from other complainants.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1993–94

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Birmingham

  1—

  —

  1—

  1

  Bradford

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  1—

  —

  —

  1

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Devon

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Dudley

  —

  —

  —

  1

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Greenwich

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1—

  —

  —

  1

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Lancashire

  —

  1—

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  1

  North Yorkshire

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  St. Helens

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Walsall

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Warwickshire

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1 No response received from the LEA that year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will respond to the letters on training of 6 March and 10 May from the hon. Member for Normanton. [32263]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We do not appear to have received the letters on training of 6 March or of 10 May. However, if the hon. Member will send me copies of the letters, I shall ensure that they are answered.
  124

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department spent during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 on sending civil servants accompanying Ministers from her Department on official duties abroad. [32414]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  School Places
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals were made by parents on the ground of non-admission of their child to the school of their choice in the latest year for which figures are available(a) in each local education authority and (b) nationally. [31960]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Appeals lodged by parents against non-admission of their children to maintained, including grant-maintained, primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area in England

  Academic Year 1993–95

  Local education authority area

  Total appeals lodged

  Corporation of London

  1

  Camden

  394

  Greenwich

  507

  Hackney

  261

  Hammersmith and Fulham1

  56

  Islington

  182

  Kensington and Chelsea

  63

  Lambeth

  395

  Lewisham

  685

  Southwark

  256

  Tower Hamlets1

  525

  Wandsworth

  207

  Westminster

  223

  Barking and Dagenham

  259

  Barnet

  694

  Bexley

  443

  Brent

  90

  Bromley1

  806

  Croydon

  883

  Ealing

  413

  Enfield

  631

  Haringey

  389

  Harrow

  632

  Havering

  518

  Hillingdon

  381

  Hounslow

  412

  Kingston upon Thames

  299

  Merton

  236

  Newham

  176

  Redbridge

  494

  Richmond upon Thames

  171

  Sutton

  625

  Waltham Forest

  782

  Birmingham

  2,261

  Coventry

  468

  Dudley

  185

  Sandwell

  178

  Solihull

  388

  Walsall

  62

  Wolverhampton

  160

  Knowsley

  21

  Liverpool

  858

  St. Helens

  98

  125

  Appeals lodged by parents against non-admission of their children to maintained, including grant-maintained, primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area in England

  Academic Year 1993–95

  Local education authority area

  Total appeals lodged

  Sefton

  185

  Wirral

  445

  Bolton

  225

  Bury

  674

  Manchester

  872

  Oldham

  268

  Rochdale

  158

  Salford

  101

  Stockport

  123

  Tameside

  245

  Trafford

  414

  Wigan

  173

  Barnsley

  114

  Doncaster

  44

  Rotherham

  80

  Sheffield

  295

  Bradford

  1,739

  Calderdale

  152

  Kirklees1

  122

  Leeds

  2,925

  Wakefield

  93

  Gateshead

  77

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  207

  North Tyneside1

  12

  South Tyneside

  62

  Sunderland

  154

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  1,365

  Bedfordshire

  184

  Berkshire

  792

  Buckinghamshire

  601

  Cambridge

  278

  Cheshire

  136

  Cleveland

  103

  Cornwall

  98

  Cumbria

  128

  Derbyshire

  280

  Devon

  460

  Dorset

  398

  Durham1

  310

  East Sussex

  274

  Essex

  434

  Gloucestershire

  338

  Hampshire1

  188

  Hereford and Worcester

  260

  Hertfordshire

  1,156

  Humberside

  575

  Isle of Wight

  36

  Kent1

  1,879

  Lancashire

  2,610

  Leicestershire

  295

  Lincolnshire

  326

  Norfolk

  322

  North Yorkshire

  509

  Northamptonshire

  344

  Northumberland

  12

  Nottinghamshire1

  297

  Oxfordshire

  343

  Shropshire

  447

  Somerset

  323

  Staffordshire

  185

  Suffolk

  81

  Surrey

  1,182

  Warwickshire

  339

  West Sussex

  231

  Wiltshire

  84

  England

  45,876

  1 LEAs which did not submit a complete return.

  126
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many letters she has received in the past year from parents failing to obtain a place for their child in the school of their choice; what were the figures in each of the last five years; and what advice she offers such parents. [31916]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department receives many inquiries from parents about school admissions, both in writing and by telephone. No central register of such inquiries is kept. Parents who have failed to secure a place for their child in the school of their choice are advised of their statutory right to an independent appeal.

  Schools (Selection)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those(a) grant-maintained, (b) voluntary-aided and (c) other schools, which have had a significant change of character approved since 1989 to become (i) wholly or (ii) partially selective, stating in each case the extent of selection approved. [31914]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following list shows the schools that have had statutory proposals approved since 1989 to become wholly or partially selective, stating the extent of selection approved.

  Schools approved to become wholly selective

  LEA area

  School name

  Selection

  Grant maintained

  Cumbria

  Queen Elizabeth grammar school

  100 per cent.

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth boys' school

  100 per cent. including 10 per cent. by aptitude for music

  Kent

  Chaucer technology school

  100 per cent. by aptitude for technology

  Voluntary aided

  Liverpool

  The Blue Coat school

  100 per cent.

  County

  Wandsworth

  Battersea technology college

  100 per cent. by ability in technology

  Schools approved to become partially selective

  LEA area

  School name

  Selection

  Grant maintained

  Barnet

  Mill Hill County high school

  30 per cent. by aptitude for technology

  Berkshire

  Southlands school

  One selective form of entry (18 per cent.)

  Dorset

  Budmouth GM school

  10 per cent. selection by ability

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Oratory school

  20 boys at age seven on musical and general ability

  Hertfordshire

  Watford grammar school for girls

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Hertfordshire

  Watford grammar school for boys

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Hertfordshire

  Parmiters school

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  127

  Schools approved to become partially selective

  LEA area

  School name

  Selection

  Hertfordshire

  Rickmansworth school

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Kent

  Homewood school

  20 per cent. selection by ability

  Kingston

  Holy Cross school

  15 per cent. selection by ability

  Lambeth

  Archbishop Tenison's GM schoolSt. Martin in the Fields high school

  banding including 40 per cent. above average ability

  Lambeth

  St. Martin in the Fields high school

  Wandsworth

  Graveney GM school

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Wandsworth

  Burntwood school

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  County

  Wandsworth

  The Ernest Bevin school

  50 per cent selection by ability

  Wandsworth

  Chestnut Grove school

  30 pupils by ability in languages and30 by ability in arts (38 per cent)

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, by local education authority, those schools which select more than 10 per cent. of their pupils, stating in each case(a) the percentage of intake selected, (b) the selection criteria and (c) whether the school is a county, voluntary-aided, voluntary-controlled, special agreement or grant-maintained school. [31913]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information provided in the table covers only those schools which classified themselves as selective in the 1995 performance tables. The Department does not hold comprehensive information on partially selective schools. Most selective schools allocate places on the basis of performance in tests.

  LEA

  School

  Status

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth's boys' school

  GM

  Barnet

  St. Michael's Catholic grammar school

  GM

  Berkshire

  Herschel grammar school

  GM

  Berkshire

  Kendrick Girl's grammar school

  County

  Berkshire

  Langley grammar school

  GM

  Berkshire

  Reading school

  GM

  Berkshire

  Slough grammar school

  GM

  Bexley

  Bexley grammar school

  County

  Bexley

  Bexley-Erith technical high school for boys

  GM

  Bexley

  Chislehurst and Sidcup grammar school

  County

  Bexley

  Townley road grammar school for girls

  County

  Birmingham

  Bishop Vesey's grammar school

  VA

  Birmingham

  Handsworth grammar school

  County

  Birmingham

  King Edward VI Aston school

  GM

  Birmingham

  King Edward VI Camp Hill girls' school

  GM

  Birmingham

  King Edeward VI Camp Hill school boys

  GM

  Birmingham

  King Edward VI Five Ways school

  GM

  Birmingham

  King Edward VI Handsworth school

  GM

  Birmingham

  Sutton Coldfield girl's school

  County

  Bristol

  Cotham grammar school

  County

  Bristol

  Fairfield grammar school

  County

  Bromley

  Newstead Wood school for girls

  GM

  128

  LEA

  School

  Status

  Bromley

  St. Olave's and St. Saviour's grammar school

  GM

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury grammar school

  VC

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury high school

  County

  Buckinghamshire

  Beaconsfield high school

  GM

  Buckinghamshire

  Burnham grammar school

  County

  Buckinghamshire

  Chesham high school

  County

  Buckinghamshire

  Dr. Challoner's grammar school

  VC

  Buckinghamshire

  Dr. Challoner's high school

  County

  Buckinghamshire

  John Hampden grammar school

  County

  Buckinghamshire

  Sir Henry Floyd grammar school

  County

  Buckinghamshire

  Sir William Borlase's grammar school

  VC

  Buckinghamshire

  The Royal Latin school

  VC

  Buckinghamshire

  Wycombe high school

  VC

  Calderdale

  Crossley Heath school

  GM

  Calderdale

  The North Halifax grammar school

  GM

  Cambridgeshire

  The King's school

  GM

  Cumbria

  St. Bernard's convent school

  COUNTY

  Devon

  Churston grammar school

  COUNTY

  Devon

  Colyton grammar school

  GM

  Devon

  Devonport high school for boys

  COUNTY

  Devon

  Devonport high school for girls

  COUNTY

  Devon

  Plymouth high school for girls

  COUNTY

  Devon

  Torquay boys' grammar school

  GM

  Devon

  Torquay grammar school for girls

  COUNTY

  Dorset

  Bournemouth school

  GM

  Dorset

  Bournemouth school for girls (GM)

  GM

  Dorset

  Budmouth technology college

  GM

  Dorset

  Parkstone grammar schools (girls)

  GM

  Dorset

  Poole grammar school

  GM

  Enfield

  The Latymer school

  GM

  Essex

  Chelmsford county high school for girls

  GM

  Essex

  Colchester county high school for girls

  GM

  Essex

  Colchester royal grammar school

  GM

  Essex

  King Edward VI grammar school

  GM

  Essex

  Royal grammar school

  GM

  Essex

  Southend high school for boys

  GM

  Essex

  Southend high school for girls

  GM

  Essex

  Westcliff high school for boys

  GM

  Essex

  Westcliff high school for girls

  GM

  Gloucestershire

  Denmark road high school for girls

  COUNTY

  Gloucestershire

  Marling school

  GM

  Gloucestershire

  Pate's grammar school

  GM

  Gloucestershire

  Ribston Hall high school

  GM

  Gloucestershire

  Sir Thomas Rich's school

  County

  Gloucestershire

  Stroud high school

  GM

  Gloucestershire

  The Crypt school

  GM

  Hertfordshire

  The Henrietta Barnett school

  County

  Kent

  Barton Court grammar school

  GM

  Kent

  Bordon grammar school

  VC

  Kent

  Chatham boy's grammar school

  County

  Kent

  Chatham girls' grammar school

  GM

  Kent

  Chatham House grammar school for boys

  GM

  Kent

  Claredon House girls' grammar school

  County

  Kent

  Cranbrook school

  GM

  Kent

  Dane Court grammar school

  GM

  Kent

  Dartford grammar school

  GM

  Kent

  Dartford grammar school for girls

  GM

  Kent

  Dover grammar school for boys

  GM

  Kent

  Dover grammar school for girls

  County

  Kent

  Fort Pitt grammar school

  County

  Kent

  Gravesend grammar school for boys

  GM

  Kent

  Gravesend grammar school for girls

  GM

  Kent

  Highsted school

  County

  129

  LEA

  School

  Status

  Kent

  Highworth grammar school for girls

  County

  Kent

  Invicta grammar school for girls

  County

  Kent

  Maidstone grammar school

  VC

  Kent

  Maidstone grammar school forgirls

  VC

  Kent

  Oakwood Park grammar school

  GM

  Kent

  Rainham Mark grammar school

  GM

  Kent

  Simon Langton girls' school

  VC

  Kent

  Simon Langton grammar school for boys

  GM

  Kent

  Sir Joseph Williamson's mathematical school

  VC

  Kent

  The Folkestone school for girls

  GM

  Kent

  The grammar school for girls, Wilmington

  GM

  Kent

  The Harvey grammar school

  County

  Kent

  The Judd school

  VA

  Kent

  The Norton Knatchbull school

  County

  Kent

  The Rochester girls' grammar school

  GM

  Kent

  The Skinners' school

  GM

  Kent

  Tonbridge grammar school for girls

  GM

  Kent

  Tunbridge Wells girls' grammar school

  County

  Kent

  Tunbridge Wells grammar school for boys

  County

  Kent

  Weald of Kent grammar school

  County

  Kent

  Wilmington grammar school for boys

  GM

  Kingston

  The Tiffin girls' school

  County

  Kingston

  Tiffin school

  GM

  Kirldees

  Heckmondwike grammar school

  GM

  Lancashire

  Bacup and Rawtenstall grammar school

  GM

  Lancashire

  Clitheroe Royal grammar school

  GM

  Lancashire

  Lancaster Girls' grammar school

  GM

  Lancashire

  Lancaster Royal grammar school

  GM

  Lincolnshire

  Boston grammar school (boys)

  GM

  Lincolnshire

  Boston high school for girls

  County

  Lincolnshire

  Bourne grammar school

  County

  Lincolnshire

  Caistor grammar school

  GM

  Lincolnshire

  Carre's grammar school

  GM

  Lincolnshire

  Kesteven and Grantham girls' school

  County

  Lincolnshire

  Kesteven and Sleaford high school

  County

  Lincolnshire

  King Edward VI school

  GM

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's GM grammar school (Gainsborough)

  GM

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's GM grammar school (Alford)

  GM

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's grammar school (Horncastle)

  GM

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's high school

  County

  Lincolnshire

  Skegness grammar school

  GM

  Lincolnshire

  Spalding grammar school

  County

  Lincolnshire

  Spalding high school

  County

  North Yorkshire

  Ermysted's grammar school

  County

  North Yorkshire

  Ripon grammar school

  County

  North Yorkshire

  Skipton girls' high school

  VC

  Redbridge

  Ilford county high school

  County

  Redbridge

  Woodford county high school

  County

  Shropshire

  Adams' grammar school

  GM

  Shropshire

  Newport girls' high school

  County

  Shropshire

  Sir Roger Manwood's school

  GM

  Somerset

  Brymore school

  GM

  Sutton

  Nonsuch high school for girls

  GM

  Sutton

  Sutton grammar school for boys

  GM

  Sutton

  Wallington boys county grammar school

  GM

  Sutton

  Wallington high school for girls

  GM

  Sutton

  Wilson's school

  GM

  Trafford

  Altrincham boys' GM school

  GM

  130

  LEA

  School

  Status

  Trafford

  Altrincham grammar school for girls

  County

  Trafford

  Sale grammar school

  County

  Trafford

  Stretford grammar school

  County

  Trafford

  Urmston grammar school

  County

  Walsall

  Queen Mary's grammar school

  GM

  Walsall

  Queen Mary's high school

  GM

  Warwickshire

  Alcester grammar school

  GM

  Warwickshire

  King Edward VI grammar school

  VA

  Warwickshire

  Lawrence Sheriff school

  VA

  Warwickshire

  Rugby High school for girls

  GM

  Warwickshire

  Stratford grammar school for girls

  County

  Wiltshire

  Bishop Wordsworth's grammar school

  GM

  Wiltshire

  South Wiltshire grammar school for girls

  GM

  Wirral

  Calday Grange grammar school

  GM

  Wirral

  St. Anselm's college

  GM

  Wirral

  Upton Hall convent school

  GM

  Wirral

  West Kirby grammar school for girls

  County

  Wirral

  Wirral county grammar school (girls)

  County

  Wirral

  Wirral grammar school for boys

  GM

  Wolverhampton

  Wolverhampton girls' high school

  GM

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those grant-maintained schools which have received approval since 1989 for a change in their admissions arrangements to allow a level of partial selection which does not constitute a change of character stating, in each case, the nature of the change. [32002]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The table lists those grant-maintained schools that currently select up to 10 per cent. of their pupils on the basis of aptitude or ability in a particular subject or combination of subjects, following approval by the Secretary of State.

  School

  LEA area

  Nature of change

  Date approved

  Abbs Cross school

  Havering

  10 per cent. music

  June 1993

  Beaverwood girls school

  Bromley

  10 per cent. performing arts (music and dance)

  August 1994

  Beverley school

  Kingston upon Thames

  10 per cent. art or music

  October 1994

  Bishop's Stortford school

  Hertfordshire

  10 per cent. music, sport or drama

  October 1993

  Canterbury high school

  Kent

  10 per cent. music

  April 1993

  Cardinal Vaughan memorial school

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10 per cent. music

  August 1994

  Chancellors school

  Hertfordshire

  10 per cent. music, drama or sport

  December 1993

  Charles Dickens high school

  Kent

  10 per cent. music

  February 1993

  Chatham grammar school for girls

  Kent

  10 per cent. music, sport or drama

  August 1995

  Cliff Park high school

  Norfolk

  10 per cent. music

  October 1994

  Cooper's school

  Bromley

  10 per cent. music, drama, dance or sport

  June 1993

  Crofton school

  Hampshire

  Five places music

  October 1994

  131

  School

  LEA area

  Nature of change

  Date approved

  Dame Alice Owen school

  Hertfordshire

  10 per cent. music or sport

  April 1993

  Dane Court grammar school

  Kent

  10 per cent. music, sport, drama or any unusual talent

  March 1994

  Deacons school

  Cambridgeshire

  10 per cent. technology

  August 1994

  Dunraven school

  Lambeth

  10 per cent. music

  October 1993

  Enfield grammar school

  Enfield

  10 per cent. music or sport

  December 1993

  Goffs school

  Hertfordshire

  10 per cent. music, drama, sport of languages

  October 1995

  Heathside school

  Surrey

  10 per cent. Music or Sport

  July 1993

  Hendon school

  Barnet

  10 per cent. Music

  November 1995

  Hertfordshire and Essex high school

  Hertfordshire

  10 per cent. Music, Sport or Drama

  March 1994

  Hinchley Wood school

  Surrey

  10 per cent. Music

  July 1995

  Kemnal Manor school

  Bromley

  10 per cent. Technology

  February 1994

  King Edward VI grammar school

  Essex

  Three places for Choristers

  June 1993

  Kings' school

  Cambridgeshire

  10 per cent. Music and Choristers

  October 1993

  La Retraite school

  Lambeth

  10 per cent. Music

  September 1993

  La Sainte Union convent school

  Camden

  10 per cent. Music

  September 1995

  Langley Park school for boys

  Kent

  10 per cent. Music or Sport

  September 1993

  Leventhorpe school

  Hertfordshire

  10 per cent. Music

  October 1995

  Lincoln Christ's hospital school

  Lincolnshire

  10 per cent. Music

  October 1994

  Mill Hill county school

  Barnet

  10 per cent. Music

  October 1993

  Queen's school

  Hertfordshire

  10 per cent. Music, Art or Sport

  March 1993

  Rainham Mark grammar school

  Kent

  10 per cent. Music, Sport, Drama or any unusual talent

  February 1992

  Rainsford high school

  Essex

  10 per cent. Music or Drama

  March 1994

  Robert Naipier school

  Kent

  10 per cent. Music, Sport, Drama or any unusual talent

  February 1992

  St. George's CE school

  Kent

  10 per cent. Music

  July 1995

  Thamesmead school

  Surrey

  10 per cent. Music

  October 1994

  Ursuline convent

  Essex

  10 per cent.

  December 1993

  school Westland high school

  Kent

  Music 10 per cent. Music

  January 1993

  Winston Churchill school

  Surrey

  6 per cent. Music

  October 1995

  Wymondham college

  Norfolk

  10 per cent. Music

  March 1995

  Live Wire Project
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of state for Education and Employment what discussions she has had with British Rail regarding its involvement in the live wire project. [31907]
  132
  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: There have been no discussions with British Rail about its involvement in the live wire project.

  Wakefield Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is to be made available to the Wakefield training and enterprise council for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97; and what specific funding was allotted to particular services or activities. [32260]

  Mr. Paice
  The funds made available to Wakefield training and enterprise council—TEC—by the Department were: 1994–95, £13,125,523; 1995–96, £11,144,458 (subject to audit); and in 1996–97 funding available is expected to be £9,173,455. TEC budgets can, and often do, change in the year. The funding was allotted to particular services and activities as set out in the following tables:

  Standard

  Coal

  Total

  1994–95 cash year

  Training for young people

  4,356,066

  —

  4,356,066

  Training for unemployed adults1

  3,053,605

  860,151

  3,913,756

  Other

  3,701,417

  1,154,284

  4,855,701

  Total

  11,111,088

  2,014,435

  13,125,523

  1995–96 cash year

  Training for young people

  4,670,326

  —

  4,670,326

  Training for unemployed adults1

  2,288,551

  559,755

  2,848,306

  Other

  2,402,709

  1,223,117

  3,625,826

  Total

  9,361,586

  1,782,872

  11,144,458

  1996–97 cash year

  Training for young people

  5,398,443

  —

  5,398,443

  Training for unemployed adults1

  1,632,858

  39,971

  1,672,829

  Other

  2,026,503

  75,680

  2,102,183

  Total

  9,057,804

  115,651

  9,173,455

  1 The figure quoted is for training for work fees. Additional funding was made available for allowances paid to those in training.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the visit of a Minister from her Department to the area covered by the Wakefield TEC to discuss advice and promises of help to reduce the unemployed in the travel to work areas of Castleford and Pontefract, Wakefield and Dewsbury. [32262]

  Mr. Paice
  I visited the area covered by Wakefield training and enterprise council on the morning of 2 November 1995. Part of the morning included a visit to Pontefract prospect corner, one of Wakefield TEC's advice centres. I met members of staff of prospect corner and Wakefield TEC, toured the site and met some of those who have used the prospect corner facilities. Other sources of advice and help for unemployed people in the area covered by Wakefield TEC include the training for work programme run by the TEC and the range of services provided by the Employment Service, although I was not able to visit these on this occasion.
  133

  Schools (Skills Audit)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she determined that the skills audit being conducted under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Office would be able to consider the performance of schools in providing individuals with basic qualifications for employment. [32158]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: A report on the work of the skills audit will be published later this week. Schools' performance and the skills levels being attained by young people are always under scrutiny.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for education and Employment on how many occasions(a) she and (b) her ministerial colleagues have met the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the skills audit. [32154]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister have worked closely on the audit since it was announced in the last competitiveness White Paper.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to screen beef imports from the Irish Republic against BSE. [22818]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: Under European law, imports of beef from third countries and other member states are subject to harmonised EC animal and public health rules designed to protect against a wide range of potential health hazards.

  In addition, the Beef (Emergency Control) Order 1996, as amended, prohibits the sale for human consumption of all meat derived from bovines which, at the time of slaughter, were more than 30 months old. This measure applies to all bovines slaughtered after the commencement of the order, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas, other than those slaughtered in third countries listed in the schedule to the No. 2 amendment order, where the Government are satisfied we can import beef. The Irish Republic is not included in this schedule.

  As regards bovines less than 30 months of age, there are currently no EC rules in place regarding BSE which apply to beef produced in member states from such animals. We are keeping this the position under review.

  Scottish Beef
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if imported beef is subject to the same level of tests and controls as Scottish produced beef. [24243]

  Mrs. Browning
  Under European law, imports of beef from third countries and other member states are subject to harmonised animal and public health rules designed to protect against a wide range of potential health hazards.

  So far as BSE controls are concerned, the Beef (Emergency Control) Order 1996, as amended, prohibits the sale for human consumption of all meat derived from
  134
  bovines which, at the time of slaughter, were more than 30 months old. This measure applies to all bovines slaughtered after the commencement of the order, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas, other than those slaughtered in third countries listed in the schedule to the No. 2 amendment order where the Government are satisfied we can import beef. This exemption does not include any countries where there have been cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  The controls applying to Scottish produced beef under the Specified Bovine Material Order 1996 do not however, apply to imported beef from third countries or other member states, although a number of countries with BSE have introduced controls requiring the removal of specified bovine offals. We are keeping the position under review.

  Farm Employees (Compensation)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in respect of the percentage of the compensation to farmers for culling cattle which will be paid in wages to the employees of farmers. [30753]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have received no such representations.

  Cattle Culling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of the 30-month cattle slaughter scheme as it effects farmers in Buckinghamshire. [31150]

  Mr. Baldry
  The scheme is running at full throughput at present, given the limited rendering capacity to deal with carcases of animals slaughtered. I am aware that the geographic coverage of abattoirs operating under the scheme is not ideal in every area, including Buckinghamshire. Farmers in Buckinghamshire should use their nearest available approved collection centres to present animals under the scheme.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cost of the proposed slaughter of the additional cattle proposed for slaughter in the week ended 18 May [31250]

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 15,932 animals were slaughtered under the over 30 months scheme in the week ended 19 May. The cost of slaughtering them amounts to £1.4 million. It is not possible to calculate the cost of purchase of the animals since we do not yet have details of the weight and type of all the individual animals.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will add Baniells Meats, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire and Much Meat at Witney, Oxfordshire, to the list of approved abattoirs for the 30-month cattle slaughter scheme; and if he will make a statement. [31151]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans at present to add to the existing list of abattoirs operating under the scheme. Those already operating are taking the maximum throughput possible that can be absorbed by the rendering facilities and cold storage facilities currently available.
  135

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers the EU has cited in imposing a worldwide ban on exports of British beef. [31812]

  Mrs. Browning
  Commission decision 96/239/EEC on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposed a ban on the export of cattle, beef and other bovine material and products, cites article 10(4) of Council directive 90/425/EEC, concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market, and article 9(4) of Council directive 89/6672/EEC, concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market, as the powers under which the decision is made.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 10 June; and if he will make a statement. [32746]

  Mr. Baldry
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 10 June.

  The Council had an initial exchange of views about the principles and objectives for the next series of measures designed to bring all member states' fishing fleets into better balance with available fish stocks. I made it clear that the UK could not agree to the possibility of further reductions in the UK fleet until there is satisfactory progress towards sorting out the problem of quota hoppers. I also drew attention to the inconsistencies in the scientific advice underlying the Commission's thinking, for example in their assessment of Irish sea stocks and the lack of any proposed reduction in industrial fishing. I stressed that the approach had to be credible and command the confidence of the industry whose livelihoods are at stake. Significant further technical work will be needed before decisions can be taken. Other member states also had difficulty with the Commission's ideas and supported our view that any measures must be seen to be necessary, fair and workable. Discussion will be resumed at the next meeting of the Council in October.

  The Council agreed unanimously that the Community should at the earliest opportunity sign the United Nations agreement on straddling stocks and highly migratory fish species. It is designed to ensure international co-operation in the long term conservation and sustainable use of these fish stocks. I indicated the UK's strong support for such international measures.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with the United Kingdom and Ireland voting against, the allocation between members states of the 1996 quotas for redfish under the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEAFC, and North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, NAFO. Despite its lack of track record in the newly regulated NEAFC fishery, the UK was allocated a quota of 44 tonnes.
  136
  The Council unanimously agreed a short term arrangement so that no more than 3,000 tonnes of the 43,000 tone sprat total allowable catch for the Skaggerak and Kattegat could be fished using 16mm meshes for the remainder of 1996. This restriction is designed to limit the by-catch of juvenile herring.

  The Commission reported the latest scientific advice on North sea herring. This indicates that catch reductions of 50 per cent. are necessary during the current year in order to avoid closing the fishery next year. I outlined the UK's view that early action is essential to prevent a stock collapse and to avoid a complete closure. I supported quota cuts for North sea herring this year subject to the juvenile herring by-catch in other fisheries, including industrial fisheries, being reduced in parallel; the same proportionate cut applying to both the northern and southern North sea herring stocks; and the cut in herring quotas being applied equitably to all members states. This approach secured support from a number of other members states and the Commission will be having urgent discussions with Norway before making specific proposals for action to protect the herring stocks.

  The UK expressed its continuing concern about the market for farmed salmon and asked the Commission to continue to monitor the position very carefully over the summer.

  Bats
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has been able to confirm rabies in the bat in East Sussex which died on 3 June; and if he will make a statement. [32745]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Tests carried out by the central veterinary laboratory have now confirmed that a bat which died in East Sussex on 3 June had rabies. The type is European Bat Lyssa Virus type II. Two people who handled and were bitten by the bat have received post-exposure treatment. A third possible contact is being followed up. No confirmed cases have previously been found in bats in Great Britain. MAFF has carried out a survey of the area where the bat was found and believe it to be an isolated individual from across the English channel. As a precaution we are arranging to monitor the local bat population for a period.

  In addition a notice under the Rabies (Control) Order 1974 has been served on a premises restricting movement of other bats there and requiring cleansing and disinfection.

  Collection Centres
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, columns 211–13, if all the listed markets and assembly points now approved as collection centres, as defined in Council directive 64/432, have been observed by his Department operating in accordance with the directive; and if he will list the designated veterinarians appointed to supervise such collection centres and the collection centres for which each is responsible. [31784]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The majority of collection centres referred to in the answer of 22 May have not yet been observed operating in

  137
  accordance with Council directive 64/432/EEC. This is because many of them were approved following the European Commission decision banning exports of bovine animals from the United Kingdom. All of the approved collection centres were inspected by Ministry staff prior to approval to ensure they met the standards for approval.

  It is our policy not to provide the names of the official veterinarians responsible for supervising approved collection centres. The withholding of such information is provided for under category 4, paragraph (g) of the exemptions in the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Fishery Projects
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much Pesca funding is available to fishery projects in England in 1996–97; how much was paid in 1995–96; and if he will list those projects funded and the amount each project received. [32162]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: Under the Pesca community initiative, funds of 18.5 mecu— £15.5 million—have been allocated to fishing dependent areas in England for the period 1995–99. Pesca aid is available under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, for specific fisheries measures to assist the fisheries industry to restructure. Aid is also available under the European regional development fund for measures to develop businesses and under the European social fund for employment training. An indicative breakdown of the funds for the period 1995–99 is shown in the table. The table also shows the national back-up funding which will be required.

  mecu/£ million1

  Year

  FIFG

  ERDF

  ESF

  National

  Total

  1995

  0.500

  1.500

  0.500

  2.196

  4.696

  (0.407)

  (1.221)

  (0.407)

  (1.787)

  (3.822)

  1996

  0.757

  2.270

  0.757

  3.322

  7.106

  (0.616)

  (1.848)

  (0.616)

  (2.704)

  (5.784)

  1997

  0.856

  2.569

  0.856

  3.759

  8.040

  (0.697)

  (2.091)

  (0.697)

  (3.060)

  (6.545)

  1998

  0.739

  2.217

  0.739

  3.244

  6.939

  (0.601)

  (1.804)

  (0.601)

  (2.640)

  (5,646)

  1999

  0.839

  2.518

  0.839

  3.685

  7.881

  (0.683)

  (2.049)

  (0.683)

  (2.999)

  (6.414)

  Total

  3.691

  11.074

  3.691

  16.206

  34.662

  (3.004)

  (9.013)

  (3.004)

  (13.190)

  (28.211)

  1 The exchange rate used is £1 = ecu 1.228626.

  In addition to this, a further 5.88 mecu— £4.79 million—has been awarded to the United Kingdom from the European Commission's community initiative reserve, but details of its allocation are awaited from the Commission.

  Pesca was launched in England on 14 February and the scheme is now open to applications. Local working groups, including regional partners and local fisheries organisations, have been set up to determine local
  138
  strategies and priorities for the use of funds. No grants have yet been awarded but decisions on the first round of applications are expected soon.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, columns 564–65, what were the EU destinations of the cattle exported for (a) breeding or further fattening and (b) slaughter from Northern Ireland in 1995. [31205]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Destination

  Breeding/further fattening

  Slaughter

  Republic of Ireland

  192

  1,150

  Belgium

  539

  —

  France

  1,359

  —

  Italy

  1,611

  —

  Netherlands

  1,644

  —

  Spain

  2,535

  —

  Total

  7,880

  1,150

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Exports Ban
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what legislative provision the EU has power to ban United Kingdom exports to third countries; and when that provision came into force. [31762]

  Mr. David Davis
  Export of goods from the UK to third countries is principally governed by the EC's common commercial policy. That policy is based on article 113 of the EC treaty, and is given effect in a range of measures, including the common rules for exports. However, certain export prohibitions might, depending on the goods in question or the aim of the prohibition, be based on other articles of the treaty, or on powers in subordinate legislation adopted under those articles. Exercise of these powers is subject to the principle of proportionality.

  Visitor Visas
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the number of visitor applications made, (b) the number of visas granted and (c) the number of illegal overstays from the visas issued in respect of each British embassy in the last available year. [32210]

  Mr. Hanley
  In view of the amount of detail needed to answer this question, I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visitor visas have been rejected by the entry clearance
  139
  officers in Pakistan in the last year; and how many were rejected in the year before the removal of the right of appeal. [32182]

  Mr. Hanley
  Entry clearance officers in Pakistan refused 12,218 visit visa applications in 1995. In 1992, the year prior to the removal of appeals against visit visa refusals, the number was 11,012.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the applications for visitor visas rejected by the high commission in Pakistan in the past year were(a) fathers and (b) mothers of people resident in the United Kingdom. [32184]

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

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people intending to apply for visitor visas in the past year were informed by the high commission in Pakistan that they should not make a formal application because they would have no chance of success. [32191]

  Mr. Hanley
  An entry clearance officer may advise an applicant to withdraw his/her visa application only if it is unlikely to succeed. In 1995, 13,717 applicants were so advised at the high commission in Islamabad.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the draft text of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty agreed by the United Nations conference on disarmament on 28 May. [32049]

  Mr. David Davis
  A copy of the draft comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, tabled by the chairman of the negotiations on 28 May, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's timetable for the elimination of the use of land mines worldwide. [30908]

  Mr. David Davis
  We will press for the earliest possible international agreement on a total world-wide ban on anti-personnel land mines.

  EU Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those EU decisions requiring unanimity which are on the agenda of EU Council meetings over the next three months. [31959]

  Mr. David Davis
  The following decisions requiring unanimity are expected to appear on the Council agenda between now and the end of June. There is no reliable information on the agenda after that date.

  Date

  Forum for agreement

  Measures

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Council conclusions in advance of 12 EU/US summit on implementation of action plan

  140

  Date

  Forum for agreement

  Measures

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  EU/Canadian action plan

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Financial services protocol to the GATS

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Maritime transport

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Conclusions of market access strategy

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  TACIS regulation

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  MEDA regulation

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Signature of EU/Korea trade and co-operations agreement and political declaration

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Financial regulation on aid for former Yugoslavia

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  EU/Turkey financial regulation

  Date

  Forum for agreement

  Measures

  Brief description

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  EU/Slovenia association agreement

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Common position for EU/Turkey association council

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Signature of EU/Chile agreement

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Possible council conclusions on commission communication on Trade and Environment

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Declaration of principles on Middle East

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Common position for EU/Syria co-operation council 10 June

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Common position for 10 EEA council

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Signature of PCA with Uzbekistan

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Adaptation protocols for PCAs with Russia, Ukraine and Moldavia

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Procedure for appointing EU envoys in CFSP

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Common position/joint action on biological and chemical weapons

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Political decision on resumption of aid to Niger

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Common position for ACP/EU ministerial 26–28 June

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Report on Latin American and Caribbean drugs

  141

  Date

  Forum for agreement

  Measures

  Brief description

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Decision in principle on observatory on racism and xenophobia

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Political decision to holdEurope-Africa summit

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Joint action: stability and good neighbourliness in former Yugoslavia

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Council conclusions on political dialogue arrangements

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  Declaration for Florence summit on MEPP

  10 June 1996

  General affairs council

  EU relations with the Council of Europe

  10 June 1996

  Fisheries council

  UN agreement on straddling stocks and highly migratory species

  10 June 1996

  Fisheries council

  Draft European councilconclusions on European fisheries research

  11 June 1996

  Culture council

  Council decision on ARIANNE programme

  11 June 1996

  Culture council

  Council decision on RAPHAEL programme

  11 June 1996

  Culture council

  Resolution on access to culture

  11 June 1996

  Culture council

  Resolution on electronic publishing and libraries

  17 June 1996

  Transport council

  None

  19 June 1996

  Research council

  Decision adopting the 4th R and D framework programme

  19 June 1996

  Research council

  Supplementary researchprogramme on high flux reactor

  19 June 1996

  Energy council

  None

  24 June 1996

  Agriculture council

  None

  25 June 1996

  Environment council

  Conclusion on carbon dioxide from cars

  25 June 1996

  Environment council

  Conclusions on biodiversity (biosecurity protocol)

  25 June 1996

  Environment council

  Conclusions on climate change

  25 June 1996

  Environment council

  Procedural conclusions on water

  27 June 1996

  Telecoms council

  Resolution on universal service

  27 June 1996

  Telecoms council

  Programme for multi-lingual information society

  142

  Date

  Forum for agreement

  Measures

  Brief description

  Item not tied to particular forum

  Ratification of energy charter treaty

  Item not tied to particular forum

  Revised ECJ rules of procedure

  Item not tied to particular forum

  2nd protocol of W10 services agreement

  Item not tied to particular forum

  Duty derogation for unleaded petrol in Ireland (from ECOFIN)

  Item not tied to particular forum

  VAT derogation for Neisse Bridge (from ECOFIN)

  Item not tied to particular forum

  Final report on 1996 Europol budget (from JHA council)

  Item not tied to particular forum

  Accession of new member states to Brussels and Rome conventions (from JHA council)

  Item not tied to particular forum

  Joint action on racism and xenophobia (from JHA council)

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion, expressed as a percentage and in numbers of EU Council measures requiring unanimity have been opposed by the Government because of their non-co-operation strategy when they would otherwise have supported them; and if he will list these measures. [32290]

  Mr Davis
  The decisions blocked between the Prime Minister's statement on 21 May and 7 June are set out in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) today. The majority of those decisions have been blocked as a consequence of the non-co-operation policy, and the UK stands ready to agree them as soon as a framework is in place for lifting the beef export ban.

  Burma
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Burma about forced labour. [32355]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom has had no ministerial contact with the ruling military regime in Burma, the State Law and Order Restoration Council.

  Officials have consistently expressed our concern about the use of forced labour in Burma, both in international forums and directly to the SLORC. We shall continue to do so.

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries that have ratified(a) The Hague convention

  143
  on the civil aspects of international child abduction and (b) the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children. [32294]

  Mr. Hanley
  The following countries have ratified The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction:

  Argentina

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Belize

  Bosnia-Hercegovina

  Burkina Faso

  Canada

  Chile

  Colombia

  Croatia

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Ecuador

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Honduras

  Hungary

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Macedonia

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Monaco

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Panama

  Poland

  Portugal

  Romania

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  Slovenia

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  United Kingdom

  USA

  Yugoslavia

  Zimbabwe

  (b) The following countries have ratified the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children and on restoration of custody of children:

  Austria

  Belgium

  Cyprus

  144

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Poland

  Portugal

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  United Kingdom

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those members of the United Nations that have not ratified The Hague convention of the civil aspects of international child abduction. [32295]

  Mr. Hanley
  The following members of the United Nations have not ratified The Hague conventions on the civil aspects of international child abduction:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Andorra

  Angola

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Armenia

  Azerbaijan

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belarus

  Belgium

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei Darussalam

  Bulgaria

  Burundi

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Cape Verde

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  China

  Comoros

  Congo

  Costa Rica

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Cuba

  Czech Republic

  Democratic People's Republic of Korea

  145

  Djibouti

  Dominica

  Dominican Republic

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Equatorial Guinea

  Eritrea

  Estonia

  Ethiopia

  Federated States of Micronesia

  Fiji

  Gabon

  Gambia

  Georgia

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guinea

  Guinea-Bissau

  Guyana

  Haiti

  Iceland

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  Iraq

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakstan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Kyrgystan

  Lao People's Democratic Republic

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  Liechtenstein

  Lithuania

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mali

  Malta

  Marshall Islands

  Mauritania

  Mongola

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Myanmar

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Nigeria

  146

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Palu

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraquay

  Peru

  Philippines

  Qatar

  Republic of Korea

  Republic of Moldova

  Russian Federation

  Rwanda

  Saint Lucia

  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

  Samoa

  San Marino

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovak Republic

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Suriname

  Swaziland

  Syrian Arab Republic

  Tajikstan

  Thailand

  The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  Togo

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Turkmenistan

  Uganda

  United Arab Emirates

  United Republic of Tanzania

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Venezeula

  Vietnam

  Yemen

  Zaire

  Zambia.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that have not ratified The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. [32296]
  147
  Mr. Hanley
  The following members of the OECD have not ratified The Hague convention on the civil aspects of child abduction:

  Belgium

  Czech Republic

  Iceland

  Japan

  Turkey.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those members of the Commonwealth that have not ratified The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. [32297]

  Mr. Hanley
  The following Commonwealth countries have not ratified The Hague Convention on the civil aspects of child abduction:

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Barbados

  Belize

  Grenada

  Jamaica

  Papua New Guinea

  Saint Lucia

  Saint Vincent and the Granadines

  Solomon Islands

  Tuvalu (Special member for CHOGM purposes)

  Brunei

  Lesotho

  Malaysia

  Swaziland

  Tonga

  Bangladesh

  148

  Botswana

  Cameroon

  India

  Kenya

  Kiribati

  Malawi

  Maldives

  Malta

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  Tanzania

  Trinidad

  Uganda

  Vanuatu

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those members of the European Union that have not ratified both The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction and the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning the custody of children. [32298]

  Mr. Hanley
  Belgium is the only member of the European Union which has not ratified both The Hague convention on the civil aspects of child abduction and the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning the custody of children.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of Business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake a long-standing engagement to address the Windmill Business Group in Lytham St Annes on Friday 14th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence on Friday 14th June.

War Crimes: Investigations
2.37 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many suspected war criminals were identified by the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry in 1988; and how many suspects are now under police investigation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry identified 301 cases. Of those original 301 allegations, six remain under investigation by the Metropolitan Police. Three other cases that subsequently came to the attention of the Metropolitan Police also remain under investigation. In addition, proceedings have commenced in one case.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that this demonstrates a very long and drawn out process? Does he recall that, after the war, some 200 war criminals were sentenced to death by British courts, thousands were sentenced to imprisonment and that in 1948, with general consent, prosecutions ended? Will he say what we are gaining today, 48 years later, in this long, drawn out attempt to start the trials again? Will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind that attempts to bring suspects to trial have now been abandoned in Scotland? Would it not be sensible to follow suit in the rest of the United Kingdom?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding is that as regards Scotland, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate decided that, in the light of the investigations that had been carried out there, it was not right to instigate any prosecutions. The noble Lord asked the fundamental question to which the attention of Parliament was directed when the legislation on which these investigations are based was passed into law. I well understand the noble Lord's feelings about
1566
that. I believe that he expressed them eloquently at the time, but the views of another place ultimately prevailed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, this Campbell is coming first!
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, far be it from me to intervene in inter-tribal matters. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, may speak first. I am sure that we shall have time for his clansman in due course.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful. Does my noble and learned friend know why war crimes legislation was not enacted in this country in 1948, when the international tribunal at Nuremberg was closed down, since that tribunal tried only the major figures, including Goering and Hess, and the British courts, which have just been mentioned, were military government courts in Germany? The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may know the answer because he was a Minister at the Foreign Office at the time. Other countries have been prosecuting in their own courts ever since. Have not any war criminals, who entered this country after the war disguised among the many thousands of refugees, been able to enjoy immunity? Now, nearly 50 years later, is it not very difficult to find conclusive evidence?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, some of your Lordships are much better equipped than I to know what the position was in 1948. My understanding is that on the information available at that time, it was believed that no war criminal had entered the United Kingdom, and that it was unlikely that sanctuary would be sought in the United Kingdom as one of the victorious nations. That being the belief at the time, there was no requirement to extend jurisdiction for murder committed outside the United Kingdom by persons who had entered the United Kingdom from Germany or German-occupied territory and who were then citizens or resident within the United Kingdom. Of course, there are difficulties inherent in the passage of time; but these are matters that have to be dealt with on an individual basis as regards the instigation of prosecutions.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, perhaps I may trouble the noble and learned Lord to give a rather more detailed progress report? In May last year we were told that 13 cases were under investigation and that seven cases had been reported by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Will the noble and learned Lord be good enough to tell the House, first, whether there have been any new cases in which investigation has started since then; secondly, of the 21 cases that we were told

1567
about last year, how many have been resolved and how many are still outstanding? Of those that have been resolved, are any to result in prosecution?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, my understanding is that there are nine cases under investigation by the Metropolitan Police about which decisions have not yet been reached by the prosecuting authorities. As I understand the position, the only case where such a decision has been taken in favour of prosecution is where that has commenced. So if the noble Baroness will subtract these figures from those that she had on the last occasion, I believe that she will find where it has been decided not to carry investigations further or not to instigate prosecutions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that, according to his two Written Answers, the continuation of these investigations is an operational matter for the police, who never close the file on a murder inquiry? Does that mean that as long as these men may live the investigations shall continue? If so, compared with the sane approach north of the Border where investigations were ended some years ago, is this considered satisfactory?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the point at which investigations are concluded is a matter for the police. Once investigations are concluded, a decision whether or not to prosecute will be taken. The question of files remaining open indefinitely is perhaps not to the point. The practical question is when the investigations are completed. My understanding so far as concerns Scotland is that such investigations as were required were completed and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate was able to take a decision. In respect of England and Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions will take decisions as and when the investigations are completed. One decision in favour of instigating a prosecution has been taken. The committal proceedings have been held and the accused has been committed for trial.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what has been the cost to the taxpayer up to now of this long-delayed and mostly unproductive exercise?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my recollection is that the cost to the Metropolitan Police is in the order of £6 million. When one thinks of the nature and complexity of the investigations, it is perhaps not surprising that such a figure should be involved. My noble friend says that the investigations are largely unproductive. In a sense, any investigation which does not lead to a prosecution by the prosecuting authorities or the police is of that character. On the other hand, part of the system of justice is that matters in respect of which there is an allegation should be investigated appropriately. To that extent, the expenditure is productive; namely, it is used to carry out a proper investigation of matters which are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts under the Act of Parliament.
1568
For the same period, expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service stood at approximately £1.8 million.
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that this is a matter of great interest to your Lordships' House, particularly in view of the history. I am mindful of the fact that, in view of the final Question today, your Lordships will require full answers upon it. I am in your Lordships' hands, but your Lordships may feel that perhaps the time has come to move on.

Gulf War Medical Information: Disclosure
2.45 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the strict application of the Official Secrets Act takes precedence over the disclosure of information which would assist in the diagnosis of the health problems reported by members of the Armed Forces who were involved in Operation Granby.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, no. It is our practice to release available information which would assist in the treatment of health problems experienced by members of the Armed Forces who served in Operation Granby. Clearly it is important that relevant information is made available to medical practitioners for their professional use.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. Is he aware that witnesses who gave evidence to the Defence Committee in another place stated that they had been prevented from making a proper investigation of their ill-health by the threatened imposition of the Official Secrets Act? I have received letters from individuals who served in the forces and who say the same. Can the noble Earl say what is to be done about the allegations within the Ministry of Defence—of which I know he is aware—that up to 10,000 medical incidents have been "removed, lost or corrupted" from Ministry of Defence computers, and that these events relate to health problems from the Gulf War? Will the noble Earl instigate a ministerial inquiry without prejudice to the person who reported this matter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I will gladly look into the matters raised by the noble Countess, as I always try to do. With reference to the evidence given to the Defence Select Committee, we have consistently released information about what treatment was administered to individuals on a need-to-know basis. Therefore, doctors and GPs have had access to the information. It is not true to say, however, that even where, let us suppose, medical records have been mislaid a Gulf War soldier has no access to the

1569
necessary information. All personnel should be in possession of an individual immunisation card. When he leaves the service he receives a summary of his medical record and an address to which his GP can apply for further information. The mechanisms are in place for release of all the necessary information.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in responding to the noble Countess's Question, the Minister started by saying no. Looking at the Question, is the answer not yes? The strict application of the Official Secrets Act takes precedence over anything which is an official secret. Is that not right? The question therefore resolves itself into whether the material about which the noble Countess is talking is or is not an official secret. That, I imagine, is something that should be tested sooner or later in the courts. Does the Minister agree?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I made clear to the noble Countess a moment ago, what we have consistently tried to do is to release information to specific individuals on a need-to-know basis. That is a common procedure. On the other hand, what we have sought to avoid is to broadcast to the world at large what is our anti-nerve agent capability. I am sure the noble Lord would agree that would not be a sensible thing to do. I believe that the course we have taken is the right one.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in an earlier answer, the Minister mentioned the fact that relevant information would be made available. Will he advise the House who will judge whether or not the information is relevant? Will it be the person's general medical practitioner who will determine what is and what is not relevant?
Earl Howe: My Lords, full details of what was administered to a specific serviceman would be released to his or her GP. Alternatively it is open to servicemen and servicewomen, or ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen, to come forward to be assessed by the medical assessment programme run by the MOD. In that event there would obviously be no question of anyone determining what was or what was not relevant. The key point however is that there is no reason for any GP to be in doubt about what was administered to a particular individual.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in an article about the noble Countess in the Mail on Sunday there was much play on the use of chemical weapons in the Gulf, which I have no doubt largely gives rise to her Question. Has not the work of Senator Riegel and Mr. Tuite, who were mentioned in the article, and of the Czech medical teams in the Gulf been largely discredited? Have the Government any information as to whether there are any changes so that allegations of the use of chemical weapons can be in any way substantiated?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Let me make it clear that we have no confirmed reports of any Iraqi biological or chemical agents being present in the Gulf theatre of operations. Claims of Iraqi chemical attacks and chemical agents dispersed by Allied bombing have been found on investigation to have no basis in fact. There were some earlier Czech
1570
reports of positive chemical agent readings, but those have not been subsequently confirmed by the US authorities.

Housing Benefit
2.53 p.m.
Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce changes to housing benefit following recent court cases which found against the Department of Social Security.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we await the Social Security Advisory Committee report on proposed legislation which would ensure that, as a general rule, housing benefit only meets charges for those services which relate to the fabric of the dwelling. The proposal was introduced after a commissioner's decision in an income support case cast some doubt on the meaning of current case law. It would be wrong to prejudge consultation.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the existing rules regarding eligible and non-eligible services are complex, as demonstrated by the court case he has just mentioned? Is he aware of the concern caused to voluntary organisations and housing associations responsible for the care and attention of elderly people by the fact that the latest proposals are capable of being interpreted as implying that many of the services associated with the management of residential accommodation should be withdrawn, leading to the possibility that some residents would be asked to find a further £20 to £50 per week to fund the shortfall in housing benefit? Surely it would have been far better to have awaited the outcome of consultations with the voluntary organisations and housing associations before making the recommendation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are awaiting the outcome of consultation on the SSAC report. The SSAC has been out to consultation and will give us a report on our proposals to clarify the legislation. The noble Lord is right to mention the complexity in this area. It is complex. The position is that we now have two cases, one recently from Commissioner Mesher and the north Cornwall judgment three years ago, which appear to be pulling in two different directions. It is clearly in everyone's interests, including our own in the DSS, to clarify the position regarding the legality of the payments we make.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, were not schemes such as Abbeyfield developed precisely because the frail elderly need not just accommodation but communal and warden facilities? Housing benefit has paid for almost all of that. If the Government's proposals to cut housing benefit go through so that housing benefit does not cover the cost of heating, lighting and cleaning of corridors, lifts and communal rooms in a sheltered housing scheme, or does not cover

1571
the full cost of warden services, what then? Who will make up the shortfall of £30 or £50 a week if the Government will not, and the tenant and the housing association cannot? What will happen? Will we see 85 year-olds evicted because they cannot meet their bills in Abbeyfield?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness has, as usual, hugely overstated her case. There is no doubt that the facilities she mentioned and the communal areas—the lifts, corridors, and so forth—clearly fall within the scope of housing benefit. It is necessary to draw a line between what services can be met by housing benefit, which is designed to meet housing costs and the related service charges which go with housing costs, and those other services which have more to do with the personal day-to-day care of the people involved. That is a difficult line. I do not think that it does anyone any good for the noble Baroness to exaggerate.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister will, I am sure, agree that the cost of services for people in sheltered housing who cannot perform those services for themselves has to fall somewhere. Will he therefore give the House an undertaking that he will not shift those costs out of social security until he has reached agreement with the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment about what is the most cost-effective way of meeting those costs from public funds as a whole?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are looking carefully at the issue. Indeed, my officials met the leaders of the Abbeyfield Society yesterday in St. Albans to discuss all these matters. As I said, we shall wait for the report of the SSAC. Officials and Ministers will be discussing with their colleagues how we should proceed with this difficulty.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister has not really answered the questions we have asked. The court cases he mentioned were many months ago, and some many years ago. Why is it taking so long to bring forward this set of proposals? Is it not a possibility that the recent universal support for the Government's proposals to increase the disregard for residential accommodation from £3,000 to £10,000 means that people now feel that an attempt is being made to recoup some of that money by cutting the housing benefit? Would that not be just another cynical case of paying with the one hand and taking back with the other?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord has a very unworthy thought. The position came about because three years ago the north Cornwall judgment pulled in one direction, defining these issues rather tightly, while last year Commissioner Mesher defined them in a rather more relaxed fashion. That has led to considerable doubt about the propriety of some of the payments of housing benefit which the DSS is making. We have an obligation to the public purse, the National Audit Office and everyone else to ensure that the payments we make have proper legal backing. We
1572
are looking at the matter very seriously. I can assure the noble Lord that we are well aware of the importance of organisations like Abbeyfield. We wish to do nothing that would destabilise them.

Recruitment and Assessment Services
3 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked the Leader of the House:
In view of the decision of the House on Friday 8th March, whether Her Majesty's Government will delay the sale of Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS) until after the Select Committee on the Public Service has reported on the subject.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, completion of the sale has already been postponed from July to September, which will allow the Select Committee an opportunity to report to the House, and the Government to respond, before the sale is completed.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister recall the debate which took place in this House on 8th March, instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, from the Cross-Benches and supported by Members in all parts of the House, resulting in a vote of 124 to 64 on a Friday afternoon rejecting the Government's proposals to privatise the RAS? A committee was appointed to look at the principle of the proposal and to report back to this House. Since then the Government have proceeded with the privatisation of the RAS. Does that not represent a contempt of this House, since we shall be in no position to report on the matter and to influence the Government's decisions? Will the Minister explain what is the urgency on this matter, which has not been demanded or supported in this House or in the Civil Service?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, of course, I remember as though it were yesterday not only the debate in your Lordships' House but the resulting vote to which the noble Lord referred. I also remember the suggestion from all parts of your Lordships' House in the wake of the vote in this House that the matter would be a suitable first subject for discussion by the Select Committee, of which the noble Lord is such an ornament. That suggestion was very much subscribed to not only by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but also by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, among other distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. It was thought sensible that that committee should be enabled to report to your Lordships' House in the form of an interim report, should it so desire, before the Summer Recess, which would enable the Government to take careful note of what was in that report, and if therefore there appeared to be by implication any suggestion which would make—if I may put it in the vernacular—a show-stopper to the project for privatisation, the Government could take note and act.

1573
Therefore it is sensible for the Government to have delayed their original programme of privatisation from July to September, and for the Government to be able to give careful consideration to the Select Committee's interim report, assuming that it reports on time. In view of the uncertainty, particularly for the employees of the RAS, it is perfectly sensible in that respect to continue with the mechanics of privatisation up to the point when the final decision can be taken, but the private and final decision need not and will not be taken until the Select Committee concerned reports, assuming that it maintains its projected timetable.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that when, following that overwhelming and decisive vote and an almost unanimous debate in your Lordships' House, he had to deal with the matter subsequently many of us thought that he did so with great courtesy relating to the setting up and composition of the Select Committee? However, if we are now in effect to be told that the decision is pre-empted, I am afraid to say that our sense of courtesy will evaporate quickly.
Is the noble Viscount saying that the decision has been taken independently of what your Lordships' Select Committee says to privatise in September? If so, it makes a mockery of the work of that Select Committee, and I believe that it is a contempt of your Lordships' House. If, on the other hand, the Government are willing to consider the position, following the report of the Select Committee, it seems to me that September is too short a timetable. It should be when this House returns—which we hope will not be the case in September—and it ought to be done in the autumn, if it is to be done at all, after due consideration of what the Select Committee says.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord knows me well enough by now at least to assume that it would take something which is quite out of my own nature to presume to treat your Lordships' House with contempt. I have to say to the noble Lord that, in view of, admittedly, the minority but nevertheless a substantial number of votes in favour of the Government's proposals, his view of what constitutes "almost unanimous" and mine seem to differ in almost every material respect. I have to say to the noble Lord that there were a considerable number of votes in favour of what the Government proposed.
The decision is not pre-empted. I gave an undertaking, as the noble Lord perfectly clearly says, that the Government would consider carefully what was said in the debate and the views expressed. It seemed perhaps, if I may presume to say so, doubly courteous on the part of the Government to undertake to delay any reaction—a reaction that I undertook to give—until the Select Committee had given its interim report—
Lord Richard: Two minutes to go!
Viscount Cranborne: Of course we shall do so; and if the committee sticks to its timetable, the Government should have time to give a considered opinion before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, we are of course immensely grateful to the noble Viscount for his
1574
courteous reply; but it does not go nearly far enough. Is he not aware that I have been rubbing shoulders with governments for 50 years—sometimes very intimately? I have to say that I have never before encountered a government who have conducted themselves with such impatient guile—and I choose my words carefully—and such lack of attention to the requirements of good faith on a matter affecting the public service, which would normally be resolved by consensus.
Is it yet too late for the noble Viscount, whose integrity we utterly respect, to persuade the more feverish of his colleagues that, "quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot"—a quotation much favoured by a former Conservative Prime Minister?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I defer to no one in my admiration for the guile that has been displayed by the noble Lord himself in this matter. I would merely emphasise, in view of the remarks that I have already made, that the Government have bent over backwards to accommodate the requests of your Lordships' House in acceding with enthusiasm to the request that the matter should be considered by the Select Committee and, indeed, acceding with enthusiasm to the requests by the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy in another place—I quote his letter of 12th March 1996—that my right honourable friend Mr. Roger Freeman should:
"now bring the matter to the House of Commons so that the House can come to a view".
We bent over backwards to do that and it is perfectly open to the Select Committee to come to a decision. If the Government agree that this matter should be either pulled or postponed, we shall have an opportunity to respond before the House rises. I can think of nothing which would support in that rigmarole any of the accusations which the noble Lord has made.

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 4,

Schedule 1,

Clause 5,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 6 to 9,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clause 10.—(Lord Henley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Party Wall etc. Bill [H.L.]
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Party Wall etc. Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
It is customary at this stage of the Bill to make some comments about those who have been of great assistance. I should like to do so very briefly.
First, I express my appreciation for the support that I have received in this House. I particularly valued the support from the Opposition Benches and from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I thank the Opposition Chief Whip who sat patiently through the Committee stage; I am extremely grateful to him. I am grateful for the expressions of support which I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and from my fellow chartered surveyor the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I should like to express my sincere thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his support and wise counsel.
Through the Minister, I should like to thank the officials of the Department of the Environment, in particular Mr. Paul Everall, Caroline Cousins, Mr. Ian Day and Mr. Andrew Viner of the legal section of the department. My thanks are also due to parliamentary counsel for his input.
I pay tribute to the officers of this House and in particular to the Public Bill Office for its advice and assistance in my novitiate in taking this Bill through your Lordships' House. I thank the Government Whips' Office for its help at all times. I thank also the staff of the Library who have dug up for me arcane documents and references. I am grateful for the support and advice of the Pyramus and Thisbe Club, which is a body of practitioners in party wall matters which has devoted time and energy to giving advice on the Bill.
This Bill goes to another place with all-party support. It has the support of many bodies outside the House—the Construction Industry Council, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the British Property Federation, the Architects and Surveyors Institute, the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers and my own professional body, which is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I have received many unsolicited letters of support from private individuals and professionals, and the number of articles expressing support in professional journals as well as the national press convince me that the tried and tested provisions of the London Building Acts, which this Bill seeks to emulate, will indeed be of lasting net benefit to the rest of England and Wales.
1576
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (The Energy Charter Treaty) Order 1996
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order relates to the Energy Charter Treaty which was signed by the United Kingdom and 42 other parties (50 by the closing date), including the European Community and all member states, in December 1994. The order specifies the treaty as a European treaty under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972.
The concept of an energy charter—a political declaration to encourage investment and trade in energy—was conceived in 1990 as a response to the need for economic recovery in the then Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe. The charter was signed in December 1991. The treaty text, which gives legal effect to most of the provisions of the charter, was completed in summer 1994 and signed in Lisbon in December that year. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Baroness for outlining the provisions of this order. Will she tell the House why it has taken 18 months for a comparatively simple treaty, as I understand it, to reach this particular stage?
In view of a certain amount of dubiety as to whether or not Ministers read treaties, will she assure the House that this treaty went before the Cabinet and was approved by a Minister who is willing to acknowledge that he or she, as the case may be, has read it?
Further, will the noble Baroness tell the House what benefits the Government anticipate as a result of entering into this particular commitment on behalf of the United Kingdom and the likely costs which may conceivably result from incorporating it into Community legislation?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am unable to tell the noble Lord why this matter has taken so long to reach this stage. I must say that I thought that the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked me a question it would be on a matter which contained the word "European". I imagine that it took a long time because it had to be given extremely careful consideration. I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance that every single word in the treaty was read by everybody because I have not asked Cabinet Ministers whether or not they have read the treaty. I can assure the noble Lord that I certainly read my briefing extremely carefully.

1577
There will be definite advantages in due course arising from this order, not only with regard to energy but also with regard to trade generally. I am not sure about the benefits which it will bring but everybody is of the view that the provisions of the order will be extremely beneficial.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may remind her that when we discussed a treaty which was before the House for approval a few weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said that she would ensure that methods by which your Lordships' House could have an opportunity to consider treaties more effectively would be looked into. It was suggested that perhaps there should be an explanatory memorandum available for us in the Printed Paper Office, or perhaps a Scrutiny Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, supported those suggestions at that time. Perhaps the noble Baroness will give me an assurance that she will remind the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, of that undertaking which was given to look at our methods of dealing with such matters.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I shall certainly speak to my noble friend Lady Chalker about that. There is a document called The Energy Charter Treaty: Key Points for British Business in the Library which outlines all the benefits to be derived from this order. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, may wish to read that document.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
3.19 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Right of tenant to acquire dwelling: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 11, line 17, leave out ("may").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I hope that Members of the Committee and my noble friend on the Front Bench will forgive me for intervening on this Bill but I shall do so only in relation to rural housing because I took a passing interest in the subject during the passage of the 1989 Act. However, I should like to put on record at the start the fact that I am extremely grateful to the Government—as, indeed, are the organisations with which I am in touch—for the progress made over the problem of rural housing since the passing of the 1989 Act. I hope that my noble friend
1578
will find that the amendments to which I have attached my name are at least helpful, even if he is unable to accept all of them.
Although Amendments Nos. 69, 71, 73, 77, 82 and 83 are grouped together, perhaps Members of the Committee will allow me to address Amendments Nos. 69, 71 and 73 at present. The three amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to make regulations designating certain rural areas, although he would still have the right to specify the rate of discount.
The amendments are really paving amendments for the substantial amendments, Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, tabled in the name of my noble friend, and Amendment No. 77, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It may be better, after I have formally moved Amendment No. 69, if the noble Lord, Lord Carter, introduces his amendment, which is of substantial merit, before we all speak to the whole group of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: In speaking to this group of amendments I should, first, declare an interest as a trustee of the Rural Housing Trust. However, I should point out that the amendments which are tabled in my name do not necessarily reflect the views of that trust. However, we think it important on this side of the Committee—indeed, it applies to other parts of the Committee—to use the Committee stage to probe the whole of Clause 17 with a view to ascertaining the Government's intentions and to see whether we can improve the wording of the Bill. That is the function of this Chamber. We wish to give the Minister the chance, which we are sure he will welcome, to give us an assurance on a list of undertakings. We also wish to give the noble Lord the opportunity to reflect upon what we say and to revise and improve the Bill before the Report stage.
There is no need for me to repeat the history of how Clause 17 came into being. That was covered on Second Reading. All of us involved in the rural housing field welcome the change of heart on the part of the Government. The housing White Paper proposed the removal of the exemptions policy for rural areas. However, that has now been restored through Clause 17. I am glad to have the opportunity in today's proceedings on the Bill to congratulate the Rural Housing Trust, the CLA, the NFU and many other organisations on their efforts in persuading the Government that it was right to bring back the rural exemptions and put them in the Bill.
In the group of amendments we deal with all aspects of Clause 17. We wish to see whether we can get the Government to think much more clearly about the way in which the rural exemptions will work and to examine the problem. I sympathise with the Government in their efforts to get at what we mean by a "settlement". They have used the very exhaustive procedure of examining all the various parishes and settlements and, indeed, have sent out consultation papers. They have made a valiant effort to meet the point. However, we still wonder whether the definitions should be clearer and

1579
whether there should be more on the face of the Bill than is left to regulations at present. We also want to see a degree of permanence in the arrangements.
There is a fear that the supply of land will dry up if landowners feel that the policy may be reversed again. We know that no Parliament can bind its successor but if the permanence of the exemption arrangements is set out on the face of the Bill it will be that much harder to alter them. However, as I said, the Government have made a valiant effort, and we congratulate them.
It is possible that the approach in the amendments is not exactly the best way to deal with the matter. However, we believe that the proposals would be a good start. Indeed, our approach may be better than that of the Government; we hope to convince them that that is so. I believe that it is a proper use of the Committee stage to probe the whole operation of Clause 17. Then, depending on what the Minister tells us regarding the Government's intentions, we may wish to return to the matter on Report.
I shall deal with the amendments briefly. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, Amendments Nos. 69, 71 and 73 are paving amendments. Amendment No. 77 is the substantive amendment in the group. I have to admit that I drafted it myself. Therefore, I shall be entirely happy if the Minister tells me that it needs redrafting. Nevertheless, the amendment has a simple approach. Once one has decided on the houses which have received rural exemption, we propose that a register should be made of them. I believe that I am correct in saying that every local authority will have a list of all the houses in its area which have an agricultural exemption as regards use. It would not be a big task—there will not be an enormous number of houses involved—but it would be extremely helpful if the relevant local authority were to maintain what I have described as a register of exempt rural properties. I take no pride in the name. If the Government prefer another form of words, I shall be happy to accept it.
The second subsection of Amendment No. 77 reads:
"Dwellings entered on the Register of Exempt Rural Properties shall not be removed from that Register and their exemption from the purchase grant scheme shall be permanent".
That is a fairly straightforward way of achieving the degree of permanence I believe we all want to see. The amendment accepts the principle of Clause 17(1)(b), namely, the designation of rural areas. We shall certainly return to that aspect. However, if the Government's designation approach turns out to be the one that is finally adopted, which is very likely, I feel that the properties which are so designated should be registered and that such designation should be permanent.
As I said, I drafted the amendment myself simply to get the Government's reaction to the idea. Of course, if they like the approach, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment and for the Government to redraft it. The purpose of the amendment seems so obvious that I should have thought the Government could at least accept the principle behind it.
1580
The other amendments in the group, which were originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and myself added our names, are Amendments Nos. 82 and 83. Obviously, Amendment No. 82 deals with technical points about the granting of planning permission for "construction" and so on either side of the grant of that permission. The wording of the amendment is straightforward.
The proposed subsection (8) of the amendment seeks to meet the point. I am not sure that,
"a population of more than 10,000 people",
is the right figure, but it is an attempt to try to lift the fairly artificial barrier of 3,000 to ascertain what the Government intend to do. I believe that the Government have said that they are prepared to see some variation around the margin of 3,000, but I am not sure whether they are prepared to see a variation from 3,000 to 10,000. I am sure the Minister will understand that this is an attempt to find a slightly more flexible way to deal with the problem of the enlargement of a rural settlement. For example, what happens if an exempt property is in a settlement of, say, fewer than 3,000 people and the settlement then grows? I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to answer that point.
Amendment No. 83 deals with settlements the other way round, that is to say,
"all settlements with a population of fewer than 3,000 people, and other settlements"—
and this is a most important part—
"in relation to which the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are likely to be particular problems for a registered social landlord in securing further land on which to provide additional dwellings".
That approach is picked up in a slightly different way in Amendment No. 79. However, I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand what we are trying to achieve by way of this group of amendments, and those which follow, as regards Clause 17. The amendments are an attempt to persuade the Government that although their approach to the problem is welcome the clause could he improved and a degree of permanence should be built into the exemptions once they are granted.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry to repeat myself but as I have added my name to the noble Lord's amendment, and I have also been asked by my noble friend Lord Peyton to move his amendment, I perhaps ought to say a few words now. As the noble Lord has explained, Amendments Nos. 77 and 82 both have the same important objective; namely, to make sure that once an area is designated exempt it always remains exempt. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton spells out clearly—as the noble Lord pointed out—that all settlements with a population of fewer than 3,000 people must be designated exempt and remain so even if the population grows, unless the area changes its character or its population rises above 10,000. However, I understand the noble Lord's reservations about that figure.
Amendment No. 83, to which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has added his name, seeks to reflect the views expressed in the Secretary of State's consultation

1581
paper and gives him the power to include other areas if he thinks fit, for example, national parks or green belt areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained so well, Amendment No. 77 is far less restrictive than Amendments Nos. 82 and 83. I shall be interested to learn of the preference of my noble friend Lord Mackay. Needless to say, I want to be on the winning side. The Government should be as definite as possible about this matter, otherwise land will not be forthcoming. It is essential that these houses are not lost to the local community. We have been through this matter before in this Chamber many times. However, I understand that if any house is sold, the proceeds will be reinvested in other local accommodation. I should be pleased if, when he replies, my noble friend will spell out what "local" means. I suspect it is considerably less local than what I might consider local.
I repeat my considerable thanks to the Government for having come so far since the 1989 Act. The Committee may remember the somewhat vitriolic exchanges that took place then, followed by a somewhat disastrous Division. The situation today is totally different. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would agree with that as he took part in the proceedings on that Bill. I think that we are all agreed on what we want to achieve.
Lord Carter: The noble Lord said that the Division was disastrous. Why did he say that when we won the Division?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: It is well known that any Division that I win is considered disastrous by my noble friends on the Front Bench. That is why I said it was disastrous. I should add that I did not win the Division by myself; the noble Lord was greatly involved in it and, for all I know, probably egged me on. However, we must get back to the business under discussion.
As I said, the situation today is totally different. I think we are all agreed on what we want to achieve, not least because the Government have accepted that there is a problem and have produced their plan. It is now a matter of whether we proceed by regulation—which, as I understand it, is the way the Government would like to proceed—or whether we need something more reassuring. My view is that we need something on the face of the Bill to ensure confidence and continuity. I should not have thought that it was beyond the wit of the Committee and my noble friend to propose a form of words, perhaps along the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to achieve that aim. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply.
Baroness Hamwee: The name of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley is added to Amendment No. 77. He is unable to be present but on his behalf, and indeed on my own, I wish to support that amendment. I share the concerns of those who believe that the limit of 3,000 dwellings is too low. I take the Government's point about the difficulty of being absolutely precise, given, at the margins, that a car crash or a multiple birth could take
1582
the figure above or below the limit, but nevertheless as a general principle the figure of 3,000 is too low. I support the attempts to increase the figure as regards exemption.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I strongly support this series of amendments, particularly the flexibility given to the Secretary of State in Amendments Nos. 82 and 83. In Surrey, where I have property interests, there are 70 villages designated as rural with a population of 10,000 or under. Of these, 20—which I calculate as being 28.5 per cent.—have populations of more than 3,000. I know that Surrey social services is immensely anxious about its ability to produce social housing. That will depend on the roll-over producing incessant planning consents which are extremely hard to come by in Surrey. I have no doubt that the same thing applies in many of the other home counties.
Lord Hylton: I support all these amendments. I do not discriminate between them. We have been over this ground many times in this Chamber as regards I do not know how many different housing Bills. It must be extremely well known by now that there are a number of perfectly valid reasons why it is not possible to replace certain housing in certain villages and small settlements. There may be planning reasons, green belt reasons, sewerage reasons or a whole stack of reasons why that is not possible. I hope that by now the Government have become extremely familiar with those reasons and will look upon these amendments with favour.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate. As my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, it seems that we are all agreed on what we want to achieve, give or take a thousand or two, having heard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. However, we are generally agreed on what we want to achieve. The amendments in front of us are attempts to probe me, or to move the goalposts a little, or to put on the face of the Bill the aspects that we wish to see considered as regards designating rural areas which will be excluded from the right to buy.
The whole of Clause 17 is concerned with the Secretary of State's power to designate rural areas. Obviously the Committee is interested in the criteria that we plan to use to identify exempt rural areas, and the permanence of those designations once we have made them. I hope that I can reassure the Committee on those matters and that those Members of the Committee who have tabled amendments will feel able to withdraw them. Clause 17 specifies that the Secretary of State may designate rural areas where the new right to acquire will not arise. It is our intention that in England this will cover small rural villages of 3,000 people or fewer. In Wales an approach using population density is proposed. However, in England we shall be looking—and we are looking—at the population density in parishes. We are identifying those parishes which have no settlements with more than 3,000 people. That is the key point. It is not a question of the parish in total having a population of fewer than 3,000 people; it is a question of the settlements in the parishes having a population of fewer than 3,000.

1583
Amendments Nos. 69, 71 and 73 together would remove the Secretary of State's discretionary power to designate rural areas and make it a requirement to designate exempt rural areas. As the Committee will know, we have published a consultation paper explaining the general approach that we propose to take in England to identify and exempt rural areas using a settlement population of 3,000 as our guideline. We are consulting on detailed, specific proposals for particular areas. We have already put forward detailed proposals for 30 English counties, and proposals for Wales. The remaining English counties will be consulted shortly. In England we propose to base exclusions on parish areas wherever possible, but where a parish contains both a small settlement and a larger settlement we shall use a map to delineate the excluded area. The settlement assessments are based on the previous census. We shall listen to views either that we have misunderstood particular areas, or propose not to exclude areas with an equally good claim.
Our intention to make rural designations is therefore clear, and the criteria on which we are consulting, and propose to use, are also clear. The Committee has already had the advantage of seeing some of the consultation papers although I accept that they may not concern the part of England in which particular Members of the Committee are interested. A number of consultation papers have been produced. There are two different kinds. There is the general one which lists the places in each county in England. By some accident I am looking at the document concerning Wiltshire. It lists the parishes in alphabetical order. It is followed by a second document for each of the counties in which maps are used to delineate those parishes where a split is required and the whole parish is not to be included, perhaps because one part of the parish contains a large town but outside is a rural area in which no settlement is greater than 3,000, and which we believe ought to be designated. The documents contain much information for noble Lords to see how the Government are carrying out the powers given to the Secretary of State under Clause 17.
I do not believe that the criteria need to be written on the face of the Bill as Amendment No. 83 would do. Indeed, this would prevent the flexibility we need to take account of the different circumstances in Wales, where a different approach is needed.
We have made clear in the consultation paper that we will consider any special cases made for other settlements with higher populations to be excluded. Amendment No. 83 also includes provision for special cases where the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is likely to be particular difficulty securing land for replacement properties. I explained at the end of the last Committee day that replacement properties do not only have to be newly built. Landlords will also be able to use the sale proceeds to buy existing properties on the open market as a replacement for social renting. Specifying a single criterion under which further exemptions could be made severely limits our discretion to deal properly with special cases, on whatever grounds they are made.
1584
Amendment No. 82 attempts to ensure that once a property is within a designated area tenants would not gain the new right unless the settlement population rose to over 10,000. Under our proposals, if a settlement's population goes over the 3,000 mark, tenants will not suddenly gain the new right. This would only happen if the rural designations were changed. We cannot rule out the possibility of revision where a small village, over the decades, grew into a new town. Amendment No. 82 recognises that a rural exemption would no longer be appropriate in such circumstances.
I recognise that there has been concern about the duration of our rural exemptions. But once the rural exemptions are made we would not intend to revisit them. It is unlikely that any new information would be available anyway, except at the 10-yearly census. It might be appropriate to review the designations more generally at some time in the future, but it would certainly be possible to conduct a review using a different, higher population limit to take account of general population growth in rural areas.
The fact that making rural designations proposed in the noble Lord's Amendment No. 82 would be an obligation implies that rural designations will have to be continually reviewed and updated. Our intention is that once rural areas are designated they should remain designated unless circumstances change substantially. I hope that that answers one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. For the great majority of settlements the exemptions are never likely to change. Once the orders are made, we will not want to revisit them continually.
As it stands Amendment No. 82 would cause particular difficulties if an exempt settlement's population reached 10,000. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, a single birth, multiple births, or a fatal car crash could bring the provision into play or take it out. That cannot be workable. Moreover, it would limit the scope for any errors in designations, once made, to be corrected.
I understand the concerns of landowners who play an important role in the provision of social housing. But landowners need have no worries about continuing to give land at a discount for social housing. As I have explained before, where they have donated land and the tenant subsequently buys, the benefit of their generosity is simply rolled over into the replacement housing, and used to help another family in need.
We have recognised that this process of replacement could be particularly difficult in small villages, where there may be no land to build a replacement, and where there is less opportunity to buy existing homes on the open market. Our rural exemption is designed to protect such small villages.
In Amendment No. 77 it is proposed that every local authority should be required to keep a register of dwellings in exempt areas. Listing all the exempt parishes for the proposed statutory instruments has been a considerable undertaking. To list each and every exempt dwelling, I suggest, would be a somewhat bureaucratic nightmare. There was concern in another

1585
place that the size of the statutory instruments that we proposed would require a wheelbarrow. I think that a register of dwellings would require a pantechnicon.
The amendment suggests also that exemptions for properties should be permanent. I understand those concerns. However, again I have to underline my assurance to the Committee that the Government have no intention of revising designations except in exceptional circumstances. However, we need the flexibility to be able to revisit designations if an error has been made or there has been a major growth in population which substantially changes the nature of the settlement. However, if Amendment No. 77 were to be taken on board, the consultation documents produced, say, for Gloucestershire, might be a good deal thicker than this slim volume.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that he has misunderstood the amendment. This proposal would not involve a statutory instrument. The local authority would keep the list in exactly the same way that it now does for houses with an agricultural restriction on them. There would not be that many in each area. The Minister will be better briefed on this issue than I am, but the number of houses involved will not be that great. It would be up to the local authority to keep the register.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that I misunderstood. I came to the conclusion that the register of dwellings would include the statutory power. I accept the noble Lord's assurance that is not what he intended. I shall consider again what he said. Equally, if local authorities were to keep a register, that involves lists, and so on. I see no advantage over the documents and maps which the Government propose should form the statutory basis of the exemption scheme.
I have sought to explain how we propose to set about this task. Indeed, we have already begun. The Committee can see how we propose to set about it in the case of those parts of England and counties for which we have already produced the documentation. The proposals that we have put forward indicate quite clearly how the Secretary of State will use the power to designate areas and allow us the flexibility we need to ensure that designations make sense on the ground, thus assuring landowners who wish to give land in those areas that if they do so there is a certain fairly fixed permanence in the proposals that we shall put forward, and that change in designation will take place only in fairly exceptional circumstances.
With that explanation, the assurances that I have given, and the explanation of how we believe the amendments would impinge sometimes adversely on what we think is the correct way forward, I hope that noble Lords who have amendments in the group will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, decides what to do with the amendment, having dealt with the point on Amendment No. 77, perhaps I may raise two brief points on what the Minister said.
1586
For reasons that I entirely understand, it is becoming clear that the Government are concerned with the designation of areas. Those who wish to maintain the exemption are concerned with the designation of property, of the individual house. We seek to achieve some means of maintaining designation of a house which is exempt because it is in an exempt area. I understand the reasons for the Government adopting the attitude that they do. I shall return at Report stage to the issue of the designation of property once it is exempt. The Minister said that the problem would be considered through the 10-yearly census. I cannot believe that it would be so accurate that a car crash or a multiple birth would be reflected in the 10-yearly census.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. The only figures likely to be available if one wished to reconsider the problem are those from the 10-yearly census. I hope that I indicated firmly that it did not mean that we would review the situation every 10 years. We envisage that many areas would never be reviewed and those that may require review will be reconsidered perhaps because of new town growth or some other change that one cannot foresee at the moment. I hope that in the great majority of cases the permanence of the arrangements can be accepted.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before I withdraw Amendment No. 69, I wish to make two points. I may misquote my noble friend, but I believe that he said that the Government did not intend to alter the designations. He also said that once an area was designated as rural, it would remain so, or words to that effect. Those assurances are extremely helpful. However, being a somewhat doubting person, I believe that they are only assurances. Surely something on the face of the Bill as a real assurance would be better. Perhaps we can draft something later on at Report stage.
Apart from that, I am grateful to the Minister for all that he said and agree with him with the possible exception—to take the line adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—that perhaps we should look at the individual house rather than the individual area. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 78 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 11, line 21, at end insert—
("() The rural areas designated under subsection (1)(b) above shall include areas where—

(a) there is a shortage of affordable housing demonstrated by the local authority's housing register and other relevant evidence; or

(b) the release of land to provide replacement stock for dwellings in the social rented sector acquired under the right conferred by section 16 would be contrary to planning and environmental policies for that area.").

The noble Lord said: I am concerned that the effect of the Bill will be to reduce the supply of affordable housing in rural areas. It fails to take into account the environmental and land use implications of the proposals for the extension of the right to buy. The

1587
Government recognise that there are particular problems in providing affordable houses in rural areas. However, I believe that the proposals to exempt small rural settlements, identified on the basis of an arbitrary population threshold, is too crude. It fails to recognise the large number of rural communities above 3,000 in population where problems of providing affordable housing are just as acute. The proposal also fails to recognise fully the factors which influence and determine the ability to meet affordable housing needs within the acceptable environmental limits.
In another place, the Government claimed that extending the right to buy to housing association tenants will not have any environmental consequences. I do not believe that that is the case. In areas where tenants exercise their right to buy, providing replacement stock could have important environmental implications. That will be particularly true in areas where suitable land or buildings in the locality to provide replacement dwellings is not available and green field sites have to be provided.
I am also concerned that the current proposals are creating a degree of uncertainty about the future status of social housing stock. This uncertainty is undermining the co-operation of landowners in providing suitable sites for local needs housing and risks exacerbating problems of supplying social needs housing in areas where suitable sites may be difficult to identify.
In tabling the amendment, I sought to ensure that the Bill is sensitive to the different circumstances of different rural areas. I believe that the amendment will allow for the continued extension of the principle of the right to buy while safeguarding the supply of affordable homes in rural areas. It addresses two key concerns: first, retaining a supply of affordable homes in areas where shortages already exist; and, secondly, ensuring that the replacement of dwellings purchased under the right to buy does not contradict existing environmental and planning policies.
The amendment defines on the face of the Bill those areas where the right to buy will not apply. It adopts a criteria-based approach in which environmental and land use criteria, as well as evidence of housing shortages, are taken into account. Its effect would be to ensure that in identifying areas which should be exempt from the right to buy, the particular circumstances of individual rural areas would be considered. This would help reduce the impact of tenants exercising the right to buy on affordable housing stock in areas of constraint and avoid conflict with other planning and environmental policies for that area. It would also create a greater sense of security about the future status of social housing stock in exempted areas than the current proposals which rely entirely on the use of statutory instruments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My name is also to the amendment. I do not wish to repeat the detailed arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, with which I agree. I support the amendment in particular because it allows, within proper constraints, for local
1588
diversity. It would reflect local needs and, most important, it would allow those needs to be determined locally by those who are best placed to analyse them.
Lord Carter: My name is also to the amendment because if we consider the discussion on the previous group of amendments, this is another example where we might be able to obtain more flexibility and diversity in the approach, as the noble Baroness said. We should be able to ascertain whether there is a shortage of affordable housing which we agree would be the triggering factor in granting the exemptions. That is what it would be about; it would be another arrow in the Government's quiver when dealing with the problem. If we have the provision on the face of the Bill, it would help.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendment for the reasons that I gave as regards the previous group. The problems are particularly acute in what one might describe as affluent areas where housing prices are already high and will tend to rise still further. I give one example of where I live which is within the commuting area surrounding Bath and Bristol. There the problem is quite severe.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend's amendment seeks to extend the application of the rural exemptions. It proposes that rural exclusions should cover areas where there is a high level of housing demand or where releasing land for replacement properties would be against planning and environmental policies for that area. I cannot accept the justification for either of those cases. We are now entering a number of small debates in which we must be careful that we do not pay lip service to the idea of the right to acquire property by a tenant of a housing association and then salami-slice away that right until we are left with half a dozen tenants in a small part of the country.
We must be careful about the exemptions we bring forward and put into the legislation. Every time we make an exemption, we are saying that the tenants in the exempt area will not share with tenants in other areas the right to acquire their house. If we have all signed up to the principle that the tenant should have the right to acquire, then we should remember that we are taking away that right from tenants. We should only do that when we feel it is absolutely justified. We all feel that it is justified in certain rural areas and we have already had a debate about them.
The first part of this debate concerns housing demand. The scheme should in fact help landlords to meet housing need. I do not believe that my noble friend's concern has any basis as regards that aspect. If a tenant buys the property in which he is living, he thereby provides a receipt which can be re-invested in a home for a family on the waiting list. That is either by new build or by purchase. That should solve a problem rather than create one.
As concerns environmental and planning policies, I must stress again that replacement properties do not have to be newly built. It is the same point. Existing properties can be bought on the open market. Since the receipt will be the market value of the property sold, it

1589
should be sufficient to buy another similar existing property in the same area which can then be used for social renting.
The purpose of rural exclusions, to which my noble friend's amendment would add new exclusions, is to exempt small country villages and rural areas where land is limited and where there is also limited scope for buying existing property. In larger rural towns, we believe there is ample scope for buying replacements on the open market or for new build. Therefore I do not believe we should extend the "protection" of the rural areas policy to the areas falling within the definitions my noble friend suggests. I hope with that explanation my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Will my noble friend clarify one point that I do not quite understand? He said that the proceeds from the sale would enable someone to buy a comparable property in the same area. As I understand it, the proceeds will be discounted. I know that a grant is to be given to enable people to buy. Would the grant make up the value sufficiently to purchase a similar property?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not entirely sure I understand my noble friend's question. If an association sells a house to a sitting tenant at a discount, it obviously receives from the tenant the market price less the discount and then receives the discount from the Housing Corporation. From those two routes the association receives the market value of the house it sold. The money that the housing association receives from such sources is to be ring-fenced to provide another rented house. I hope that that answers the question.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend, but there is another point that has arisen previously; namely, what happens when the amount provided by both the grant and the tenant's purchase still does not cover what was land at an unrealistically low price in the first instance? The case has been raised again and again of someone selling land at an artificially low price. Surely local properties would not be saleable at the same figure.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the land is sold at a low price and a house on the land is then sold to a sitting tenant, the market price will reflect the proper market value of the land. The housing association will gain that additional money and will therefore be able to fulfil the purpose for which the land was originally given; namely, to provide social housing. It will provide another social house.
The Earl of Dundonald: Who will be responsible for carrying out the valuation? Will it be the district valuer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not entirely sure whether that is the name used in England. My noble friend comes from north of the Border. In Scotland it will certainly be somebody like the district valuer. I am
1590
not entirely sure whether the district valuer exists in the south but some such person will do the valuations. As I understand it, that is how it works currently with the sale of local authority houses.
The Earl of Dundonald: In that case, perhaps I may put another point to my noble friend. It is normal practice for the district valuer to set the value slightly lower than the open market value. Therefore there would be a difference.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall take advice on whether district valuers set valuations lower than the market value and perhaps write to my noble friend.
Lord Carter: Perhaps I may take up a point made by the Minister in referring to the "salami" technique of gradually removing the right to buy slice by slice. I suggest that if the criteria were on the face of the Bill, the problem would not exist.
Lord Monkswell: I have a slightly different question. At present local authority tenants who have a right to buy are locked into the private sector. Once they have bought their council house it is virtually impossible for the local authority to buy it back. From what the Minister says, it will be possible for a housing association to sell a house to a tenant under the right to buy; the tenant will receive a discount; three years later the housing association could buy back the property at the market price and almost immediately sell it again to the tenant, whereupon the tenant would receive a discount. It would seem logical in that sort of situation for the housing association and the tenant to come to an agreement that every three years they go through such a transaction and split the difference in terms of the discount. Have the Government thought of that? Do they think it a sensible use of the public funds involved in the discounting procedure?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord allows his imagination to run away with him on hypothetical cases. I cannot see a housing association and a tenant entering into successive deals in which the tenant moves from being a tenant to being the owner, to being a tenant again, and then to becoming the owner again. That is very unlikely. I suspect that something would stop any such procedure dead in its tracks. Common sense might do so in the case of a tenant who had become the owner and had to become a tenant again. Perhaps we should leave the matter to one side. In case I have misunderstood the noble Lord's intervention, I shall certainly look into it. If I feel that he has a point that should be addressed, I shall come back to him.
Perhaps I may use this opportunity to save writing to my noble friend Lord Dundonald. The landlord can use anyone to make a valuation. But if the tenant disputes it, there is a right to go to the district valuer. The legislation states clearly that the valuation must be the open market value. I refer my noble friend to Section 127 of the Housing Act 1985 where that is clearly spelt out. The valuation must be the open market value.

1591
To return to the nightmare scenario suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, any tenant's discount in the circular dance he suggested has to take into account any earlier discount that the tenant received.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: It may be clear to other Members of the Committee. It is not quite clear to me. Will the open market value that is decided be the open market value as if the house had a tenant? Or will it be the freehold market value? Before you can put another tenant in another place you have to buy the freehold, not a leasehold.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the Committee knows, I am not a lawyer; nor am I an estate agent. I am afraid my noble friend takes me into territory to which I shall need to give a little thought. I suspect that the Housing Act 1985 may be helpful. I can advise my noble friend that the open market value, which must be taken, must be on the basis of vacant possession.
Lord Gisborough: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I am not totally convinced. I do not totally understand how the value can be maintained for continually replacing the houses. However, I shall read his remarks. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 to 83 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
TENANTS' INCENTIVE SCHEME: ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
(". Allocation of funds for the Tenants' Incentive Scheme shall take into account the fact that tenants whose dwelling is entered on the Register of Exempt Rural Properties do not have the right to buy the dwelling which they occupy.").
The noble Lord said: We can be extremely brief with this amendment. It seems to me worth exploring the attitude of the Government on the matter of taking away the right to buy through the exemptions policy. This is a community benefit and it is being done for social purposes. But, in a sense, the tenant is a loser. I feel that there should be some form of quid pro quo because a tenant in that situation has lost the right to buy.
Would it not be fair to allow the tenants of exempted properties to be taken into particular account when the allocations of the incentive scheme are being made? That would give them a new freedom, if their exempted property remains within the stock of rural and social housing, to have the chance to pick up the right that the exemptions policy removed from them? It seems to me that the community should give some kind of quid pro quo to the individual tenant in respect of the right that he is losing as a result of the social purposes, which are the intention of the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The purpose of the tenants' incentive scheme is to make housing association property available for a family in housing need by giving the existing tenant a cash grant to help
1592
him buy a property on the open market and thus free the tenanted property for another tenant. Approximately £81 million was spent on the tenants' incentive scheme in 1994–95 and around 7,000 grants were distributed.
As with any cash limited programme, clearly it is essential that funds are targeted at areas where there is the greatest housing need. Approximately 53 per cent. of all TIS, as it is called, grants in 1994–95 were distributed to the London and South-East area where there is the most acute need for social housing. We expect that trend to continue.
Many housing associations in rural areas simply do not bid for TIS grants as there appears to be very much less demand for those grants in rural areas. But if they were to bid, they would be considered, just like everybody else. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. I understand that they do not bid because they do not believe they will get an allocation. I understand that that is the problem. And that is the reason for the amendment. We want to have it clear that, if they wish to bid, they can do so. It is to be hoped that the particular circumstances of the exempted tenants can be taken into account when the allocations of the TIS money are made. I shall read what the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Social housing grants]:
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 20 [Purchase grant where right to acquire exercised]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 13, line 14, leave out from ("be") to end of line 15 and insert—

("(a) the aggregate of the discounts given in that year;

(b) the replacement costs; and

(c) the interest.

(2A) The rate of replacement costs per dwelling shall be set in each September for the following year by the Corporation and different provision may be made for different cases, and in particular may be made in relation to different values, different areas, different descriptions of housing accommodation and different descriptions of registered social landlord, and may be a composite sum allowing for actual items of expenditure.
(2B) Before setting the replacement costs the Corporation shall consult such bodies appearing to it to be representative of registered social landlords as it considers appropriate.
(2C) In this section—
"replacement costs" means the estimated costs of disposal, including processing the person's claim, valuation and legal expenses, and of acquisition of a replacement dwelling, including search, valuation taxes and legal expenses and with an appropriate allowance for abortive disposals and acquisitions, at a rate as determined by the Corporation in accordance with subsection (2B); and

1593
"interest" means interest on the discount and replacement cost from the date of disposal to date of payment at the rate of interest on judgment debts in the High Court.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89. My later amendments, Amendments Nos. 92 and 95, which I do not intend to move, cover rather similar ground.
On a number of occasions the Minister referred to the replacement of the value of houses which are sold at their full market value. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is a proper reinstatement to the housing association since I believe that more than simply the value of the house is needed in order to put the housing association back where it started, especially in respect of replacement costs. I refer to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment which add to paragraph (a), the words of which already appear in the Bill. That proposal is to take account in particular of the cost of selling and purchasing. Members of the Committee who have been involved in property transactions, from the smallest to the largest, will know that they do not come without associated costs. Any organisation which arranges a transaction will have to cover at the least staff time, fees, valuation costs and all the costs involved in searching for a replacement dwelling. There will be—dare I say?—lawyers' fees. There will be stamp duty, land registry fees and even costs in dealing with the Housing Corporation with regard to expenditure from the disposal proceeds fund.
The amendment mentions interest. I am not necessarily wedded to interest at the very high rate—I believe it is now 15 per cent.—proposed in the amendment. But it is a fact that interest would recompense the housing association for not having the cash represented by these amounts in its own account and earning interest.
The Housing Corporation is a quango. As such its dealing in these matters tempts me in one or two places to raise issues which I might otherwise not wish to bring to the Committee. I feel, however, that it is important to have some detail on the face of the Bill, given the difficulties of raising at a later stage questions about the way in which the schemes are being operated, since there is indirect rather than direct accountability. Therefore, I seek a proper reinstatement.
Amendment No. 88 allows the corporation to borrow and is essentially a timing matter in order to ensure that funding is available to the corporation. Since reimbursement to housing associations is not a precondition, it will follow the event. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to give the Committee assurances that the funding will be secured to the fullest extent possible in order to ensure that the intention of reimbursing housing associations can be implemented. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 89. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This group of amendments seeks to amend the provisions relating to the payment of grant to registered social landlords to cover the new right-to-buy discounts. I do not believe that any of the amendments would improve the scheme.
Clause 20 requires the corporation to pay grants to registered social landlords in respect of discounts given by them to tenants exercising the right to acquire. The
1594
amount of the grant will be the aggregate value of discounts given in that year. Amendment No. 86 would increase the amount of the grant to cover the cost of disposing of a property and providing a replacement, and interest on the discount and replacement costs. Registered social landlords who sell under the new right to buy will receive, as I said, the market value of the property. That should be sufficient to provide a replacement. I cannot therefore see any need for the amendment, which would simply add to the Housing Corporation's costs.
Clause 20(4) provides that the corporation, when paying a grant, may provide that the grant is contingent on compliance with such conditions as it may specify. The type of conditions which the corporation is likely to specify will relate to matters such as audit, record keeping, and so on. Amendment No. 87 would remove that power. It is clearly useful for the corporation to be able to specify these matters as it will help it keep track of what is, after all, public funding. I see no justification for the proposal in Amendment No. 87 to remove that power.
Amendment No. 88 would add a new subsection to Clause 20, providing that the corporation may borrow from any person such sums as it requires to make payments of grant to social landlords under Clause 20. The corporation already has borrowing powers under Section 92 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 which are subject to the Secretary of State's approval. Therefore, we believe that the amendment is superfluous.
I believe that I heard the noble Baroness aright when she said that she would not move Amendment No. 89. With my explanation, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment she has moved.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not feel that the Minister answered Amendment No. 86 at all. He repeated that the market value will be provided. I do not intend to pursue the point further but I shall take the opportunity between now and the next stage of the Bill to attempt to gather further detailed information of the cost of the transaction. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the perfectly practical and commonsense points which may be made in order to deal with what I believe will be a funding gap. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Purchase grant in respect of other disposals]:
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Assistance from local authorities]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 14, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 90 deals with the subsection providing that,
"A local housing authority may sell or supply under a hire-purchase agreement furniture to the occupants of houses provided by a registered social landlord, and may buy furniture for that purpose".
In moving the amendment I do not wish to suggest that local housing authorities should not have this power. I simply ask the Minister whether they do not already have the power under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. That is the section which allows local authorities to,
"do any thing … calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions".
The point may seem a frivolous and unnecessary one. However, in the wider context of local authorities having to justify everything they do on the basis of legislation, I am concerned that, rather than relying on the Section 111 power to deal with matters which are ancillary, the powers of local authorities will become much narrower as a result of the general thrust of legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clause 22 enables local authorities to promote and provide assistance to registered social landlords. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, points out, subsection (4) allows local housing authorities to sell, or supply under a hire purchase agreement, furniture to the tenants of registered social landlords.
The noble Baroness is concerned that this is an additional power we are giving to local authorities which is not necessary because it can be swept up under Section 111 of the 1972 Act. However, the provisions simply re-enact earlier legislation, and that earlier legislation was contained in Section 61 of the Housing Associations Act 1985.
I suspect that if we did not carry this legislation forward people would assume that we had removed it and that, rather than being swept up by Section 111, it may be swept out. The provision provides local authorities with a practical way of providing help to those who are setting up home for the first time or those who, because of a change in circumstances, would find it difficult to meet the full costs of providing furniture for their home. For example, it could be used to help tenants who need rehousing as a result of a fire. Many local authorities have taken advantage of the provision when working with registered housing associations to provide furnished accommodation in their area.
This is a useful provision which should be retained rather than relying on any hope that it can be swept up by Section 111. I am sure that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment in the light of that explanation.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister cannot always be quite so certain as he is on this occasion. As I said when moving the amendment, it is important that local authorities go on doing useful work in this area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1596
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [The disposal proceeds fund]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 91 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 92 to 96.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 92 to 95 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 15, line 39, leave out from ("section") to ("do") in line 40 and insert ("27 below (recovery, &c. of social housing grants) and section 52 of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery, &c. of grants under that Act and earlier enactments)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 96 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 to 104 and 108.
Clause 27 refers to the recovery of social housing grants. Clause 28 refers to grants made under earlier powers. In certain situations grants need to be recovered; for example, where an association disposes of a property originally built with grant. For the new social housing grant the corporation already has a power to direct grant to be paid to it or that it should be unrecovered but used for purposes it specifies. We agreed in another place to extend this power to direct unrecovered grants to housing association grants paid under earlier enactments too. Amendment No. 108 replaces an earlier amendment to meet this commitment, which we decided was not sufficiently detailed.
The remaining amendments are of a technical nature to provide for the way in which interest is dealt with on unrecovered social housing grants or housing association grants, extending the corporation's scope to abate or reduce interest payments where grants are re-used by the date the corporation specifies, and to correct minor technical errors in Clauses 24 and 27. I beg to move.
Amendment No. 96 agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Application or appropriation of disposal proceeds]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 97 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 98.
[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 99 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 100.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Recovery, &c. of social housing grants]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 16, line 18, at end insert ("in accordance with guidance which the Corporation shall issue before the commencement of this Part").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 101 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 109, which is perhaps the more important of the two.
Amendment No. 101 invites the corporation to give guidance. The effect of Amendment No. 109 would be to give the corporation the express power, within the principles it determines for applying Section 52(2) of the Housing Act 1988, to direct a registered social landlord which has received housing association grant under that Act to use the amounts specified for the purposes and objects of the landlord set out in Clause 2 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 109 relates to grants paid prior to the enactment of the Bill before the Committee today; that is, under the 1988 Housing Act or earlier enactments. The corporation's powers to recover social housing grant powers enables it to take action when property funded by grant is sold or transferred to a non-social housing use. That is because public finds have been involved. I accept that. I have no problem with the principle that some control must be exercised over the proceeds of sale or the outcome of a new use. However, I should be grateful if the Government could either agree with Amendment No. 101 or at least give a considered response to Amendment No. 109, because we believe it is important that the corporation should observe this principle if the Bill is enacted. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord has explained the purpose of his amendment. I hope that when I have explained the position he will feel satisfied and be able to withdraw it.
As the noble Lord explained, Amendment No. 101 would require the corporation, when issuing a determination governing the events in which its powers to recover grant under Clause 27 are exercised, to do so in accordance with guidance issued before commencement. The corporation, as a matter of course, consults before it issues determinations. It may help if I explain to the Committee how it intends to proceed in this case.
The corporation is planning a staged approach. The bidding guidance will draw bidders' attention to Parliament's general intention in introducing the new social housing grant regime. That will be issued around the end of August. The corporation then aims to consult on the various determinations that need to be in place in the autumn so that all the details can be agreed in time for the introduction of social housing grant from 1st April 1997. It would seem unnecessary to require two statements of the principles that the corporation would adhere to—both guidance and a determination. Moreover, the guidance would have to be issued before commencement and could not therefore be altered to take account of any consultation process.
Amendment No. 109 would provide that if the corporation requires an association to use amounts of unrecovered grant for purposes it specifies, these amounts must be used in pursuance of the landlord's purposes and objectives. Those would be in accordance with Clause 2 of the Bill. While I understand the noble Lord's concerns that associations do not use unrecovered grant for other,
1598
perhaps non-housing purposes, I do not believe that that would be possible in any case. Associations must act in accordance with their permissible purposes and the corporation could not direct them to act outside those purposes, whether in their use of grant or of unrecovered grant. With that explanation I hope the noble Lord will see that his fears are already covered and that he can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response. This is a problem. However, what the noble Lord has said has covered my substantial concerns. I shall have to read Hansard and decide what precisely we should do at the next stage. However, on balance, at the moment, I think I am able with a clean conscience, if I may put it in that way, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 104:
Page 16, line 38, leave out from first ("the") to second ("paid") and insert ("principal amount is applied, appropriated or").
Page 16, line 42, leave out ("that amount is so") and insert ("the principal amount is so applied, appropriated or").
Page 17, line 11, leave out ("or") and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Government about the relationship between Clause 27 and Clause 18(3). Under Clause 18(3), the corporation, in making a grant, can provide that the grant is conditional on compliance with such conditions as it may specify. Clause 27 refers to powers which are exercisable in such events as the corporation may from time to time determine in connection with a grant received by a registered social landlord. Although one or two parts of Clause 27 may not be covered elsewhere, it seems to me that the two clauses cover quite similar ground. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the need for going into quite so much detail in Clause 27. The clause is permissive in nearly every part. It says that the direction shall specify interest, but no doubt the corporation could specify a rate of interest of nil per cent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The provisions of Clause 27 are not new. They are similar to those in Section 52 of the Housing Act 1988. The existing provisions apply to housing associations in respect of housing association grant. The new clause applies these rules to registered social landlords in receipt of social housing grant.
The provisions are perfectly sensible. Their purpose is to apply controls to the use of public funds. After certain events determined by the corporation, the corporation may reduce or suspend any grant which it pays to the landlord or recover grant which it has already paid. The main addition to the new clause is the provision of a power for the corporation to direct

1599
landlords to use unrecovered grant for purposes which it specifies. Clause 27 specifically covers the recovery of social housing grant whereas Clause 18 concerns the terms on which the grant is given. That is the distinction between the two.
I could go on at some length explaining what the clause does but I think it is easier to answer the noble Baroness's question quickly. If she is still not satisfied, perhaps she could write to me or talk to me about it. Clause 27 specifically covers the recovery of social housing grant whereas Clause 18 concerns the terms on which the grant is given. There is a distinction between recovery of a grant and a grant being given in the first place. I hope that helps to explain the matter to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: In thanking the Minister I would observe that if the corporation makes a grant and makes conditions, one of those conditions, whether the Government provided for it or not, would, I hope, be that if the registered social landlord does not comply with the conditions it will have to pay back the grant. That is what I thought was covered by Clause 18(3). If there is more than that, perhaps I may turn around the burden of writing letters and ask the Minister to write to me if I am missing the point.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Grants under ss.50 to 55 of the Housing Act 1988]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 106 to 108:
Page 17, line 21, leave out ("Part") and insert ("subsection").
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("Part") and insert ("subsection").
Page 17, line 26, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Section 52 of that Act (recovery, &c. of grants) is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2)(c), for "to pay to it" substitute "to apply or appropriate for such purposes as the Corporation may specify, or to pay to the Corporation,";

(b) in the closing words of subsection (2), for the words from "requiring" to "interest on that amount" substitute "may require the application, appropriation or payment of an amount with interest";

(c) in subsection (7), for the words from "requiring" to "to the Corporation" substitute "requiring the application, appropriation or payment of an amount with interest";

(d) in subsection (8)(a), for the words from "the amount" to "is paid" substitute "the principal amount is applied, appropriated or paid";

(e) in subsection (8)(b), for "that amount is so paid" substitute "the principal amount is so applied, appropriated or paid".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 with Amendment No. 2 and my noble friend Lord Mackay spoke to Amendment No. 108 with Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 17, line 38, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("section 1 of this Act (the register of social landlords)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Commutation of payments of special residual subsidy]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 18, line 6, leave out ("or greater").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 112. In Clause 29(3) provision is made that,
"if after a commuted payment has been made to a housing association … smaller or greater than it should have been, the Secretary of State may make a further payment"
in order to make up the shortfall if the payment was smaller or require repayment by the association if the payment was greater.
I am seeking to confine subsection (3) to making up payments that were smaller than they should have been. It is tough to require repayment of an amount which has been overpaid when the Secretary of State has had further thought about what he should have done in the first instance and come to the view that he has been a little over-generous. That provision would allow the Housing Corporation to keep on reviewing its decisions. Even though one appreciates that there are uncertainties in the future and matters can appear over the horizon which can change one's business plans, to add the problem of the Secretary of State requiring repayment increases the difficulty of the housing organisation operating in a businesslike fashion. I do not believe that I would want to do business with someone who says, "I reserve the right to consider in a general way whether I shall ask you to pay some money back". That does not lead to efficiency quite apart from justice. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I believe that the noble Baroness exaggerates the problem. I also believe that she has been playing too much Monopoly: "There is a Housing Corporation error in your favour, collect £100". That is not the Government's idea of how this Bill should be put together. It is in the interests of good financial management that provision should be made to enable any overpayment to be recovered. These calculations are complex. On occasions there will be mistakes made in both directions by the Housing Corporation and whatever their direction they should be corrected.
Baroness Hamwee: My concern is with the words,
"greater than it should have been".
That allows a discretion which goes beyond the explanation that the Minister has given. Perhaps this matter can have a little further attention; we should not disallow efficiency. In opening I said that I felt that efficiency should be encouraged. However, it should be made quite clear what the limit should be on the Secretary of State's determination. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [General power to obtain information]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 18, line 31, leave out (", or has been,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 114 and 116. Amendment No. 116 is slightly dissociated from this, and I shall be speaking to it in greater detail as I go along. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 give rise to certain problems. A notice under the general powers of the corporation may be served on somebody who has been, in the words of subsection (2)(b),
"an officer, member, employee or agent of a registered social landlord".
It is odd that the corporation may serve a notice even though many people may resign from being,
"an officer, member, employee or agent of a registered social landlord".
Nevertheless on some future occasion the corporation has the right to serve notice on him or her. Amendment No. 114 is very broad. The corporation can serve a notice to obtain information on,
"any person whom the Corporation has reason to believe is or may be in possession of relevant information".
That is enormously broad. I very much hope that the Government will reconsider that wording.
Amendment No. 116 leads us into this matter. It is designed to address what I consider to be a clause in the Bill which cuts straight across the banking secrecy provisions under both legislation and normal procedure. As far as I am aware—and I hope I am aware—bankers are not entitled to give any information about a client's account other than by a request under a court order. Looking at the Bill as drafted, the wording seems to cut right across that matter. It is something which the Government may well wish to look at again because I do not believe that it is consistent with proper banking practice or with the banking law as it stands at present. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boardman: I support the three amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Perhaps I may just comment on the third one as regards banking, while declaring a former interest in that occupation. As the Bill is currently drafted, there is a very deep intrusion into the confidentiality between the bank and the customer. It is a complete disregard of the Jack Committee report which referred to the degree of confidentiality that should be kept between the bank and the customer, which should not be intruded on unless there were very special circumstances. As I understand it, there has been no consultation with the bankers about this particular clause. I ask my noble friend to consider carefully either adopting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, or propose a similar amendment which will meet the point that he makes.
Lord Hylton: The fact is that the Housing Corporation has very considerable powers already. Have any
1602
representations been made by that corporation pointing out that its powers are not sufficient? This clause is very widely drawn and probably far too widely drawn.
Lord Lucas: The powers that we are looking at in this clause are rather more restrictive than those enjoyed by the Charity Commissioners as regards charities. They have a very widely drawn power to require any person to furnish them with any information in his possession which relates to any charity and which is relevant to the discharge of their functions or the functions of the official custodian. That is not subject to the limitations under this clause of the Bill. We are looking here to give the Housing Corporation a set of powers which are, relative to the nearest obvious comparison, restricted. Nonetheless, I am happy to go through them in order and discuss the particular reasons for them. The corporation must ensure that it does not abuse its power, but it has a statutory duty to protect public funds and tenants, and it must be able to obtain the information that it requires.
In practice, the majority of registered social landlords will readily respond to requests for information. However, if the corporation meets resistance it needs to be able to take effective action. The provision in Clause 30 will enable the corporation to specify in a notice the information and documents to be made available to it. Should a registered social landlord without reasonable excuse fail to comply enforcement action can be taken under Clause 31.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has proposed an amendment to the powers of the corporation to obtain information from the banker of a registered social landlord. The corporation is the guardian of the substantial public funds invested in registered social landlords. Its regulatory interest is not limited merely to public funds; it has a duty to protect tenants, and also needs to be assured that the registered social landlord can meet all its commitments, including the private loans that it holds. This aspect of the corporation's regulatory function also provides a degree of comfort to private lenders—something upon which they have frequently commented favourably.
There may be occasions when the corporation needs to obtain information from bankers. I believe it is right that it should on request be granted relevant information about an individual registered social landlord. I recognise that that power should not extend to other customers of the bank. I am assured that the present wording of Clause 30(5)(b) limits any request to the social landlord's banker to information about the registered social landlord itself. I hope that that provides some comfort to my noble friend Lord Boardman. For the additional comfort of my noble friend and that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I will undertake to look again at the extent to which we are giving the corporation powers to request information from bankers. We have been in touch with the British Bankers' Association on the detail of this part of the Bill. That association has not raised this particular problem in relation to the clause, except that it would like to be able to charge fees for providing the information.

1603
It has been suggested that this power will override the confidential relationship between banker and customer. I recognise that that special relationship exists and is protected by statute, but if the corporation is to perform its statutory function it must be able to obtain all relevant information on the financial position of a registered social landlord. Therefore, it is right that it should be able to require a banker to provide, in confidence, information about a registered social landlord who is a customer. Clause 33 provides that restrictions can be placed on further disclosure of information. This power is not unique to the corporation. The Charity Commissioners enjoy much more widely drawn powers, and the Companies Acts provide similar kinds of powers which enable the Secretary of State to require documents to be made available.
In moving Amendment No. 113 the noble Lord, Lord Williams, seeks to prevent former employees from being required to provide information about a registered social landlord. We believe that often former employees may well have relevant information that they have gained during their employment. This may fill important gaps in the corporation's knowledge. We consider it essential that it can legitimately take steps to obtain such information. We also consider it right that the corporation should be able to obtain information from others where it has reason to believe that they may hold something that is relevant. In this context, we will look at the way in which that power would apply to their bankers. If the corporation is to have effective powers it must be able to obtain information from those who it has good reason to believe are holding relevant information. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will not move either of the others.
Lord Hylton: While the Government are examining this question, will they look at how long the obligations will endure, whether they are covered, for example, by the Statute of Limitations and, if so, whether a shorter period is appropriate?
Lord Lucas: I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on that question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the Government's reasoning behind this. I find it difficult to accept that just because there is a precedent under Charity Commission law it can be translated into Housing Corporation law. Once one has a precedent in Charity Commission law one can translate it into Housing Corporation law and then into anything else. Any other measure proposed by the Government under which a regulatory body is entitled to look at the banking records of a client will quote this Act, just as the noble Lord has quoted the Charities Act. Hitler operated in this way. A notice may be served on almost anybody. Almost any person has been involved in one form or another in a registered social landlord. I am sure that this applies not just to members of my family but to members of the noble Lord's family and others. Without any restriction whatever, notices carrying legal
1604
force—involving a contempt of Parliament if they are not obeyed—can be served on anybody who has been involved in a voluntary organisation if he is not prepared to give the kind of information that the Housing Corporation, in its great wisdom—I am sure that it will have great wisdom—requires. The Housing Corporation can serve notices on people who may be completely innocent of any offence and may not have known what on earth was going on five years ago when they were members of a housing association, registered social landlord or whatever. The notice can be served on any other person who the corporation has reason to believe is or may be in possession of relevant information.
Hitler would have been proud of this clause. It gives the corporation blanket authority to serve notice on anybody who it believes is able to contribute. The only protection is that afforded to solicitors. I understand why solicitors want to be protected on the basis of privileged communications, but if they are to be protected I see no reason why bankers should not enjoy the same protection. I am not here to defend bankers. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is a good advocate for bankers. But I believe that the Government have to watch this very carefully. I hope that the noble Lord will take on board what I say. The whole of this matter, as regards bankers and anybody else who the corporation believes may have information that it wants, gives rise to general disquiet. I very much hope that before we come to Report stage the noble Lord will reconsider the clause and amend it accordingly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 114 to 117 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Enforcement of notice to provide information, &c.]
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 19, line 16, at end insert—
("() Proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) may be brought only by or with the consent of the Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 119 with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 119A and 119B, as amendments to Amendment No. 119, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 119 agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 32 [Disclosure of information to the Corporation]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 19, line 40, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 123, 192 and 276.
Clauses 32 and 33, which deal respectively with disclosure of information to and by the corporation, contain definitions of "enactment". A definition is

1605
necessary in order to determine the information which may be disclosed and which may be subject to restriction on disclosure. There is currently no definition of "enactment" in the Bill: a consequence no doubt of splitting what was once one Bill into two, one of which this place has already looked at in some detail. A definition of "enactment" is required for the Bill as a whole. Amendment No. 276 inserts it into Clause 202. That definition, which is the same as that currently used for the purposes of Clauses 32 and 33, will, by virtue of Amendment No. 192 to Clause 63, apply to the whole of Part I. Amendments Nos. 120 and 123 therefore dispense with the definition in Clauses 32 and 33. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Disclosure of information by the Corporation]:
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 20, line 27, at end insert—
("Proceedings for such an offence may be brought only by or with the consent of the Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 20, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 120. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Standards of performance]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Information as to levels of performance]:
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert—
("Proceedings for such an offence may be brought only by or with the consent of the Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 126A and 126B, as amendments to Amendment No. 126, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 126 agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Issue of guidance by the Corporation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 21, line 42, at end insert—
("() the devolution to tenants of decisions concerning the management of housing accommodation.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment proposes the addition to Clause 36(2) of another subject for guidance by the corporation. In this case, it is the devolution to tenants of the decisions about the management of housing accommodation. Although I have my reservations about guidance, and would in many cases prefer something a little firmer than allowing guidance to include certain matters, I recognise that in listing those matters the Government are giving their support to the subjects that are set out.
The amendment seeks to build on an amendment moved by my honourable friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey when he sought to introduce a new clause which he called the democratisation of social housing management. The amendment does not go as far as his amendment. I have attempted to take account of the Minister's comments in response to my honourable friend.
The Committee will, I am sure, share my concern that tenants who are, in this sense, customers of the housing services provided, have the greatest stake in the accommodation which they occupy. Almost invariably they are the best people to comment upon how best that accommodation should be managed. They may well be the best people to take the decisions. I seek to ensure that the corporation raises the issue of devolution of decision making to the tenants in the guidance which it produces.
Clearly tenants in different types of accommodation, possibly in different communities, will differ one from another. Fully to take account of tenants' views and make the management of their accommodation not just accountable to them but their own management as far as possible is essential to good housing and good social policy.
In response to my honourable friend, the Minister said that he shared many of the sentiments behind his proposal for democratisation, and that tenants have an important part to play in management. He said that the degree to which they would want to become involved would vary, and that it was not possible to draw up a blueprint. Of course I accept that. I would go further and say that in providing for devolution of decision making it is essential that the body that devolves the decision making should assist in the process. One cannot expect people who are not used to taking certain decisions to move from possibly not even being present to listen to taking the decision without—I hope that this does not sound too paternalistic—having some assistance in ensuring that the process works as well as possible.
Encompassed in these two lines is a great deal of work for the Housing Corporation and the tenants, but it is something which should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We agree, if I heard the noble Baroness aright, with everything that she said. Clause 36 is not exclusive. We do not have to list everything in the clause. She will remember that on the last Housing Bill we had extensive discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who wanted to amend and add

1607
to such lists. I hope that the fact that we propose to accept the amendment will not upset the noble Lord too much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 22, line 14, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to take out subsection (7) of Clause 36, which provides that the corporation may have regard to the extent to which guidance has been followed when considering action to secure the proper management of the affairs of a registered social landlord, or whether there has been mismanagement. I wonder whether using guidance to decide whether there has been mismanagement is giving too much scope for abuse. That may be putting the matter a little high but I believe that it compromises the independence of housing associations.
Clause 36(2) provides that guidance may, in particular, deal with the demands for which provision should be made and how; the allocation between individuals; and the terms of the tenancies and rents set in principle. Subsection (7) provides that the Housing Corporation may have regard to the extent to which that guidance, as well as other guidance, has been followed. Might that not give inappropriate scope for government views, for instance, to be given rein to; perhaps views on allocation to asylum seekers?
We must remember that the voluntary housing movement comprises independent bodies, most of which are charities. I suggest that government interference should be resisted and kept to the minimum that is necessary to deal with oversight. If there has been actual mismanagement there has been mismanagement, but choosing whether or not to follow Housing Corporation guidance should not put an association in fear of Housing Corporation intervention. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I appreciate what the noble Baroness said. It is true that the clause provides only for the issue of guidance on various matters. However, the issues to be covered by such guidance are of considerable importance. They include allocation policies; services to tenants; terms of tenancies and calculation of rents; standards of maintenance and repair; complaints procedures for tenants; and consultation and communication with tenants.
It does not appear to us acceptable to say that when considering whether or not to use these important powers the corporation cannot have regard to the extent to which a registered social landlord is following the guidance issued under this clause. The guidance represents accepted good practice. Failure to follow good practice could have major implications for tenants. It could also have implications for taxpayers where, for instance, there is inadequate maintenance and repair. These are clearly matters of relevance to the management of public stock.
This is not a matter of the independence of registered social landlords. The proper independence of the social housing sector will be recognised in the guidance which
1608
is issued. The provision is about the failure to follow that guidance. I understand the noble Baroness's anxieties but I hope that she will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe that I should push my luck. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 22, line 30, at end insert—
("() Proceedings for an offence under subsection (3) may be brought only by or with the consent of the Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 130A and 130B, as amendments to Amendment No. 130, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 130 agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Penalty for obstruction of person exercising power of entry]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 22, line 45, at end insert—
("() Proceedings for such an offence may be brought only by or with the consent of the Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 132:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE OF THE CORPORATION
(". The Corporation shall, after consultation with persons or bodies appearing to it to be representative of registered social landlords and any other persons or bodies that it thinks fit, from time to time—

(a) publish a statement of the standards of performance that it intends to achieve in connection with its duties under sections 30 to 38 of this Part:

(b) arrange for publication, in such form or manner as it considers appropriate, of the standards so determined;

(c) arrange for publication, in such form or manner as it considers appropriate but at intervals of no more than one year, of a comparison between its actual performance and the standard of performance determined under paragraph (a), and a statement of the action that it is taking to correct any shortfalls in its performance.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment inserts a new clause to provide for the Housing Corporation and its equivalent in Wales to be required after consultation to publish from time to time a statement of the standards of performance which it intends to achieve and to arrange for that publication.
The amendment addresses a fundamental anxiety which I can express without in any way making pejorative remarks about the Housing Corporation as it exists. It is not intended to be an attack; it is intended to be a positive move to make the corporation more accountable to the public and to registered social landlords for the way in which it carries out its routine regulatory functions.
The Bill re-enacts and extends the powers of the corporation to regulate, to give guidance on and to monitor the activities of housing associations and, in the future, all registered social landlords. I do not seek to challenge that role. It is, of course, a counterpart to the channelling of public funding through the corporation. I appreciate too that private lenders who invest in housing associations need the reassurance that monitoring is being properly conducted.
However, any system of supervision and regulation should have a basic principle that is transparent to all concerned. That allows decision makers and those who are affected by regulation to assess the risks involved and also to understand the way in which their performance is being measured. One of the anxieties about the increasing use of performance indicators is that they can be read out of context and it is important to make measures of performance clear.
The amendment would require the corporation to publish a statement drawing the links between the risks that are envisaged and the actions that it will carry out to guard against or to mitigate them. Social landlords have costs imposed upon them by regulation. The regulatory decisions affect their day-to-day activities. They have a need to know. The amendment provides for procedures and timescales and it also requires the corporation to compare its intended performance with its actual performance.
Since the Bill was published I have received, as no doubt have other Members of the Committee, the Housing Corporation paper entitled Changing Responsibilities: The Housing Corporation's Priorities and Targets for the period 1996 to 1999. It may well be that the Minister will tell me that the fact that such a document is published should allay my fears. Of course, it does not do so because arrangements can change. However, it is useful to point to two or three words in the document. In talking about the achievements since the 1988 Housing Act, the report refers to the corporation's tasks as having increased in both scale and complexity and refers to its business responsibilities. It also has a section on administration and efficiency. That is rightly a very businesslike approach to what is very big business. But it is big business conducted on behalf of the public. It is public sector money, public sector business. I believe that, accordingly, public sector accountability to the relatively limited extent I am proposing is the minimum which the public is entitled to expect. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the amendment. As I said on Second Reading, one of the fundamental problems in the Bill is in relation to the accountability of the Housing Corporation. This amendment addresses that problem. It may not do so in words which the
1610
Government like and it may be that there are other points which we should wish to build in. But there is a fundamental principle which at present is not observed that the Housing Corporation should be treated, as I think I said on Second Reading, like any other government department. In other words, it should produce an annual report, and that annual report should be scrutinised by Parliament. It should produce an annual report, in the words of the amendment,
"after consultation with persons or bodies appearing to it to be representative of registered social landlords and any other persons or bodies that it thinks fit from time to time".
It must publish a statement of standards of performance. It must justify its existence and how it operates, and Parliament must approve.
The amendment covers a large part of my argument. I hope very much that the Government will not simply brush it aside. As I said on Second Reading, the Housing Corporation is to be given massive powers. Our discussions on Clause 30 have shown them to be even more massive than I had originally expected. If that is so, it is only right that the corporation should come under proper parliamentary control and be properly accountable. For that reason, on this side of the Committee, we strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Lord Lucas: I hope that I shall be able to give the noble Baroness some comfort on this matter. We are very much ad idem as regards wanting this body to be properly accountable. What we are doing and what we propose to do, we believe, will be as good as that which the proposed amendment seeks to achieve. Responsibility for the corporation rests with the Secretary of State. He allocates funding to the corporation and sets the broad targets which he expects it to achieve in support of government policy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise for interrupting the Minister at the beginning of his speech, but there lies the problem. The Housing Corporation is responsible to the Secretary of State. If the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales are to be properly accountable, they should be properly accountable to Parliament and not the Secretary of State. We have heard time and time again that the Secretary of State cannot answer questions because the organisation involved is a quango or a new next steps agency. That is the problem which appears in the first sentence of the noble Lord's brief.
Lord Lucas: I understand that that is an argument advanced in relation to quangos. However, we believe that it is a structure which has great advantages in some circumstances; namely, it can be allocated clearly defined tasks in a limited policy area where some distance from day-to-day politics is a positive advantage. We believe that that applies to the Housing Corporation and that it is better off with its present status. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, may not be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on 3rd July, will be advocating that powers be taken away from the Ministry of Agriculture and given to a new quango.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am all in favour of my noble friend advocating that powers be taken away from the

1611
Ministry of Agriculture since it made such an absolute, total nonsense of the beef crisis. In view of that, I believe that all powers should be taken away from the Ministry of Agriculture. That has nothing to do with the present argument.
Lord Lucas: It illustrates the point that, in the right circumstances, the noble Lord's party is prepared to advocate the use of the particular structure which is used for the Housing Corporation. It is something which has positive advantages, and we believe that that is so in this particular case. Nevertheless, it must be made properly accountable.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I hesitate to intervene in a debate which is certainly not my concern. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to my noble friend's Starred Question which is tabled for 3rd July. I do not wish to read my noble friend's mind but I believe that he is suggesting that the Food Standards Agency should be placed within the Department of Health rather than remain a responsibility of MAFF. That is certainly my understanding of the phrasing of the Question. If that is the reference which the noble Lord makes, I suspect that he is mistaken.
Lord Lucas: I shall wait to see whether I am correct. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord.
The corporation is required to report annually to the Secretary of State who, in turn, is required to lay copies of the report before Parliament. Parliament exercises its oversight of the corporation's performance through its normal processes. It may require the Secretary of State to report to it on any specific aspect or it may call the corporation to account for its performance to any of the committees established for that purpose in another place. It is also subject to the oversight of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The corporation supports and assists the Secretary of State to meet government policies and objectives. It rightly falls to the Secretary of State to set targets for the corporation covering each of its functions. That is done through the annual corporate plan prepared by the corporation and discussed and agreed with the Secretary of State. In setting out its proposals for approval the corporation is expected to have regard to the impact its plans will have on the sector and to ensure they make a contribution towards the Government's objectives. The corporation has also established a practice, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whereby it publishes annually at the commencement of the financial year a three—year planning document where it sets out in detail the objectives agreed with the Secretary of State.
The committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, has recently examined public spending bodies, including housing associations. One aspect it looked closely into was the openness and accountability of the corporation in its regulatory function. It recommended that the corporation give more consideration to bringing into the public arena more information on its performance as a regulator and the lessons learned from its regulatory interventions in housing associations and registered social landlords.
1612
The corporation is actively considering those recommendations and will be giving effect to them later this year.
In general, the Housing Corporation, like other public bodies, takes its responsibilities seriously and is striving to be more open and consultative. Following debate in another place, we introduced a series of statutory duties to consult. But there is a danger of over—prescription.
The noble Baroness proposed that the corporation be required to consult annually before setting its performance targets under its regulatory powers as detailed in Clauses 30 to 38 of the Bill. The corporation is required to take soundings from the sector and those involved in it before submitting its proposals covering all of its functions to the Secretary of State for approval. A separate exercise here would appear to be unnecessary.
The noble Baroness also proposed that the corporation publish its proposals and arrange for publication, at least annually, of a comparison of performance against the targets set. We support the thought which lies behind that, but the corporation already publishes an annual report which is presented to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. That would seem to be the appropriate vehicle for such comparisons.
The corporation is taking forward a number of measures designed to improve its accountability to Parliament, the registered social landlord sector and the wider public. It strives to be a best practice organisation. It is accountable to the Secretary of State and serves a vocal and well-informed sector. To introduce a further requirement for consultation and publication would be an unnecessary administrative burden and would be unlikely to add to the information already in the public domain, particularly in view of the further assurances that I have given today. I consider the new clause to be unnecessary. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister said that the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales are responsible to the Secretary of State. He then went on to say that they should be distanced from politics. I do not believe that I need do more to ally those two comments than say that the Minister cannot have it both ways. What the noble Lord described could be put in rather different words; for example, a rather cosy tête-à-tête between the corporation and the Government, not the consultation that the amendment proposes.
The Minister told us that the Nolan Committee has recommended that more information be put into the public arena. He also gave us assurances that the corporation is actively considering those recommendations and that it will take action later this year. We are so often reminded about the shortage of parliamentary time. However, we have a big housing Bill before us which deals with the Housing Corporation. Why do the Government fear using the Bill as a vehicle for widening the responsibilities of the Housing Corporation in the area of openness, transparency and consultation; and, indeed, as regards working with others in the sector?
The Bill seems to me to be the most appropriate vehicle for taking all those activities further and putting into legislative form the assurances that we are being asked to

1613
take account of this afternoon. Virtually everyone else in the sector suffers prescription from the Bill; I do not believe that the Housing Corporation should be an exception. I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 132) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 146.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Borne, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Methuen, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol,B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Dubs, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Russell, E

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Geraint, L.

Stoddatt of Swindon, L

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Tenby, V.

Grey, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff,L

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Howie of Troon, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ailsa,M

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Aldington, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Astor of Hever, L

Cadman, L.

Balfour, E.

Campbell of Alloway.L

Barber, L.

Carew, L

Berners, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Biddulph, L.

Carnock L.

Birdwood, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Blake, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Blatch, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Boardman,L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bowness, L.

Courtown, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigavon, V.

1614

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Moyne, L.

Cuckney, L.

Munster, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Nelson, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Newall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norrie, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northesk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Feldman, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Palmer, L.

Gisborough, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goschen, V.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gridley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Quinton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Reay, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rees, L.

Henley, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Holderness, L.

Rodney, L.

Hothfield, L.

Romney, E.

Huntly, M.

Saint Albans, D.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Davids, V.

Inchyra, L.

St John of Bletso, L.

Kimball, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kingsland, L.

Sandford, L.

Savile, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Leigh, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Long, V.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lucas, L.

Stockton, E.

Lyell, L.

Strange, B.

McConnell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Sudeley, L.

Swinfen L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Tebbit, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Teviot, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V.

Middleton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Weatherill, L.

Milverton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wynford,L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 133:
Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
SOLVENCY TEST OF SOCIAL LANDLORD
(". The tests of solvency or otherwise of a registered social landlord shall be those specified in section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 134. The problem of solvency is one which has exercised many people and many minds which are

1615
more learned than mine. At the moment I am wholly unclear about what the Government mean by solvency in the case of a registered social landlord. Having followed the progress in this Chamber of the Insolvency Act, as it now is, in 1986, I think I am aware of what is insolvency in terms of a company under the Companies Act. Where I am in doubt is how the Government recognise—or how anyone recognises—solvency or insolvency in the case of a registered social landlord; in other words, in the case of a housing association.
I shall refrain from drawing the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to the problem involved with the possible differential definition of solvency between a Companies Act company and a housing association or a registered social landlord which is not a Companies Act company. No doubt we shall discuss those matters further on Report. However, there seem to me to be some serious differences at the moment between the two. I should be grateful therefore if, in response to my amendment, the Minister would give the Committee a clear definition of what insolvency means in terms of a social landlord. What is the solvency test? Is it the same solvency test as in Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and, if not, what is it? If that is the case, how does that chime with other insolvency regulations? If, indeed, the Minister cannot give a true explanation, will he take this away and consider giving such an explanation when we reach Report stage?
I hope that I do not have to emphasise to the Minister that this is a question of enormous importance. Those who trade—even people who trade for non—profit, however that is defined, and we are not entirely clear on that—when insolvent commit criminal offences. That is particularly true of companies under the Companies Act 1985. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to give the Committee a clear and defined view of what solvency means in the case of a registered social landlord. If he cannot do that, I hope that he will take it away and give us such a definition when we reach the Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: At the risk of getting a hasty note from the Box, I think the answer to the noble Lord's question is in the words "Insolvency, &c.". This is not really a section about insolvency; it is a section about insolvency and that sort of thing with "and that sort of thing" being rather loosely defined, and powers being there to modify and extend it to deal with any sort of problem which may arise which could tip a registered social landlord into the sort of difficulties from which the corporation would want to be able to dig it out.
Looking first at the particular amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has proposed—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord goes on, he has referred to "Insolvency &c". That is in the rubric of the clause. The rubric of the clause, when it is enacted, is not part of the legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I quite agree, but I hoped that it might give a clue as to where this part of the Bill is heading. We are not trying to redefine insolvency; we are trying to define a set of circumstances where the Housing Corporation should have to take action. Insolvency is the base of that. I address myself first to the particular amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has proposed. He will see that this section deals with much wider circumstances because the amendments he has proposed would prevent the powers in Clauses 39 to 49 taking effect where creditors are enforcing security for other reasons—for instance, where a property is being used for purposes not specified in the charge deeds. One such example, is if the housing association was running a bordello, and another is where a landlord who has received transferred local authority stock has failed to meet designated right-to-buy targets. These are clearly nothing to do with insolvency but they trigger events and securities and create the sort of problem one would meet with insolvency.
It is that whole set of circumstances that we are dealing with in these clauses. One might also suggest the case where lenders dissent from the terms of a proposed merger of two social landlords. We are dealing in these clauses with a much wider set of circumstances than insolvency. Financial failure among housing associations is, thankfully, as yet unknown. There are severe difficulties but, to date, meltdown has been avoided with help from the Housing Corporation. Therefore the use of the new powers that we propose will clearly not be an everyday occurrence. Indeed one might look at them as a backstop. The fact that they are there may well mean that under normal circumstances they are never used.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in mid-flight but he says that these are almost unknown circumstances. Nevertheless the clause deals with interventions by the corporation under the circumstances which—leaving aside the rest of it—I have described; that is, insolvency. It may be "Insolvency,&c.", but it is also insolvency. The question that I am putting to the noble Lord is not whether there has been any case of insolvency in housing associations; it is not even whether there has ever been a case of insolvency in Companies Act companies, because there have been many cases of insolvency of Companies Act companies; I am trying to elicit from the noble Lord a definition of what constitutes insolvency in a housing association. Is it that it cannot pay its bills over the next 12 months? Is it, alternatively, that it has a negative net worth? Is it, alternatively, that it has negative current assets? Is it, alternatively, that it is trading at a loss and that in the short term it cannot meet the provisions of that loss? I search for a definition. If a housing association is registered as a social landlord, should the Bill be enacted, what should it and the corporation regard as an issue which justifies intervention under this clause?
Lord Lucas: I hope that as I continue I shall throw some light on the noble Lord's question. However, the

1617
fundamental answer is that the Bill does not define insolvency. Those definitions are contained in other Acts. The Bill is concerned with consequences of events which occur when a company becomes insolvent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure that the noble Lord will throw a lot of light on the matter when he responds. However, perhaps he will be good enough to tell me in which sections of which Acts insolvency is defined for housing associations, or registered social landlords as we now call them. I know about the Companies Act. That information would remove the need for my amendment referring to the Insolvency Act 1986.
Lord Lucas: It is the Act which contains the governing law on insolvency. That is the Act which we would expect to apply to housing associations, not through the instrument of this Bill but because that legislation applies to them anyway.
The Bill is designed to deal with the consequences of insolvency, and events which have a similar effect to insolvency, to make sure that housing can be retained within the social sector rather than having to be disposed of on the open market with all the consequences that that would have for tenants.
I shall come to the ways in which the Bill works with the insolvency laws, but I do not believe that it is intended that the Bill should create any separate definition of insolvency. The triggering point is a step taken by someone, usually a secured creditor, which results in the social landlord being in danger of dissolution and its assets being sold in the private sector.
Clauses 39 to 49 are triggered by an event. I do not believe that there is any necessity in that process to define insolvency. One merely defines the set of events which trigger those clauses, some of which might involve an insolvency process, and some of which might be matters totally unconnected with insolvency but connected with the specific terms of a charge that a lender has over a piece of property.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I believe that this will be a continuing debate. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, the main burden of declaring a company insolvent is not on a secured creditor or a shareholder. It is on a board of directors which takes the view, on advice, that its company should no longer be trading. In other words, if it goes against the advice it will be trading when insolvent and trading unlawfully.
The noble Lord recognises the problem that I put forward. He states that events are triggered by a secured creditor. They are not triggered by a secured creditor but by a director of the company—under the Companies Act in the case of a Companies Act 1985 company.
Will the same arrangements be relevant for the council of a housing association? Are they relevant at present? If the council of a housing association decides under the terms of Section 123 of the Insolvency Act, even if it is an industrial provident society, "We cannot go on trading because we are insolvent", does that
1618
trigger the matters which the noble Lord explained to me under Clause 39 of the Bill? If that is the case, let us know it.
Lord Lucas: We are in some difficulty because we are referring to different things. The noble Lord talks about matters governed by the governing legislation of the specific type of vehicle. It may be a Companies Act company, an industrial provident society, a charitable trust or various other types of vehicle. Whether or not they are insolvent will depend on the legislation governing those types of vehicle.
This Bill is concerned with the consequences of insolvency: that the housing may be put in danger of being sold on the open market. It concerns the corporation's power to deal with that, whether or not the event is due to insolvency.
Perhaps I may be allowed to make some progress in my general peroration on the subject. I do not count on giving the noble Lord the comfort that he requires but it may at least help.
The consequences of insolvency for all parties could be disruptive and expensive. The housing and public funds invested could be transferred from the social rented sector to the private rented sector. Rents could and very likely would rise to market levels. Housing benefit expenditure would rise. The Government, taxpayers and tenants would lose the benefit of the sub-market rents secured by the original capital subsidy.
This Bill introduces a moratorium following insolvency during which creditors will not be able to dispose of the landlord's land. During this period the corporation will develop a proposal which will retain the housing within the social rented sector, if necessary transferring it to an alternative landlord. With the secured creditor's consent the corporation will be able to appoint a manager to implement all or part of its proposal.
The provisions in the Bill represent a major improvement on the current position. Existing legislation does not give the corporation any right to intervene or any powers to assist if a housing association faces insolvency. The matter is dealt with entirely informally at present.
The Bill provides a statutory role for the corporation to draw up proposals which protect tenants and taxpayers' funds. It ensures that there is no leakage of social housing out of the sector until the corporation has tried to sort things out.
The earlier versions of these clauses were unacceptable to lenders because they put the corporation in control and removed lenders' automatic right to enforce their security in line with their charge deeds. After extensive discussion, the clauses were radically revised so that the corporation could act only if it had the unanimous consent of secured creditors. Lenders are now broadly content with the clauses.
The main body of existing law governing insolvency is contained in the Insolvency Act 1986. By and large the provisions in Clauses 39 to 49 run parallel with this legislation. Thus, while Clauses 40 and 41 require creditors of a registered social landlord to give notice to

1619
the corporation before and after they take a step to enforce their security, creditors are not prevented from taking such steps. So receivers or administrators could be appointed to manage the landlord's assets. A liquidator could be brought in to wind up the landlord or the creditor could take over as mortgagee in possession of the landlord's housing.
There are, however, two ways in which Clauses 39 to 49 affect the operation of established insolvency law. First, as soon as any step is taken to enforce security over a landlord's land there is, as I mentioned, a time-limited moratorium on the disposal of that land. This means that for the duration of the moratorium, which will be a minimum of 28 days, neither the landlord nor any creditor or insolvency practitioner can dispose of the land. They can engage in other activities. For instance, a receiver could take over the management of the housing, but he would not be able to sell it. The moratorium provides essential protection to the landlord's tenants and taxpayers' money which has been invested in his housing. During this period, the corporation will put forward a proposal which seeks to retain the housing within the social rented sector. The agreement of all secured creditors will be needed before the proposal can be implemented. This is the second area where these clauses affect existing insolvency legislation.
The proposals put forward by the corporation, once agreed by secured creditors, bind both those creditors and any insolvency office holder appointed over the landlord. An insolvency officer's powers may be derived from statute case law or from contract. Whatever the basis on which an office holder, for instance, a receiver, administrator or liquidator, has been appointed, his action must not frustrate the implementation of the corporation's proposal. For instance, an insolvency office holder would not be able to derail the implementation of a proposal by selling property which was affected by the proposal.
It is possible that the corporation will not be able to put together a proposal that secures the unanimous consent of the insolvent landlord's secured creditors. If the moratorium ends without an agreed proposal in place, then the corporation will bow out and creditors will be free to proceed without further corporation involvement. The restraint on the disposal of the landlord's housing will be lifted. There will then be no guarantees that it will remain within the social rented sector. This is a situation which the corporation would strive to avoid; but the Government have accepted that if an acceptable corporation proposal is not available, then lenders must be able to protect their investors and take whatever action is open to them to recover their money. There are a number of amendments later which will clarify some of the particular aspects of the ways in which the proposals will work.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked earlier whether the Companies Act insolvency arrangements would be appropriate for a housing association. If a housing association decides that it cannot go on trading, it would tell its bank which would enforce its security or
1620
it would resolve to be wound up, both of which are events mentioned in Clause 40(2) as triggering the provisions of this part of the Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I am very much in sympathy with the Government's intentions in the clauses. It is most important to protect tenants and to ensure, so far as possible, that social housing remains available for its primary purpose. The same applies to land intended for social housing. However, I urge the Government to take into account also the interests of unsecured creditors. I think particularly of builders, contractors and suppliers of a wide range of goods and equipment. Such people may well think that they are dealing with strong, well-endowed associations, trusts or authorities. If they go bankrupt, the consequences for employment are likely to be rather serious. I do not know whether the Government can do anything to give protection in that direction. I do not expect an immediate reply, but it is worthy of consideration.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure that the Government will give their reply in the course of time. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose of Clause 39. I still have problems about insolvency and what constitutes insolvency across the range of those organisations under different governing Acts who could be registered social landlords. I hope that when we come to Report the Government will have sorted out their position on it because I believe there is a difference between a Companies Act company, an industrial provident society and a charity, as well as the duties of directors of a Companies Act company and a member of the council of a housing association under the Housing Act, and so on. This lends force to Amendment No. 135 which I shall move later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Insolvency, &c. of registered social landlord: scheme of provisions]:
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 23, line 16, at end insert—
("() The Corporation shall establish and publish a Code of Practice as to the use of its powers under the sections listed in subsection (1) above, taking account of the interests of the tenants of the registered social landlord and the interests of the landlord and its creditors, both secured and unsecured, and shall—

(a) consult such bodies appearing to it to be representative of tenants, registered social landlords and lenders as it considers appropriate, before establishing the Code; and

(b) review and amend the Code if requested to do so by the Secretary of State or whenever it considers this to be necessary, and in doing so shall consult the bodies referred to in paragraph (a) above.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is exactly what I was trying to get from the Government in our last discussion, that the corporation should establish a code of practice on how it will use its powers under Clause 39(1). It seems to me, from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, that it would be a worthwhile

1621
exercise and we could all understand better than I do at the moment what the Government intend by the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: In considering this amendment, I ask the Committee to remember that the new powers in Clauses 39 to 49 are likely to be used on very few occasions. There is no telling when these powers will first be used—it could well be several years from now—or what circumstances the corporation will face when it finds it has to use them. Given this unpredictability, we do not believe that the general code the noble Lord has in mind would be particularly useful. The corporation and others would have to engage in some highly speculative thinking about the wide range of circumstances the corporation might confront in real life. It is quite possible that lenders, the National Federation of Housing Associations and tenants' organisations, would labour for months to produce a statutory document which is then not used for several years and which, when it is at last used, does not actually help the corporation to tackle the case that it is confronting.
The powers in these new clauses are important, and we have no doubt that the corporation will want to think carefully about how it might use them. My honourable friend in another place agreed to consider whether a code of some description would be appropriate. The Government have concluded that there is merit in drawing up a code of guidance on the procedures that each party would follow when the powers are used. This would help to ensure that the new powers worked smoothly, so that there are no procedural hiccups—for instance, on the giving of notice, or on the way in which the corporation consults and has regard to various parties' interests.
However, I do not think that the kind of statutory code that the noble Lord described in his amendment would be an especially helpful or useful document when it came to a messy real life situation. Indeed, the existence of a rigid statutory code drawn up on a basis which must necessarily at present be speculation and guesswork could frustrate the successful use of the clauses, whatever the situation that they might be called upon to deal with. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister has put his finger on the point. The clauses have been arrived at after a great deal of negotiation between the Government, the Housing Corporation, private lenders and the NFHA. All admit, as the Minister admitted, that there are certain to be flaws, rough edges and difficulties in their application, if occasion ever arises for the clauses to be invoked.
We shall come to subsection (3) and the power of the Secretary of State to amend Clause 39 as he wishes. The problem is that registered landlords do not know how the Housing Corporation, the Secretary of State or anyone else will approach the powers under Clause 39. All we ask is that the delicate balance between lenders, tenants, social landlords and the corporation should in
1622
some form be set out so that people could be a little more certain than at the moment flow Clause 39, which was scrambled together in something of a hurry, might operate in the future.
I am not asking for a code of practice that is set for ever in stone. It is simply a statement which may come in a ministerial statement at Report stage and we would welcome it. The statement would be on how the clause might be operated by the Housing Corporation. Having heard what the Minister said, and with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 23, line 21, leave out ("(including a floating charge)").
The noble Lord said: The order of the wording on page 23 line 21 is a little odd. A "floating charge" is a floating charge; in other words, it is a charge over the assets of an organisation. It is transferable from one asset to another. That is the definition of a floating charge. There can be no such thing as a floating charge over land. In the Bill as worded, it seems to be a floating charge over land; but, as any qualified accountant or banker could tell the Committee, that is not sensible. I ask the Government to look at the drafting.
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, while I am on my feet, I address Amendment No. 137. Although it is not formally in the grouping, it might be useful for me to do so, if it is acceptable to the Committee in order to get proceedings moving.
Amendment No. 137 allows the Secretary of State to make provision defining the purposes of the section. This relates to Amendment No. 135, which we discussed. I find it an odd and uncomfortable situation whereby a clause is produced in a Bill; the Secretary of State can amend the clause as he wishes and any such order is by negative instrument. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 137. I hope the Committee will not mind my speaking to the two amendments together. The one relating to the floating charge is a technical one. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, as to what a floating charge is and what its definition is. The reference to a floating charge in Clause 39 is intended to make it clear that the term "secured creditor" encompasses a creditor holding a floating charge over a landlord's assets which happen to include his land. There is nothing in the present wording that would lead us to adopt a more unusual or restrictive interpretation of the term "floating charge". The present wording therefore appears to us to be adequate. Nevertheless, we shall reflect on the noble Lord's remarks and check again as to whether there is any need to amend it. I hope that will enable the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to withdraw that amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 137, in order for these clauses to work effectively, lenders and the corporation must have a clear idea of the triggers that will activate a moratorium. In the large majority of cases the steps being taken to enforce security will be familiar ones—for instance the appointment of a liquidator, administrative receiver, or receiver.

1623
But these are not the only actions that secured creditors may take. Lenders may also decide to use their mortgagee in possession powers. There may be specific terms within a charge deed that we would wish to define as constituting a "step". We need to bear in mind, too, that lending practices to this sector are evolving and becoming more sophisticated. The forms of security that lenders are taking are becoming more varied. The provisions in Clauses 39 to 49 need to be able to keep up with such developments.
We therefore need to discuss with lenders whether there are any other actions that should be included in the definition of a "step". These would then be set out in a statutory order, to supplement the specific notice provisions on the face of the Bill. I hope that explains why we feel that we need that particular part of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. The question of the floating charge is a matter of drafting. I suggest that line 20 on page 23 of the Bill might read: "'Secured creditor' means a creditor who holds a floating charge or a mortgage or charge over land". Then, as a banker, I think I should understand it. The wording as it stands seems to confuse what is a floating charge with a mortgage or charge over land. I offer that suggestion in the friendliest possible spirit to the parliamentary draftsman.
Turning to the question of the Secretary of State amending Clause 39, I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. He said that the Secretary of State would consult widely before making such provisions. That is the point that we are trying to get at. It cannot just be for the Secretary of State, on a whim or whatever, to make an order subject to negative resolution procedure. On the assurance that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be in the future, will consult widely on the application of subsection (3) of Clause 39, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 136.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Initial notice to be given to the Corporation]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 23, line 31, leave out ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 24, line 10, leave out ("charitable trust") and insert ("registered charity (other than a company registered under the Companies Act 1985)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 140, 147 and 148.
Clauses 40(4) and 41(4), as drafted, do not apply to registered charities which are neither Companies Act companies nor trusts. Such registered landlords should be covered by the requirement to give notice contained in these clauses. Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 achieve this.
Clauses 40(5)(a) and 41(5) exempt certain bodies such as the Attorney-General and the Charity Commissioners from giving notice to the Housing Corporation. The assumption is that the corporation will not require notice, because these are public bodies and the corporation will know what they are doing without requiring formal notice.
In reality the corporation will not always have close contacts with such bodies. The exemption on giving notice effectively places an onus on the corporation to keep abreast of what these other bodies are doing, and on those bodies to keep the corporation informed. On balance, it seems simpler to extend the requirement to give notice so that it applies to these bodies, and Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 achieve that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 24, leave out lines 15 to 17.
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Further notice to be given to the Corporation]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 24, line 23, leave out ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("events") and insert ("steps").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 144 to 146, 149, 150, 155, 158, 180, 189 and 193.
Amendments Nos. 143, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, and 155 replace the terms "events" and "occur" with "steps" and "are taken", thereby standardising the terminology used in Clauses 39 to 49.
Amendments Nos. 158, 180, 189 and 193 ensure that the references to trusts in Clauses 44, 57 and 63 and paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 2 tie in with existing charities legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 144 to 148:
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("occurs") and insert ("is taken").
Page 24, line 29, leave out ("events") and insert ("steps").
Page 24, line 38, leave out ("events") and insert ("steps").

1625
Page 25, line 5, leave out ("charitable trust") and insert ("registered charity (other than a company registered under the Companies Act 1985)").
Page 25, line 10, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Moratorium on disposal of land, &c.]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 149 and 150:
Page 25, line 16, leave out ("events") and insert ("steps").
Page 25, line 16, leave out ("occurs") and insert ("is taken").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to both of these amendments with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 25, line 21, leave out from ("or") to end of line 23 and insert ("any person having a power of disposal in relation to the land").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 153 and 154.
The current drafting of the Bill fails to include certain parties, such as mortgagees in possession, in the moratorium on the disposal of land. In order to be effective the moratorium should apply to any person who has a power of disposal in relation to the land. Amendment No. 151 achieves that.
It is possible that any of the steps described in Clause 39 may be rescinded during the period of a moratorium. The landlord might, for instance, have been able to satisfy the requirements of the creditor who sought to enforce their security. In those circumstances the threat to the future of the landlord's social housing will have receded, and the corporation will no longer need to develop a proposal. The need for a moratorium on disposals will also have disappeared.
Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 recast Clause 43 to give the corporation the power to terminate a moratorium if it believes that the continued management of the landlord's housing by a registered landlord can be achieved without making a proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am a little concerned about the wording:
"any person having a power of disposal in relation to the land".
I understand from the Minister's explanation that that means that organisations, such as banks, building societies or whatever, will have a charge over the land which is the subject of Clause 42. Whether that contains a power of disposal is a moot point as is the question of whether a charge in itself constitutes a power of disposal.
This may be a drafting point, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clear it up.
Lord Lucas: I cannot clear it up on the hoof. But I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hamwee: This is similar to a point about charges, assignments and disposals which occurred earlier in the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord will find
1626
that he is satisfied with the response that comes via the Minister, because charges generally do contain assignments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Period of moratorium]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 153 to 155:
Page 25, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The moratorium in consequence of the taking of any step as mentioned in section 41—

(a) begins when the step is taken, and

(b) ends at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of its having being taken was given to the Corporation under that section,

subject to the following provisions.").
Page 26, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) If during a moratorium the Corporation considers that the proper management of the landlord's land can be secured without making proposals under section 44 (proposals as to ownership and management of landlord's land), the Corporation may direct that the moratorium shall cease to have effect.
(4A) When a moratorium comes to an end, or ceases to have effect under subsection (4), the Corporation shall give notice of that fact to the landlord and the landlord's secured creditors.
(4B) When a moratorium comes to an end (but not when it ceases to have effect under subsection (4)), the following provisions of this section apply.
The Corporation's notice shall, in such a case, inform the landlord and the landlord's secured creditors of the effect of those provisions.").
Page 26, line 11, leave out ("occurs") and insert ("is taken").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendments Nos. 151 and 143. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Proposals as to ownership and management of landlord's land]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 26, line 27, leave out (", so far as is practicable,").
The noble Lord said: Clause 44 deals with the proposals as to ownership and management of the landlord's land. Subsection (2) of the clause, as drafted, states that:
"In drawing up its proposals the corporation…shall consult the landlord and, so far as is practicable, its tenants".
I am not entirely certain that "so far as is practicable" is the right expression. I can understand that there may be some difficulty in consulting all the tenants, but I do not believe that such a general let out should be available to the corporation. I hope very much that the Government will find some rather better expression or give some better assurance as to what is meant than appears on the face of the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We have considerable sympathy with the sentiment behind this amendment. The period during a moratorium will be an anxious one for tenants as they wait to see how the future ownership of their homes will be determined.

1627
Were it not for the corporation's intervention at this stage, future ownership would be determined solely by the creditors; tenants would be completely sidelined, and their homes could be sold to an unregistered private sector landlord. The corporation will want to work for the benefit of tenants to avoid that—that is the primary purpose of Clauses 39 to 49—and will want, so far as possible, to consult tenants as it prepares its proposal.
We must bear in mind the constraints under which the corporation will be operating. It will have a very short period of time—possibly as little as 28 days—to undertake the complicated task of putting together a workable proposal. A detailed analysis of the landlord's assets and finances will be needed; intensive discussions with all the secured creditors will have to be held; possible alternative registered landlords will need to be identified and approached; and suitable arrangements will have to be made for the appointment of a manager to implement the proposal.
We should also bear in mind that the landlord may have hundreds, if not thousands, of tenants. While tenants are in many cases organised into representative groups and associations, that is not always the case. In times of stress, such as those confronting the tenants of an insolvent landlord, differences of opinion and factionalism among tenants' groups can all too easily develop.
It is right that the corporation should be required to consult tenants. But in the circumstances that I have described, that requirement must be tempered by a sensible appreciation of what can realistically be achieved. Placing an unqualified duty on the corporation to consult tenants could not only make the preparation of a proposal immeasurably more difficult, but would also expose the corporation to an increased possibility of legal challenge by any tenant who felt that the corporation had not discharged its duty fully. That could frustrate the implementation of a proposal, to no one's benefit.
I believe that the noble Lord agrees with the direction of our thought and merely questions the particular wording that we have chosen. We are content that the wording we have chosen will achieve the effect that we want; namely, the duty to look after the tenants is there but the corporation is not required to do anything which is impracticable. It has to take practical decisions, given all the constraints upon it.
We shall return to the wording when we come to Amendment No. 157. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that for this amendment and for Amendment No. 157 it is a reasonably well tried phrase, which will produce the right result if ever we come to such an unhappy pass.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for recognising my concerns. What he said makes very good sense. It must be the right direction in which to go. If I questioned the wording, it was simply to elicit from the Minister the kind of response that he gave. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 26, line 42, at end insert—
("() So far as practicable no proposals shall be made which have the effect that unsecured creditors of the landlord are in a worse position than they would otherwise be.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment will answer some of the questions raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Clause 45 provides that a proposal may be implemented only if the corporation has obtained the unanimous consent of the landlord's secured creditors. That clearly puts secured creditors in a powerful position. Each secured creditor has an effective power of veto, which none of the other parties—the landlord, tenants, or unsecured creditors—enjoys.
This balance acknowledges the reality of an insolvency situation. When a landlord has become insolvent it is the secured creditors' interests that come to the fore. They will have effective control over the housing on which they have secured their loans. If the corporation is to protect tenants and publicly—funded assets, it is the secured creditors with whom it must deal.
A landlord will have unsecured creditors, too, however, and the Bill as currently drafted makes little provision for them. In an insolvency situation unsecured creditors generally come off pretty badly and have to share between them whatever value is left after secured creditors have taken their cut.
So unsecured creditors will be at the back of the queue. But they should not then be further disadvantaged when the corporation steps in with its proposal. Because of the strong position of secured creditors, the corporation may feel under pressure to protect their interest in developing its proposal, to the possible detriment of the already weak position of unsecured creditors. That would not be acceptable.
We therefore want to amend the current Clause 45 to make it clear that the corporation must not develop a proposal which either deliberately or inadvertently leaves unsecured creditors in a worse position than they would be in were the corporation not to intervene. I hope that gives the comfort sought by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that there is no way in which secured creditors can put pressure on the corporation successfully to have the corporation develop a proposal which would disadvantage unsecured creditors.
Amendment No. 157 requires that, so far as practicable, no proposals shall be made which would leave unsecured creditors worse off than they would have been had a proposal not been made. The corporation will have to engage in a certain amount of speculative thinking about how unsecured creditors might fare if a proposal was not being made. It will not have a great deal of time in which to do so. That is why the qualification covering practicability has been built into this clause.
However, the corporation will be expected to take all steps practicable in the time available to assess the position of unsecured creditors and ensure that the proposal the corporation develops does not leave such creditors worse off than would otherwise be the case. In many instances unsecured creditors may be better off as

1629
a result of a proposal. For instance, the transfer of an insolvent landlord's debts to another, financially sound, landlord should put unsecured creditors in a better position. I do not say that that will always be the case; but it may often be. Whatever the situation, the implementation of a proposal should certainly not leave unsecured creditors still further out of pocket. The amendment is designed to avoid that possibility. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I am somewhat reassured by the Minister's explanation in relation to unsecured creditors. I am also happy to note the reference to them on both pages 26 and 27. However, if the Minister felt able to write to me regarding the employment considerations and how these measures will work in practice I should be extremely grateful.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not certain about this amendment. I accept that the corporation has a duty under Clause 44 to put forward proposals. In spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said earlier, secured creditors have different types of security which may or may not involve the assignment of assets. As the noble Lord rightly points out, unsecured creditors, in Companies Act terms, come just before the shareholders.
I am not certain how the corporation can form proposals which protect the secured creditors—which they must do, as I understand it—leave the unsecured creditors no worse off than they otherwise would be and, at the same time, secure certain things that the corporation needs. Something has to give, so far as it is practicable.
What is going to give? In normal circumstances, if an administration takes control of a company and disposes of the assets, a receiver takes control and winds up the company or there is a voluntary winding-up of the company, the unsecured creditors take their lumps, as the noble Lord said; they are unsecured.
At the moment I am unclear, and hope that the Minister can help me, as to how unsecured creditors can be no worse off than they would be were the corporation not to intervene and yet the corporation have power—given the protection of the secured creditors—to intervene in the way the clause invites it to?
Lord Lucas: It may not always be the case, but in principle it should often be the case. A block of flats owned by a social landlord will be a difficult asset to sell on the open market. If it is sold to a private-sector landlord there will be a large number of extremely angry and disaffected tenants, which will not make it an attractive proposition for many landlords. On the other hand, if it is sold or transferred under Housing Corporation aegis to another social landlord which is better managed and is used to dealing with those matters, then it will be trusted by the tenants and have a higher potential value.
1630
It is a question of the difference between realisation value and going-concern value when it comes to accounts. If the Housing Corporation can work the trick, the asset should be worth more than it would be if there was subsequent liquidation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I accept that and that is absolutely right. The problem is, assuming that there is no going concern, how can the Housing Corporation produce a proposal—as the amendment requires—which leaves the unsecured creditors no worse off than they would otherwise be? I do not understand how the Housing Corporation can fulfil that requirement. I can understand how it can take over a block of flats and sell it under its aegis at a going—concern value which would protect the unsecured creditors. However, that is not what the amendment says.
Lord Lucas: I find myself at a loss in encompassing the problem envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, I shall consider what he said and write to him. So far as I can see, there may be occasions when the Housing Corporation cannot work this trick and therefore cannot produce a proposal. But one would hope that in most cases it would be able to do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 26, line 44, leave out ("charitable").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 158 with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.]
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to. Clause 45 [Effect of agreed proposals]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 27, line 28, at end insert—
("but nothing in this subsection shall require the members, directors and trustees referred to in this subsection to act in a manner contrary to their fiduciary or other obligations as members, directors or trustees or affect their rights, including their right to resign.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 161 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 162, which is a government amendment.
Amendment No. 161 provides that directors, members and trustees are not required to act in conflict with their fiduciary or other obligations since it would be unreasonable and probably unlawful for them to do so, and that the provisions of Clause 145 shall not affect their rights, including their right to resign.
The clause requires directors, members and trustees to co-operate in the implementation of the corporation's proposals. However, it is conceivable that they could be placed in a difficult or even an impossible position—there may be a conflict between their duties under this clause and their fiduciary duties. The corporation has wide powers but I do not believe that they should be so wide as to place the persons referred to in that situation.
The government amendment contains similar provisions, though it does not go so far as to deal with the question of the right to resign. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We are clearly ad idem on the first part of this amendment because Amendment No. 162 covers the situation. In relation to the right to resign, our legal advice is that, in the absence of express provision, the requirement to co-operate contained in Clause 45(3) would not affect the right to resign and therefore that part of Amendment No. 161 is unnecessary.
Baroness Hamwee: I am glad to have that assurance. On that basis, and on the assumption that the noble Lord is about to move Amendment No. 162, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 27, line 28, at end insert—
("This does not mean that they have to do anything contrary to any fiduciary or other duty owed by them.").
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to Amendment No. 162. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 not moved.]
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Appointment of manager to implement agreed proposals]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 28, line 2, leave out ("of the registered social landlord").
The noble Lord said: At present, the wording of Clause 46 implies to us that the manager will take over the whole running of the association. I am not sure that that is what the Government intend. Nor is it borne out by the powers of the manager, which do not include the convening and holding of board meetings, but are largely related to transactions dealing with land. This point was debated in another place but there was a somewhat inconclusive result. I believe it is worth hearing what the Government feel about this because it seems to us that the wording of Clause 46 as presently drafted is defective. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: It seems only fair, having given an amendment to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to give one to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, as well. The quality of his draftsmanship is well known but it is very rarely that the parliamentary draftsman cannot find any reason to argue. This is one occasion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 28, line 4, at end insert—
("() If the landlord is a registered charity, the Corporation shall give notice to the Charity Commissioners of the appointment.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 167. Amendment No. 166 places an obligation on the corporation to notify the Charity Commissioners if it
1632
decides to appoint a manager under Clause 46. The Charity Commission itself has powers to appoint managers under certain circumstances and it is important that the commission knows if and when the corporation decides to appoint a manager under these provisions. Amendment No. 167 removes the Secretary of State's power to make an order stipulating the qualifications that a manager appointed under Clause 46 should possess.
The corporation's proposal will have been drawn up after close consultation with the landlord, his secured creditors and the tenants. It will be in the interests of all parties to ensure that any manager appointed to implement the proposals should possess the necessary qualifications and experience. He must command the confidence of all the parties involved. The qualifications that are required will depend on the nature of the tasks that the manager has been appointed to carry out. In some instances, an experienced housing manager may be the most appropriate appointment. In others, someone with an insolvency or accounting qualification might be more suitable. It would be difficult for the Secretary of State to make an order covering all these eventualities. The judgment on what kind of manager is needed is best left to the corporation and the other parties to the proposal. I believe that we can trust to their good sense to ensure that a suitable appointment is made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 28, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Powers of the manager]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 168:Page 29, line 17, at end insert—
("(The manager shall consult and inform, so far as is practicable, the tenants of the landlord on such matters in the exercise of his powers as are likely to affect them.").
The noble Baroness said: It sounds as though the Minister may be in a giving mood. I hope that may extend to this amendment. Under Clause 44(2), the corporation is to consult tenants in drawing up its proposals so far as is practicable. It is consistent with this that in implementing proposals the manager should keep the tenants well informed of his actions and consult them "so far as is practicable". I hope that a manager would consider it appropriate to consult tenants affected by his actions without requiring a legislative obligation to tell him so. I think it is appropriate to add this protection since tenants are not specifically protected by the clause against actions by a manager not in accordance with agreed proposals. We referred earlier today, in the amendment which the Government accepted, to the importance of informing and consulting tenants. The importance of the general interests of tenants was accepted. I hope that the Government can accept the intention, and possibly even the words, of this amendment. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: We understand the reasoning behind the amendment but we hope very much that the noble Baroness will understand that the parliamentary draftsman must be allowed some pride. On this occasion he would wish to consider the precise wording of any such provision.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope I may take that as "We shall take this away and consider how we may implement the notion behind the amendment". I think I understand the noble Lord to be saying that and of course the parliamentary draftsman should put it into proper language. After all, there are jobs to be protected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 29, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 171. One solution to the housing association's insolvency that the corporation might propose is a transfer of engagements between industrial and provident societies. This is currently addressed by Clause 48(3). This subsection makes it clear that the manager may be given power to effect a transfer of engagements but does not make provision for the Registry of Friendly Societies to register such a transfer as it would if the transfer were being effected under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965.
Amendment No. 169 removes Clause 47(3), and Amendment No. 171 subsumes that subsection and makes suitable provision for the registration of the instrument of transfer. The amendment also preserves the rights of creditors of the original—in this case, insolvent—society so that they have the same rights in relation to the receiving society. Equivalent provision is contained in Section 54 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 171:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—
POWERS OF THE MANAGER: TRANSFER OF ENGAGEMENTS
(".—(1) An order under section 46(1) may, where the landlord is an industrial and provident society, give the manager power to make and execute on behalf of the society an instrument transferring the engagements of the society.
(2) Any such instrument has the same effect as a transfer of engagements under section 51 or 52 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 (transfer of engagements by special resolution to another society or a company).
In particular, its effect is subject to section 54 of that Act (saving for rights of creditors).
(3) A copy of the instrument, signed by the manager, shall be sent to the appropriate registrar and registered by him; and until that copy is so registered the instrument shall not take effect.
(4) It is the duty of the manager to send a copy for registration within 14 days from the day on which the instrument is executed; but this does not invalidate registration after that time.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 169. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Assistance by the Corporation]:
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 29, leave out line 34.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete the reference to the Housing Corporation lending staff to a registered social landlord. There is confusion with regard to staff in that situation. Would they be responsible to the Housing Corporation or would they be responsible to the registered social landlord? Bearing in mind the powers of the Housing Corporation to install a manager to sort out the affairs of a registered social landlord, there will be confusion as to the position of a loaned member of staff. I hope the Government will accept that what they propose is probably not the best way to go forward. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support my noble friend's amendment. The expression "lend staff— is pretty odd. Staff are not there to be lent; they are human beings. They can be sent on secondment or detached, but they cannot be lent. I query whether the drafting is right and whether it is appropriate that the corporation should detach or second any staff, whether we are talking about the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, to give assistance for the purposes of Clause 48. Who and how should they be responsible? And what is the chain of command? My noble friend has put his finger on an interesting point. I hope that the Government have taken note of it.
Lord Lucas: I trust that I can give some comfort to the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Williams, on this occasion. The corporation will be acting in very difficult circumstances to protect tenants' and taxpayers' money if this particular part of the Bill is to come into effect. We are concerned that it should be given maximum flexibility to carry out its difficult task, which should include the ability to lend staff to assist the landlord or the manager. On our reading of the corporation's powers, we are uncertain at the moment that it has the ability to do that. We do not expect that the corporation will want to very often.
The careful control exercised by the Government over running costs means that it is very unlikely that the corporation will ever be able to spare staff for such a task for very long. But there may be occasions when this approach is the most sensible and cost-effective way of achieving a particular task. An individual may have been responsible for looking after the affairs of a particular social landlord for a long while. He is the most reliable person who knows the details of that social landlord's operations and the person best placed to advise the manager appointed under the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was anxious about a possible conflict of interest. I can reassure him. The loaned member of staff will be appointed to implement a part of the corporation's proposal or to assist the landlord in some specified way. The corporation, the landlord and the creditors should by that time be

1635
working towards a common goal and the loan of a member of staff would be designed to help in the achievement of that goal. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the comfort he requires to enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I am reassured to some extent by what the Minister said. I would have thought that the provision of assistance to the registered social landlord by the Housing Corporation would be incorporated in the wording of the clause. I suspect that the ability to loan staff will give rise to difficulties to a greater extent than it will provide assistance. On the basis of the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Application to court to secure compliance with agreed proposals]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 30, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Clause 49(3) restricts the legal challenge to which a manager may be subject under Clause 49(1). This provides the manager with very wide immunity which, given the significant responsibilities he may exercise, might be regarded as too generous. The manager may, for instance, be in a position of fiduciary duty and there is no reason why he should not be open to proceedings for breach of such duty. Amendment No. 174 removes Clause 49(3) thereby removing the limitation on legal challenge. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Schemes for investigation of complaints]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 31, line 2, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 176 standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I believe that both amendments are in search of the same point. The Secretary of State has to go through some procedure in order to amend the description of landlords. The government amendment meets my anxiety and I hope that the Minister will be able to move it. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Both amendments concern the Secretary of State's powers to make changes to the description of the landlords who are to be treated as social landlords for the purposes of membership of an improved ombudsman scheme. Amendment No. 175 would prevent the Secretary of State from adding to, or amending by order, the description of landlords who are to be treated as social landlords. Subsection (2) of the Bill identifies the categories of landlord currently appropriate to be regarded as social landlords.
1636
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will appreciate, the world of social housing is not static. In time other categories of landlord may need to be brought into the statutory scheme. I instance housing investment trusts. We are here looking just at the ombudsman scheme rather than it being brought into the Bill as a whole.
While we do not have any particular category of new landlord in mind, it is important that when they do appear we are able to ensure straightaway that tenants have recourse to the approved ombudsman as soon as possible. To achieve that we are proposing that the Secretary of State should have the power by order to amend the description of social landlord. That will not affect those landlords who, under Schedule 2, can voluntarily choose to join the scheme.
Amendment No. 176, which I propose to move, is required to rectify an omission identified by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We are grateful to it for doing so. Because any amendment to the description of landlords is likely to be relatively simple, we had intended that the Secretary of State's order-making powers should be subject to negative resolution procedures. However, due to an oversight, the necessary provision was omitted. The purpose of the government amendment is to correct the omission. I am pleased to say that in its report the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee agreed that the negative procedure would be appropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response to my amendment and for acknowledging the oversight that took place in the Government's deliberations. On the assumption that the noble Lord will move Amendment No. 176, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 175.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 31, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Any such order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: To give the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the required comfort, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Social rented sector: housing complaints]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 131, line 24, at end insert—
("(16A. A duty of the Housing Ombudsman annually to consult its members on its activities and costs.").
The noble Lord said: We now move to Schedule 2. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 178 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As drafted, Schedule 2 does not oblige the housing ombudsman to consult members on activities and costs. Ombudsman schemes, if I may call them that, might draw up annual budgets in a fashion without regard to the costs for members or for value for money. The amendment that

1637
I propose will provide a formal mechanism for members of an ombudsman scheme to comment on the activities, costs and budgets and, therefore, it will provide a degree of influence over the level of contributions that they may have to make. We want to ensure that the independent housing ombudsman schemes which are established are responsive to their members and have regard to value for money in the service that they provide.
Amendment No. 178, if accepted, will require that consultation takes place with the representatives of social landlords before any ombudsman scheme, or any amendment to a scheme, is approved. In general, housing associations welcome the Bill's provisions for an independent statutory ombudsman. Membership of an ombudsman scheme will be compulsory for registered housing associations and, in future, for all registered social landlords. These landlords will have to meet the costs of the scheme, which is not unreasonable, and they will be affected by decisions taken by the ombudsman under the scheme. In our view, it is equally reasonable that registered social landlords should be properly consulted about the ways in which such schemes will operate. To date, the clause has been phrased to allow for consultation to be carried out either by the Secretary of State or anyone else who proposes an ombudsman scheme or changes to a scheme. We believe that the Secretary of State should be obliged to consult such bodies representative of social landlords as he thinks fit, and that is the object of Amendment No. 178. I beg to move Amendment No. 177.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: If the Committee agrees, I should like to speak to both Amendments Nos. 177 and 178. Both amendments concern the scheme to be submitted by a prospective independent housing ombudsman. We fully appreciate the concerns that lie behind the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which would require the ombudsman to consult annually with its members on its activities and costs. The noble Lord may be concerned that in setting the annual charge the ombudsman may not have regard to the impact of the costs of the service on member landlords, or to the importance of achieving value for money from the scheme. I should like to reassure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will consider carefully the quality of any scheme and how the costs are to be defrayed by the members; in short, the value for money that the scheme provides. He will, of course, wish to ensure that the scheme is capable of being sufficiently responsive to its prospective members, while at the same time it is properly independent. If he is not satisfied on this point, he may decide not to approve the scheme.
Amendment No. 178 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Secretary of State to consult with bodies representative of social landlords before approving a scheme, and is unnecessary. In submitting a scheme for the Secretary of State's approval, the prospective ombudsman will be expected to have demonstrated that social landlords and
1638
their representative bodies have been fully consulted. Given this, we see no reason for these bodies to be consulted separately by the Secretary of State.
I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Williams, enough comfort to withdraw his amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, enough comfort not to move hers in due course.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He provided the comfort for which I was looking. On balance, I do not believe that it is necessary to have something on the face of the Bill. A ministerial Statement such as the one that the noble Lord has given the Committee suffices. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I accept his arguments about Amendment No. 178. Unless the noble Baroness has any objection, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 177. I leave it to the noble Baroness to decide whether or not she wishes to move Amendment No. 178.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 132, line 25, at end insert—
("Proceedings for such an offence may be brought only by or with the consent of the Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 179 to which I spoke with Amendment No. 46.
[Amendments Nos. 179A and 179B, as amendments to Amendment No. 179, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 179 agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 133, line 32, leave out ("charitable").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 180 with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move Amendment No. 180.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [General provisions as to orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 51 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have some difficulty with this clause. It seems to me to be, if not a Henry VIII clause, at least a Henry VII clause. The clause reads:
"(1) The following provisions apply to any power of the Secretary of State under this Part to make an order.
(2) An order may make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case…
(3) An order may contain such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
All of that is very well, and Henry VII would have been very proud of it.
Can the Minister say whether there is any restriction on the power of the Secretary of State under this clause and, if so, what it is? How does the Secretary of State,

1639
or a future Secretary of State, intend to use the powers under the clause? Perhaps this could take the form of a ministerial Statement. Over the years I have seen this clause before in Bills with which I have been concerned on the Opposition Bench. I have raised the same point but have never received a satisfactory answer as to how the Secretary of State may use these powers. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could give me some reassurance as to my worries.
Lord Lucas: This clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make orders containing different provisions for different cases, including provision for different housing activities and areas. For example, this may allow an order to specify different levels of discount to apply to different parts of the country when a tenant exercises a right to acquire under Clause 16, or different provisions for England and Wales. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has any thought of using these powers in a more dangerous way than that. But I am conscious that the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, perhaps run deeper than I can give comfort to by those brief illustrations. I will give thought to what he has said, and if I can say anything more helpful I will write to him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I always enjoy receiving letters from the noble Lord. He stated that the Secretary of State could order different discounts in different places in England and Wales and not be responsible to anybody for such an order. If I have misunderstood what the noble Lord has said he will tell me. It seems to me to be very odd. We are invited to pass a clause which allows the Secretary of State to make an order which determines what price someone shall pay, what discount shall or shall not be paid and what premium shall or shall not be paid without any supervision or accountability whatever. Before he sits down to write his letter, I would be grateful if in this Committee he would be kind enough to say whether or not my interpretation of the clause is correct.
Lord Lucas: To the best of my understanding the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right in his interpretation of the clause, within of course the usual constraints that in fact the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not want to be tiresome to my noble friend, but I thought I heard him say that he did not believe that the Secretary of State had any more dangerous intention than to do those trifling things. Such knowledge as one has of Secretaries of State and such fears as one has of Secretaries of State in the future, do not leave one all that happy with my noble friend's rather hopeful mixture of hope and thought that the Secretary of State does not intend anything particularly dangerous or menacing.
Lord Hylton: On previous housing Bills it has sometimes been proposed in amendments that the level of discounts should be varied from that set out on the face of the Bill. That has pretty well always been
1640
resisted. So I find it rather surprising that it should be suggested that this or any future Secretary of State might wish to vary the discount just at his personal whim.
Lord Monkswell: This is the first time the Minister has said that the responsible Minister might vary the rate of discount depending upon the particular area or circumstances in the country. Perhaps we may probe the Government a little further on that and ask what sort of criteria he might use in reaching the judgment that a discount should be higher or lower in a particular area.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may add to the list of questions. One generally debates "son of rather than "father of', and despite Henry VII being a fairly well organised king, the points that have been made demonstrate how much there is in the clause. When the Minister responds, either this evening or on paper, could he deal with the slightly different wording of the different subsections? Subsection (3) provides for the Secretary of State to be able to make:
"supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions and savings as",
he considers appropriate. What is the import of the words, "as he considers appropriate"? Common sense tells us that he would not make such provisions if he did not consider them appropriate, but does the inclusion of the phrase import an objectivity that they must be reasonably appropriate? If that is so, why does that not apply to Clause 51(2), which is perhaps the more extensive part of the clause?
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I am now in a position to enlighten the Committee slightly more than I was before. It would appear that the order—making powers referred to in this clause are all subject to parliamentary procedures, at least negative, and that therefore all orders made under this clause will come before Parliament. What this clause does is merely to give flexibility in the design of those orders.
There is nothing in the Bill which specifies the rate of discount which should be given. That is not something which is already set down or is proposed to be set down in statute, it is something which is determined by order. What we are taking here is the power to make that a different rate in different parts of the country, and in other ways to give flexibility to the powers of the Bill to deal with particular problems which may arise on a geographical basis or between different types of landlords. However, as I have said, any proposals coming forward under this clause would find themselves before Parliament, under the negative procedure at least.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am moderately grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. I look forward with even greater anticipation to receiving his letter on this matter, which I am sure will enlighten me much more than I am enlightened at the moment.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [General provisions as to determinations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 52 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 52 refers not only to the Secretary of State's determinations but also to determinations made by the corporation. In the rather general manner to which we have become used, it says that this is a determination by either the Secretary of State or by the corporation (the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales) which:
"may make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case".
I do not have to read through the whole clause for the benefit of the Committee because I am sure the Committee has read it. However it does again seem to me slightly odd that the corporation can make such determinations either of a general or, apparently, specific nature without any accountability to anyone. A general determination as defined in subsection (3) means a determination which is not particular. Obviously if it made a particular determination, it would fall under subsection (2), as I understand it.
I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten me as to what sort of determinations the corporation, leaving aside the Secretary of State because we dealt with the Secretary of State under Clause 51, is liable to make—that is, the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales—and whether there will be any parliamentary scrutiny of any of those determinations.
Lord Lucas: Not having a ready list of the determinations in front of me, and not being able to read with sufficient speed to pick them out of the preceding parts of the Bill, I cannot give the noble Lord the exact collection of powers that he requires, but determinations are restricted to matters which we do not feel need to be brought before Parliament. Hence the corporation's power to make such determinations. The sort of matters which would be covered are grant conditions and rates, particular requirements for information to be provided by social landlords. The reason for the powers under this clause is to allow those to be varied so that different grant conditions and rates may apply, for instance, to housing designed for families, hostels, or housing designed for the disabled, according to the particular needs and requirements of those particular types of development or, when one is coming to information requirements, different information requirements, say, for a small, old, fairly static almshouse, as compared with a large and active social landlord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the Minister continues, am I right in thinking that such determinations have the force of law?
Lord Lucas: Yes, Clause 52(4) requires the corporation to consult before making such determinations. Clearly, if the corporation determines that such and such information is to be required from a social landlord, there have to be some powers to back up its determination. They are in the Bill to ensure that
1642
where the corporation exercises the powers given to it by the Bill, those subject to the powers (social landlords) comply with them.
There is a wide range of grant rates for different types of development. We feel that is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to become involved in, let alone Parliament. We are getting down to the detail of the operation of the corporation. I do not see any sinister import in the clause. It seems to me to be a sensible provision for the flexible application of the corporation's powers which are granted elsewhere in the Bill. If the particular powers cause the noble Lord, Lord Williams, any concern, perhaps they should be addressed in the parts of the Bill which give the corporation those powers, rather than with this clause which merely gives the corporation power to use those powers flexibly and sensibly. I hope therefore that the Committee will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Minor and consequential amendments: Part I]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 32, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving Amendment No. 183 I speak also to Amendment No. 184 in the name of my noble friend Lord Monkswell.
Whenever I see a clause entitled "Minor and consequential amendments" I become rather suspicious. Here we have it again. Subsection (2) provides that:
"The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments or repeals of any enactment as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of this Part".
I understand that that does not apply to the Bill of Rights because I assume that under this clause the Secretary of State cannot make amendments to that Bill. However, I should like an assurance from the Minister that that is the case.
I have seen such a provision in previous Bills but it is odd that it is introduced without any qualification. It is carried out under negative procedure and it amends primary legislation; it is "any enactment". It is normal for the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to insist that amendments to primary legislation by order are made under affirmative procedure so that Parliament at least has an opportunity to discuss them. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to speak to Amendment No. 183 and to the next amendment which stands in my name there is little I need add to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Williams. The Government appear to be taking rather draconian powers. On the basis that the Bill of Rights is an Act of Parliament it is therefore capable of being amended by this provision.

1643
We hope that the Government can assure us that their intentions are limited. However, it appears that giving themselves the power described in the clause is somewhat excessive.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Williams, are right in saying that the terms within which Clause 54 is drawn are wide. They are restricted to amendments or repeals which appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of this part. However, they are certainly not restricted as to any particular enactment. Although I am not aware of anything in this part of the Bill which could render amendment to the Bill of Rights necessary, there is nothing in the clause as drafted which would prevent such a thing. However, in practice it is a matter which the Secretary of State's colleagues would wish to know about before he embarked on such a course of action.
Perhaps I may give comfort to the noble Lords as to why we want the clause. I am also aware that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee drew the attention of the House to the provision and perhaps, with the leave of the Committee, I may take a little time to explain what, for our purposes, it means.
Clause 54 enables the Secretary of State to make, by order, such amendments or repeals of any enactment as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of Part I of the Bill. I would emphasise that what is to be done must be "in consequence". We intend to use the provision to ensure, for example, that existing statutes will henceforth apply to registered social landlords, which is the term being introduced by the Bill, as they apply to registered housing associations.
In most instances, it will be sufficient to substitute "registered housing associations" with "registered social landlords". And where appropriate, a definition of registered social landlords may also be needed. An example would be amendments to Section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to provide for an entitlement to a disturbance payment in certain specified circumstances. Similar amendments are also required to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; the National Health Service Act 1977; the Finance Act 1981; and a number of other Acts.
In a few instances, the amendment will need to reflect that the provisions in Part I of the Bill apply to registered social landlords in England and Wales only. For Scotland and Northern Ireland the existing provisions will continue to apply. An example of that would be the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.
I suspect that one of the questions which lies behind the noble Lord's amendment is why the proposed amendments are expedient as well as necessary. I can assure him that there is nothing sinister in the use of this terminology. It has been used before. Examples of that would be Section 30 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995; Sections 48 and 62 of the Agriculture Act 1993; and Section 181 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. It means that we can use the powers to put beyond doubt the position
1644
with regard to other enactments, even if it may not be strictly necessary to make an amendment, because the courts may imply a reference to registered social landlords.
Considerable care is being taken to ensure that the amendments to be made by order will essentially be minor. Where a substantive change is justified we have proposed that it should be clearly shown on the face of the Bill, in Schedule 3, where it can be considered in detail. An example of this is the Government Amendment No. 186, which we shall consider later, affecting Section 75 of the Housing Associations Act 1985.
Turning to Amendment No. 184, I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that we are not hiding anything in this provision. I would draw attention to the fact that the Bill, when it was in another place, originally included a list of consequential amendments at Schedule 3. I have the list, which runs to about 15 pages. We decided that they should be removed from the face of the Bill and introduced by secondary legislation precisely because they are routine in nature. They are typical of the amendments which we shall make by order.
I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Monkswell, feel sufficiently comfortable to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister. He has certainly enlightened me as to what this extraordinary clause is about. I must read carefully what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Social rented sector: minor amendments]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 136, line 35, at end insert—
(". Section 33 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (recognition of central association) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 185 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 271. The amendment is introduced to amend Schedule 3 to repeal Section 33 of the Housing Associations Act 1985. Section 33 permits the Secretary of State to recognise and provide grant-in-aid for expenses to a central association or other body which is established for the purposes of promoting the formation and extension of housing associations. This provision is not used and should be repealed accordingly.
Amendment No. 271 is introduced by the Government to record the repeal of Section 33 of the 1985 Act in Schedule 16, Part I, which lists present enactments which are repealed by the Housing Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Damages Bill [H.L.]
7.30 p.m.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Assumed rate of return on investment of damages]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("return") insert ("(if any)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I wish to deal with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. This also deals with an amendment to Clause 4 which was moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The amendments are technical amendments clarifying the manner in which the power conferred by Section I may be exercised.
In response to the amendment to Clause 8 moved by my noble friend Lord Chelmsford at Report, I said that I was willing to consider putting into Clause 1 more express words to achieve more clearly that the power can be exercised in relation to different claims in different ways. That is what I have done, and that is what is achieved by these two amendments. Unless and until the power has been exercised in relation to any particular class of case, the court's assessment of the damages will not be affected by Section 1.
I have already indicated what my intentions are in relation to the probable first exercise of this power, but I should add that my approach to the first exercise would not in any way restrict the discretion of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State on the occasion of any future exercise of the power. Indeed I believe it to be inevitable that those who may subsequently exercise this power must adopt a different approach.
Once the power has been exercised, the courts will follow the direction in subsection (1) to take into account the prescribed rate unless satisfied that some other rate is more appropriate in the case in question. If it then appears that some other rate—perhaps some rate which is not even available in the present market—may be more appropriate for general application, then it would be open to those exercising the power to prescribe that other rate to replace that which the courts had up till then been using. The intention is to assist the courts with guidance and to enable them to take advantage of developments in the market which may provide even more accurate indicators to use in the difficult task of assessing damages for future pecuniary losses.
Finally, I should like to inform your Lordships of the progress we have made in investigating the problem mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and
1646
Lord Irvine of Lairg, when the Bill was last before your Lordships' House. That was a problem which had arisen where an insurance company was in provisional liquidation, and the annuitant under a structured settlement had not been able to recover compensation from the Policyholders Protection Board.
I understand that the difficulty arose, not because the company (Municipal General Insurance Ltd) was in provisional liquidation, but because the structured settlement annuitant was not the policyholder, and to some extent because there were doubts as to whether the liabilities for which he was seeking compensation actually arose from the insurance policy. That structured settlement had been entered into before the reforms which we introduced in the Finance Act 1995 took effect.
Those reforms rationalised the arrangements for structured settlements so that life offices are now able to make payments under annuities bought by defendants with personal injury damages free of tax direct to the plaintiff. That was not previously possible, and that is why, in the case mentioned, the plaintiff was not the policyholder.
The present practice is that for new structured settlements, annuities will be bought in the beneficiary's name. For settlements set up under the old arrangements, the policy can now be assigned to the beneficiary by the general insurance company which purchased the annuity, thus ensuring full protection under the Policyholders Protection Act.
I understand that events had moved too fast in the case in question for that to have been done, but it is highly unlikely that the same situation would arise again. In any event, simply to specify that those provisions should apply where there is a provisional (rather than final) liquidation, would not be necessary or effective, since the Policyholders Protection Board already has powers to make interim orders (under Section 15 of the 1975 Act) and could do so when an insurer was in provisional liquidation. As I have said, it was not the fact of the liquidation being provisional which caused the problem, but the absence of a direct relationship between the beneficiary and the insurance company which was in provisional liquidation.
However, as your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has already announced his intention to make changes to the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, and to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time permits. We are continuing our inquiries to ensure that there will be no gap in coverage. These will take some time to complete, and if it is found that there is after all still a potential gap, we shall have the opportunity to do something about it when my right honourable friend introduces his reforms.
I shall of course pursue this matter as this Bill goes forward. But my present view is that nothing is required under this Bill and that nothing effective can be done on the basis of the amendment which we considered on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I have some concern about this amendment and I desire to be enlightened by the noble and learned Lord.
I am referring to the addition of the words "if any" to Clause 1(1) so that it will read:
"take into account such rate of return if any as may from time to time be prescribed by an order made by the Lord Chancellor".
Therefore, it appears to me that the words envisage that the noble and learned Lord may decide not to set any prescribed rate of return which the courts will have to take into account in determining the appropriate discount of future pecuniary loss due to its accelerated receipt in the hands of the plaintiff victims. Perhaps I may introduce a slight note of levity. I say that because I imagine that those words do not herald a government pessimism about investments earning no return at all in future.
Therefore, if Amendment No. 1, by the words "if any", signals a retreat from the principle that the Lord Chancellor should, from time to time, set a prescribed rate in the interests of legal certainty so as to ensure that the plaintiff victims are compensated fully, then I regard that as a troubling change of position on the part of the Government.
Therefore, I should welcome the noble and learned Lord's comments on that point. The issue will obviously have to be pursued further when the Bill is considered in another place and this House will have the benefit of returning to it in the light of the discussions there. But I should welcome the noble and learned Lord's observations as regards my anxiety.
Lord Meston: My Lords, my reaction to the first amendment was exactly the same as the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Do the words "if any" emphasise or indicate that the Lord Chancellor may well decide not to prescribe any rate at all in the foreseeable future, notwithstanding the enactment of this Bill and it coming into force two months after enactment, as is provided in Clause 8?
It strikes me that that could add uncertainty in an area of law and practice where there is already considerable uncertainty. That uncertainty may not be resolved for several months ahead, particularly as the question of rates of return is to be considered by the Court of Appeal and may, quite possibly, be considered further on appeal by this House in its judicial capacity. My concern is the uncertainty which may be brought about by that situation.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the words he used on Report which enabled me to withdraw the amendment that I had moved. So far as concerns Amendment No. 1, I understood my noble and learned friend to be using
1648
the amendment to reinforce the discretionary nature of his power. If that is so, it would be helpful if he could indicate the circumstances in which he would take the discretionary power and those in which he would not. Alternatively, if that is difficult—and I imagine that it might be—perhaps he will at least explain certain circumstances where it is quite clear that he would use it and other circumstances where it is quite clear that he would not. In that way, we will have some feel for the middle ground.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 2, I wonder whether I have fully understood the definition that my noble and learned friend intends to use regarding the words "different classes of case". If that means, as my noble and learned friend said on Report on 4th June (Hansard, col. 1234), 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",
then I think we will be very happy with the statement. However, if it means, for example, that interest rates could vary as between an award for, say, a motor injury and one for an industrial injury. I believe that the insurance industry would be concerned and, perhaps, also puzzled.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I share the concern that has been expressed, but from a slightly different angle. I should like, first, to say that the practice of this House is highly convenient for allowing parliamentary draftsmen to have second and third thoughts, so that when a Bill which originates in this Chamber goes to another place it should do so without any blemish.
I can only speak to Amendment No. 1 at the moment, because Amendment No. 2 has not yet been called. I cannot for the life of me see why Amendment No. 1 is necessary. The noble Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Meston, suggested that it may actually be mischievous. But why is it necessary at all? If the Lord Chancellor does not prescribe any rate of return, obviously the courts cannot have regard to that which does not exist. Therefore, why are the words "if any" necessary?
I shall have something to say on Amendment No. 2, on which the noble Viscount spoke valuably. However, I believe it would be helpful if, before I do so, my noble and learned friend has a chance to deal with the arguments raised on Amendment No. 1 and to comment on what was said on Amendment No. 2 by the noble Viscount.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the emphasis on the words "if any" which I propose in Amendment No. 1 is simply to deal with the point that I tried to make clear on the last occasion; namely, that I would not wish to put in place a rate of return until the courts had decided the current cases. I believe that it is right and appropriate to emphasise that, unless and until a rate is prescribed, the courts must decide in accordance with their own appreciation of the present law. It is possible, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon said, that that is assumed. However, I think that it is desirable in the context of this particular discretion to make that clear. That is why I have done so.

1649
I turn now to classifications. When looking at the way in which, for example, the Court of Appeal may decide such matters, I believe it to be perfectly possible that it may think that different rates of return might rightly be taken into account in different classes of case, possibly, to some extent, by reference to the size of the award and the nature of the portfolio on which it would be based; or, indeed, in relation to the period over which it was anticipated that the damages should run. For example, if a comparatively short period were envisaged for the loss anticipated, the rate might be different from that applicable to a longer period. I cannot tell.
I believe that one should retain as much flexibility as possible. I certainly wish to maintain flexibility to deal with the matter which my noble friend raised on the last occasion. If there were any question of the rate being different from that which the law would in any event carry as a result of the decisions under existing law, it would be right in my submission to distinguish between cases in respect of which the right of action had already accrued at the date upon which the matter was in question and cases in respect of which the right of action had not accrued. Of course, that would involve a degree of change in the law and that is certainly not something that I would contemplate. I hope that the provision will last for a long time. However, circumstances can change and it is right to make it clear that there is a wide discretion.
I have already spoken to Amendment No. 2. I am certainly anxious to deal with any points which arise upon it either now or when I come formally to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("() An order under subsection (1) above may prescribe different rates of return for different classes of case.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment, but I should remind the House that my moving of this amendment is subject to a correction in that instead of the word "present", the amendment, as set out on the Marshalled List, should read,
"may prescribe different rates of return for different classes of case".
I believe that that error was due to a misprint. I need not, perhaps, further investigate the precise place where it occurred.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will forgive me if I say that he left me utterly unconvinced that Amendment No. 1 is necessary. Amendment No. 2 is more doubtful, but presumably its purpose is to meet the case. If the Lord Chancellor prescribes different rates of return for different classes of case, as evidently my noble and learned friend envisages from what he just said, would that not be ultra vires, or would it be acceptable? It seems to me to be absolutely incredible that any court could conceivably hold that the Lord Chancellor was
1650
going beyond his powers if, in the circumstances that my noble and learned friend described, he prescribed different rates of return in different cases. If so, once again, the amendment is unnecessary.
Among his other multifarious duties, my noble and learned friend is responsible for the state of the statute book. The statute book becomes more and more inflated. The format is enlarged but it soon needs as many volumes as it did before, even in a larger format. It is time that we took some notice of the interests of the user of the statute book and also of the taxpayer who has to pay for printers, ink, secretaries, wordprocessors and all the paraphernalia of publicising an Act of Parliament. Unless it is really necessary to have either of these two amendments—in my respectful submission it is not—they should not be put into this measure.
Then there is the question of what my noble and learned friend says may be a misprint. I rather suspect that the Public Bill Office was unable to read the handwriting of parliamentary counsel. I had that experience, together with parliamentary counsel, on a recent amendment that I submitted. In any event there is on the Marshalled List the word "present" instead of "prescribe". We can only pass the amendment in the form in which it appears on the Marshalled List. If it makes nonsense, my noble and learned friend should withdraw it and submit it in the correct form to the other place.
On the first amendment I said that we were under a duty, when we pass any measure that originates in this House, to see that it goes to the other place in an impeccable condition. That will not be so if Amendment No. 2 is incorporated. Of course if one could make a manuscript amendment on Third Reading, the matter could easily be put right. I have raised the matter on a number of occasions. On the first two occasions, when it caused great inconvenience, I made a submission to the Procedure Committee and got nowhere. As a result I ceased troubling the Procedure Committee or the various people who had to type my documents. It is just another example of how inconvenient this irrational rule is. There are times—on Report or during consideration of Commons amendments—when manuscript amendments can be accepted. On this occasion they cannot. That is highly inconvenient. It is time that the Procedure Committee looked at the matter again.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 2, the view I have formed is that on the wording of the clause as drafted it is not clear that I would be acting within my powers, therein specified, if I prescribed different rates of return for different classes of case. I understood, in the light of discussion on a previous occasion, that it was highly desirable that that should be made clear. That is why I tabled the amendment.
As regards the point my noble and learned friend made, the notice of amendments is the basic document; that is, amendments to be moved on Third Reading by the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No. 2 states:
"An order under subsection (1) above may prescribe different rates of return for different classes of case".

1651
Therefore my noble and learned friend's diagnosis of the reason for the misprint on the Marshalled List happens, on this occasion, to be incorrect. If it had been my handwriting that was being read I could well understand that a problem might arise. However, that is not the problem in this case.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend for allowing me to intervene. I do not know in what form he will ask us to pass the amendment. Is it with the word "prescribe", and if so how does he get there? Or is it with the word "present" as it appears on the Marshalled List? So far as I know—subject to correction from those who know better—that is the only amendment that can be submitted at this stage.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment I ask your Lordships to pass uses the word "prescribe" because that is the amendment of which I gave notice to be moved on Third Reading. The rules certainly allow the amendment, as notified, to be passed. There is a misprint on the Marshalled List of amendments. However, the actual notice of amendment to be moved on Third Reading uses the word "prescribe". Therefore I submit that I am perfectly in order to move the amendment with that word in place.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend be kind enough to cite the passage in the Companion to the Standing Orders on which he is relying?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is it not the position that Standing Order 46 requires amendments to be tabled in sufficient time to be printed and circulated in the form in which these amendments are to be moved? That was done. There was, however, a printing error but as I understand the position—with the leave of the House—the error can be corrected and obviously should be corrected.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, what is definitive, for the purposes of the rule to which my noble and learned friend takes objection—I can quite understand why he would like to have manuscript amendments on Third Reading, although the Procedure Committee has not so far agreed with him—is the form in which the amendment was printed and circulated. That is what I am referring to; namely, the list of amendments to be moved on Third Reading by the Lord Chancellor in which Amendment No. 2 uses the word "prescribe". That is what I am asking to give effect to. I have so moved.
The Question is that Amendment No. 2 be agreed to in the form,
"An order under subsection (1) above may prescribe different rates of return for different classes of case".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I must protest at the Question being put in that form. The word is "present" not "prescribe".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment I am moving states:
"Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
"An order under subsection (1) above may prescribe different rates of return for different classes of case".
That is on the circulated list of amendments to be moved on Third Reading by the Lord Chancellor, as printed. The fact that on the Marshalled List, which is before your Lordships, there is a misprint does not preclude my moving the amendment in the form I have intimated in terms of the Standing Order to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has referred. Therefore I move the amendment in that form.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. The Bill is of a fairly simple variety intended to facilitate the proper application of the law of damages at present. As your Lordships know, it is based on the work of the Law Commission and I am sure that all of us are grateful for that work.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and Lord Meston, for the part that they have played on their respective Benches; my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for their participation on a variety of issues in particular in relation to Clause 1; my noble friend Lord Chelmsford for the way in which he explained the concerns of the insurance industry throughout the Bill's passage in a way that I believe we have been able to accommodate; the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for amendments to Clauses 5 and 7 which he raised during Committee; and my noble friend Lord Balfour in relation to consideration of Clause 3 as regards Scotland. For all those participations I am grateful. I hope that with your Lordships' expert help on the Bill it may go forward to the other place with reasonable hope of passing into law in due course.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
8 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend showed quite exceptional charitableness in thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and myself for our participation. I am afraid that I shall trespass upon his indulgence just a little further on the same point as regards whether it is correct, or permissible, that the Treasury should be consulted on the rate of return when, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner pointed out, a government department may be a party to the action.
My noble and learned friend, having raised the matter at Committee and on Report, quite rightly did not table an amendment again, even with a misprint, at Third Reading. However, at this stage we are contemplating the Bill as it stands and as it goes to another place. Perhaps I should say at the outset that it seems to me a valuable Bill and it is a great pity that it should have this blemish.

1653
There are only two possibilities. The first is that my noble and learned friend is entitled to consult the Treasury in the circumstances of Clause 1. If so, the words are unnecessary because, as I ventured to point out, the ordinary machinery of Government provides for constant consultation of that kind, and that has not been controverted. So if my noble and learned friend is entitled to consult the Treasury, and the Treasury is entitled to be consulted, those words are unnecessary. As we mourn over the constant inflation of the statute book, surely we should not neglect any opportunity to pare it somewhat. That is the first possibility.
The second is the point that was argued by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner: that it is improper for the Treasury to be consulted when it has an interest, or a possible interest, in the matter. That again has not been controverted. Not only should justice be done, but justice should manifestly be seen to be done. If an interested party is consulted, that fundamental rule is set at nought. It is no use to say that the Treasury knows a great deal about these matters; so it does. But it is still an interested party.
With all his wisdom, you do not consult King Solomon if a question of monogamy is at issue. You do not consult any interested party in any matter where his decision may be seen—whether or not with justice—to be liable to be influenced by his interest.
In presuming to give a general blessing to the Bill, I presume once again to draw attention to the great pity that those words are included. The Bill is now going to another place, which I trust will take up that point.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his officials for the obvious care and attention which has been given to the Bill. The impact of the Bill remains unknown for the reasons that we have been discussing earlier this evening. But it seems to me to have at least considerable potential to give certainty on the question of damages in an area which, as I have already observed, is presently in a state of some uncertainty. Any reduction of uncertainty must be to the benefit of litigants and of insurers.
As regards the point repeatedly and properly raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it is regrettable that the Treasury as a potential defendant has to be consulted. Nevertheless, whether or not the provision is on the face of the Bill, it seems inevitable that the Treasury will be consulted given the structure of the Bill; and the Treasury, like the Lord Chancellor's Department, will inescapably be a participant in the machinery of the Bill if it becomes enacted. From time to time they will themselves be defendants in personal injury actions. It occurred to me at an earlier stage of the Bill in debate on this point that perhaps I should have declared an interest. I once acted for the Lord Chancellor's Department when it was sued by a lady who had slipped over in a corridor in the Law Courts. The case involved a fascinating comparative analysis of the different types of floor polish used by various government departments. However, the risk of
1654
such litigation, or more serious litigation, cannot be a reason for not allowing the Bill to go forward in the form in which it now appears.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for pointing out that the Lord Chancellor, who has given the power to make these orders, may from time to time himself have a liability. I do my best to eliminate or minimise such liability, and I shall continue to do so. However, those of us who have potential interests in litigation are perfectly entitled to be consulted. From time to time, I would expect to consult, in addition to Her Majesty's Treasury and the Government Actuary's Department, the potential litigant—insurance companies—those who represent them and those who represent plaintiffs. Obviously one has to be sure that that is done in a proper way and that the matters which the Treasury raise are taken into account in a proper consultation. I should certainly have regard to what my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said about it on the last occasion. In principle it is right. The issue has been raised and it is particularly important that it should be expressly dealt with in the final form of the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.10 to 8.30 p.m.]

Housing Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 3.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 136, line 38, at end insert—
(". In section 75(1) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (general functions of the Corporation) for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute—

"(a) to facilitate the proper performance of the functions of registered social landlords;

(b) to maintain a register of social landlords and to exercise supervision and control over such persons;

(c) to promote and assist the development of self-build societies (other than registered social landlords) and to facilitate the proper performance of the functions, and to publicise the aims and principles, of such societies;".").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 187.
As a consequence of the proposed introduction of new social landlords in Part I of the Bill, we have been considering whether the Housing Corporation's general functions need to be amended. In particular, we have been looking at its statutory duty under Sections 75 and 87 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, to promote, and provide financial assistance for, the development of registered associations.
Since promotional duties were first given to the corporation in 1974, the housing association sector has grown and matured. The promotion of associations to private lenders was important during the introduction of private finance because the housing association sector was largely unknown to private lenders. Now, however, associations are able to promote themselves, either individually or collectively, or may seek assistance from financial intermediaries to promote housing associations to lenders.
Given these changes, we are proposing that the corporation's activities be refocused so that they encourage the efficient and effective use of housing resources through continued promotion of good practice based on findings from the research programme and value for money scrutinies and refocusing their promotion and advisory grant programme to improve service outcomes rather than support any particular provider group.
To achieve this, we propose modifying the corporation's powers so that they can facilitate the proper performance of the functions of social landlords. We also propose (in Amendment No. 187) that the corporation has powers to provide financial assistance to achieve this new function.
We appreciate that self-build societies are not comparable to registered social landlords. Because of their smaller size and limited scale of operations we propose that the corporation should continue to have a power to promote and assist in the development of such societies.
We also propose that one of the corporation's general functions should be to maintain a register of registered social landlords. This replaces the corporation's current responsibilities for maintaining a register of registered housing associations. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing these two amendments. I have one or two questions. In the phrase,
"facilitate the proper performance of the functions",
what does "facilitate" mean in law? Does it mean that the corporation is simply standing by, or does it mean that it has an active role beyond the role that it is granted in the Bill as presently drafted?
My second question relates to,
"financial assistance to any person to facilitate".
Will the Minister explain what sort of person that might be?
Lord Lucas: I am sorry, but just for the moment I do not see the second item to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I refer to Amendment No. 187:
"The Corporation may give financial assistance to any person to facilitate".
My question is: what sort of person might that be? If it is Lord Hanson—
Lord Lucas: I did not wish to leap up before the noble Lord was ready. I did so merely to admit that he
1656
has asked two interesting questions to which I do not have interesting answers. If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall write to him with answers to both questions raised. In my understanding, "facilitate" is no more than a posh way of expressing "help" with such matters as general guidance and assistance. As to who might be contemplated to be paid to give such general guidance and assistance, I shall have to write to the noble Lord. I do not have an answer.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 136, line 49, at end insert—
(". In section 87 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (financial assistance for formation, management, &c. of housing associations), for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) The Corporation may give financial assistance to any person to facilitate the proper performance of the functions of registered social landlords or co-operative housing associations.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 137, line 35, at end insert—
(". In section 79(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (permitted disposals of land by housing action trusts) for paragraph (a) and the word "or" at the end of the paragraph substitute—
"(a) to a registered social landlord (within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1996), or".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 273.
These amendments are stimulated by the introduction of registered social landlords. First, they amend Section 79(2) of the Housing Act 1988; secondly, they repeal Section 79(6) to Section 79(10) of that Act; and finally, they make minor amendments to Section 92 of that Act as a consequence of the other amendments.
Sections 79 to 92 of the 1988 Act deal with housing action trusts. They established the arrangements under which such trusts can dispose of land, including of course dwellings, to another landlord. Section 79(2) of the 1988 Act provides that disposal of houses subject to secure tenancies can be to a person approved by the corporation, or to a local housing authority or other local authority. Section 79(6) and 79(10) make provision in respect of the approval of such a person by the corporation.
The introduction of the new registration procedures for social landlords, and the approval that registration implies, means that it is no longer desirable or necessary to continue with a parallel approval mechanism for housing action trust disposals. No person who is not a registered social landlord would be an approved person for these purposes. But there is no point in requiring a registered social landlord to go through a quite separate approval process in order to become the recipient of housing action trust stock. It is sufficient to rely on its registration as a social landlord.
Amendment No. 188 therefore substitutes for the requirement that a transferee landlord which is not a local authority must be a person approved for the purpose by the corporation under Section 79 the requirement that it is a registered social landlord within the meaning of Part I of this Bill.
Amendment No. 273 repeals Section 79(6) to Section 79(10) of the 1988 Act, which govern the approval processes. It also makes a minor amendment to Section 92, to repeal that part of the definition of 'Corporation' relating to such approval. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It all sounds very reasonable. However, the noble Lord read his brief rather fast. I shall have to study the matter in Hansard with my advisers and decide whether we wish to challenge the noble Lord's view on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Definitions relating to charities]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No.189:
Page 33, line 4, leave out ("has") and insert ("and "trusts", in relation to a charity, have").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Minor definitions: Part I]:
[Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Index of defined expressions: Part I]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 192 and 193:
Page 36, line 3, at end insert—
("enactment section 202")
Page 36, line 33, at end insert—
("trusts (in relation to a charity) section 57(1)(a)")
The noble Lord said: I shall move Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 en bloc. I spoke to Amendment No. 192 with Amendment No. 120 and to Amendment No. 193 with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 194:
Before Clause 64, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO PROVIDE FOR MANDATORY LICENSING SCHEME
C.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that for the provisions of sections 64 to 69 (registration schemes) there shall be substituted a national mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation.
(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult local housing authorities and other relevant organisations.
(3) Any order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment we move to the part of the Bill concerned with houses in multiple occupation. This new clause proposes a strengthening of the provisions in this part by providing
1658
for a national mandatory licensing scheme as distinct from the registration scheme for which the Bill provides, on the basis of a reserved power given to the Secretary of State to bring in such a scheme.
Clauses 64 to 69 of the Bill, replacing certain parts of the 1985 Housing Act, will leave to the discretion of local authorities whether or not they have an HMO registration scheme, whether the scheme adopted is to cover the whole or only part of their area and whether it is to provide tenants of all or only some HMOs with the protection of registration. In addition, the Secretary of State is likely to use his powers when drawing up model registration schemes under the new Section 346B(1) to exclude from registrability at least half of the houses in multiple occupation in the country.
I normally argue for local discretion. It is a measure of the importance of the provisions concerning houses in multiple occupation that, on this occasion, I argue for a national scheme. Safety is not discretionary.
The Committee will be aware of tragedies that have occurred in houses in multiple occupation which, sadly, it appears are less safe even than other houses and units of accommodation in the private rented sector. I say "even" than those because, in general, it is a sector in which there are many problems. I recall some months ago hearing a programme on the radio about unsafe gas boilers and the series of tragedies which had befallen tenants, often young tenants who had been overcome by carbon monoxide poisoning in circumstances which hardly bear repetition. I recall the case of two brothers who died together. Recently, there was the first trial of a landlord, who was found guilty of manslaughter, I believe, as a result of the condition in which he kept a house, leading to the case of a 19 year-old student who was gassed by a defective appliance in her bedsit. As I said, safety should not be discretionary.
The Department of the Environment estimates that there were some 638,000 households of multiple occupation of various types in England last year. One fifth of private rented lettings are unfit for human habitation. The figure is two fifths in this sector. The figure comes from the English House Condition Survey. The risk of death from fire is 28 times higher in HMOs than in the housing stock as a whole and that figure comes from research by the Campaign for Bedsit Rights, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The highest proportion of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by faulty and unserviced domestic gas appliances in the home occurs in private rented accommodation.
If the private rented sector, including HMOs, is to play the role that the Government want, there must be an effective framework to encourage long-term investment and good quality and professional management and to provide consumers with safety, security and affordability. Landlords and investors need a framework which regulates standards in ways which are predictable, stable and avoid unnecessary and needless bureaucracy. It would encourage responsible landlords and investors and drive the unscrupulous out of the market so far as that is possible.
Local authorities also need a clear and efficient legal framework for enforcing standards and for placing responsibility on landlords to tackle substandard conditions. Above all, existing and prospective tenants of HMOs must be given real guarantees that their homes will be made safe and healthy as soon as possible.
There is widespread support for a national mandatory licensing scheme. In 1994–95, the DoE published a consultation paper on licensing and 76 per cent. of the respondents favoured a new system of licensing. Among local authority respondents, that figure was over 90 per cent. The current regulatory framework is regarded as ripe for replacement, for a number of reasons. It is complex and confusing. I understand that one local authority, Birmingham, has listed 17 different Acts of Parliament and regulations which seek to control conditions in the private rented sector. Inevitably, there are different policies and enforcement practices employed by different local authorities. It is difficult for landlords and tenants to know the standards which are regarded as acceptable. If landlords find the law to be arbitrary, it can be no incentive for them to raise the standards. Tenants are not tenants whose voices can be made to be heard loudly and clearly. In this sector, the tenants are, by definition, those with the least means and, probably, therefore, those with the least will to complain because they fear for their security of tenure as a separate matter from their safety.
The system is inherently inefficient because it depends on tenants making a complaint or on the local authority tracking down every individual substandard property, and that is not easy. As I indicated, the risk of harassment and eviction on the part of a tenant who does complain cannot be underestimated.
Though this may seem a rather petty matter after the plea that I have made, it is worth noting that there are no financial incentives inherent in the current system and that a system which generates income is worth considering because the income that it generates can be used to improve the whole system.
The Government appear to be in favour of a national licensing scheme, according to various comments made in the consultation paper that I mentioned. It argued that it would secure high standards throughout the sector, focus on the types of housing with the worst problems and ensure a more consistent approach. But the Government argue against those points on three bases.
First, they say that powers are already available to local authorities. But, in bringing forward new provisions in the Bill, the Government recognise that the current powers are inadequate. Secondly, they argue that excessive bureaucracy would be created. I believe that varied schemes as between authority and authority in themselves create more bureaucracy. Thirdly, they argue that raising standards to an unrealistically high level would mean that landlords may withdraw accommodation from the market. I understand the point in regard to ensuring that accommodation remains available, but it must meet certain standards of safety and decency.
The licensing regime which I propose is supported by a wide range of organisations in the voluntary and statutory sectors. The scheme is believed to be one—here I rely on the views of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—that could pay for itself after five years. I have said that safety should not be discretionary. A fit place to live should not be discretionary and licensing should not be discretionary either. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I support Amendment No. 194. The background is that in many of our inner city areas at least there are people who are badly off and facing extremely difficult housing circumstances. It is often difficult for them to find accommodation. Therefore the laws of the market place do not apply. For many years we have had government intervention to provide some measure of protection for people who cannot compete in the market for homes. Among the people who are less well off are those who have to accept accommodation in houses in multiple occupation.
The history of government legislation to give some measure of protection is a long but not a happy one in that we are constantly made aware of the difficulties and inadequacies in the framework which should provide protection for people living in that type of accommodation. The aim should be twofold. First, to provide adequate protection for tenants so that they can live in reasonable safety; and, secondly, to devise a method of doing that which provides maximum encouragement for good landlords and maximum discouragement for bad landlords. Indeed, some of the arguments for better regulation in this area are precisely that the good landlord will welcome it and it is only the bad landlords who will object because they will be caught out or found out.
Under the government scheme in the Bill it is up to each local authority to decide whether or not to introduce a licensing scheme at all. But that is rather random. With the best will in the world local authorities may not get round to it; they may have their own motives for not wishing to be tough in the licensing area. Indeed, the Government's illustrative examples, as given in the standing committee in the other place, suggest that, if a local authority decides to adopt these measures, the Government will help with the scheme but that it will be limited in its scope and exclude a number of houses in multiple occupation. If I am wrong in my assessment of what was said in the other place, I am happy to be corrected.
Having said that, this is a limited amendment. All that it asks the Government to do is accept a provision which would give the Secretary of State a reserve power to bring in a national mandatory licensing scheme. It does not oblige the Secretary of State to do so; it merely gives him the power to do so if at some time in the future he feels it is appropriate.
That is not imposing anything; it is saying that, given the sorry history of legislation in this area and the inadequacy of repeated attempts to do it properly, why not, while we are dealing with the Bill, include a reserve power so that if, even with the best will in the world—

1661
being generous to the Government—the provisions in the Bill do not work, the Secretary of State can take the reserve powers so that it can be done better?
Lord Gisborough: HMOs play an important role in the provision of housing in the private rented sector. According to latest government figures, HMOs house just over 3 million people in England—around 7 per cent. of the population. They clearly have an important role in providing affordable accommodation in a form that is likely to suit a large proportion of people at some point in their lives—students, young people at the start of their careers, single people and so forth. We must be conscious of the fact, therefore, that if we introduce inappropriate or draconian legislation in this area, responsible landlords may, probably will and already do, sell their properties and leave the market, thus creating even more homeless, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, feared.
To introduce overly onerous regulations, the cost of which would have to be borne by the landlord, would jeopardise the supply of an important source of accommodation from both current and future landlords, thereby ultimately damaging the interests of those it seeks to protect.
Statistics were cited regarding the relative fire risk in HMOs. Some Members in both Houses have suggested that there is a 28-times greater risk of dying in a fire in an HMO than in other types of dwelling. That figure is based on research carried out on behalf of the Campaign for Bedsit Rights. While not wishing to play down the risk of fires in HMOs, the Campaign for Bedsit Rights' figures merit some examination.
If we are to ensure that HMO regulation is appropriate, we must correctly understand the size of the problem. The campaign's figures do not stand up to much critical analysis when one examines the various government figures. If one looks at the government figures for the proportion of the population housed in HMOs, we get a figure of approximately 7 per cent., as I mentioned earlier. Home Office fire statistics, on the other hand, indicate that 12.5 per cent. of domestic house fires occur in HMOs. That is a high figure and the Government are right to take action to improve standards in HMOs. However, if we do the calculations, the risk of fire in HMOs using the Government's statistics is less than double the risk in other dwellings and falls well short of the "28-times" figure given by the Campaign for Bedsit Rights.
That is supported by other Home Office fire statistics, which suggest that 6.2 per cent. of HMO residents experienced a fire in 1993 as against 3.9 per cent. for the population as a whole. Statistics can be used to prove any point but the campaign figure seems to be particularly inaccurate and overstates the problem. We should not use it, therefore, as a basis for legislation. Ideally, the Government would have carried out research of their own to determine the exact nature of the risk posed by HMOs before deciding to legislate. That did not happen. I urge the Government to consider commissioning some research before drafting the secondary legislation.
1662
I believe that the Government's action is therefore proportionate to the risk and I am pleased that they resist the pressure for a mandatory national licensing scheme. A full-scale licensing scheme would have been costly and over-bureaucratic and would have involved local authorities without HMO problems in unnecessary regulation. It would also, I understand, have covered all types of HMOs, and we would therefore have found ourselves in the position of regulating, among others, owner occupiers in self-contained blocks of flats. Surely that is not necessary.
Licensing is unnecessary, especially when one considers that there is already a large body of legislation to enforce good standards in let property. This includes the wide-ranging powers which already exist under the Housing Act 1985, where local authorities can require work to a property, carry out the work themselves in the landlord's default, or ultimately make an order that the property should come under local authority control or be closed down. Legislation also exists relating to fire and gas safety and the use of fire retardant fillings in furniture.
Some have suggested that the way to improve standards in HMOs is to amend the definition of an HMO, taking out self-contained flats and shared houses, so that the regulation could be concentrated on the properties that are likely to cause the most problems. The Government did not accept this suggestion either. Instead they have proposed that the current ad hoc registration scheme system should be formalised with a model scheme drawn up. I broadly support that proposal. It will mean that those local authorities that consider they have a particular problem with HMOs will be able to set up a registration scheme to give them greater control powers. The proposal that a model registration scheme is to be drawn up is also welcome. Landlords' current experience of registration schemes is that they vary widely between authorities, leading to much uncertainty among landlords as to their responsibilities. The Government are proposing that certain categories of HMOs will be exempt from the model registration scheme. Again, that is welcome and will ensure that local authority resources are targeted at those properties that cause most problems.
My amendments to come are intended to ensure that the relationship between landlord and local authority is an effective one, and that they work together to improve standards in their area. Most landlords are happy to make sensible achievable alterations to their properties and wish to encourage good tenants with good standards. In recent years, however, many private landlords have found the requirements made of them by local authorities to be unnecessary, and the mechanism for changing them has involved expensive litigation. My amendments seek to redress this imbalance, which, I should add, licensing would have accentuated. I hope that this amendment for the mandatory licensing scheme will be resisted as it would amount to over-regulation and unnecessary red tape.
9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I support this amendment, even though I hate over-regulation and

1663
bureaucracy. Nevertheless, recently, as chairman of the Children's Society, I was at a presentation by young people who spoke of their own experience. Of course it is possible for young people to exaggerate, but these were young people with ambition to get on in the world, and not to be at the bottom of the pile for the whole of their lives. Most of them had had to leave home because of family disagreements. Sometimes they had to leave because of abuse and sometimes because there just was not room in their own homes. They were not people that we should want to make into lifelong rebels. They had ambition and they wanted to do well. The stories which they told made it clear to me that some form of regulation is necessary.
As has already been said this evening, safety is not negotiable. There should be safety. There should be healthy premises for young people to live in. These young people have no financial capacity to bid for a better place. If they are 16 year-olds on a training course they receive £29 a week, or £35 if they are 17 year-olds. These young people require our protection. Surely as a society we do not want to see them going on to the streets. One of the things that I think is most reprehensible is the number of people sleeping in shop doors in the Strand. I cannot think what that says to visitors to this country. We should be ashamed of it.
I support the amendment. In London alone there are 3,800 young people living in this kind of accommodation. I have heard from their own mouths the difficulties against which they have to contend. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said all that I wanted to say. I support the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to support the amendment, I can advise the Committee that I have lived in HMOs on a number of occasions. I did so when I left home for the first time. I lived in a room in a house that was apparently condemned as unfit for human habitation. I survived that. My experience of living in HMOs on a number of different occasions advises me that some are good and some are bad. When they are bad, they can be absolutely atrocious. As we have heard from a number of different speakers, that can lead to increased risk to life and limb.
When I initially saw the amendment, I was a little hesitant about it. One of the things that I have been concerned with is limiting Ministers' powers. It is worth pointing out that the amendment will give Ministers an extra power which they can exercise if it is felt warranted. It does not require them to set up this national registration scheme, but it gives them the power to do so if it is felt warranted.
One of the things we all do as parents is to ensure as far as we can the safety of our children. As responsible people we can put pressure on our local council to ensure that there is a satisfactory scheme in our local area. However, when young people leave home it is very difficult—I would say impossible—for parents to say to their children, "You shall live in a local authority area where there are decent standards" and to dissuade them from living in some other local authority area. We must bear in mind that a large number of young people leave
1664
home to go to university, which is usually many miles from their own homes, and in the first year they may be in student accommodation provided by the university. But the chances are that in the second and third years they will be at the mercy of the vagaries of the private market. A large number of those young people, who are our sons and daughters, will end up in houses of multiple occupation. As responsible parents how do we ensure that those houses of multiple occupation where our sons and daughters live are of a satisfactory standard which will ensure their safety and that of their friends?
I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. It gives a fall-back power to Ministers to set up a national scheme which some of us believe should be brought in immediately. However, it may take a little time to persuade the Government to do so. If the provision appears on the face of the Bill at least the Government will have the power to act without recourse to primary legislation, which is always difficult given the pressure on parliamentary time. I hope that the Committee and the Government will look with favour on the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others, in favour of the amendment. I am aware that there were similar substantial debates on the need for national licensing both at Committee and Report stages in another place.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I have lived most of my life in HMOs. My parents' house, which is a large one, had a flat at one end which was occupied by another family; therefore, it is an HMO. When I moved to London I rented a room in a large house occupied by friends of the family, and that makes it an HMO. The first property I bought in London was a flat that had been converted from what was originally a house and therefore was an HMO. When I finally bought a whole house of my own I let the top floor to friends and that made it an HMO. That illustrates the sort of problem we would create by introducing an indiscriminate national licensing scheme. A large number of houses and properties, which had no business being there, would be brought within the rigours of a scheme aimed principally at the sort of places which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester was talking about, which I have lived next to, but, fortunately not in, where about a dozen people are crammed into a space which would comfortably accommodate about four. They live in conditions of considerable squalor. We are aiming the legislation at places where the majority of problems exist. We wish to give local authorities discretion in identifying the properties which are causing problems in their areas and avoid the blunderbuss effect of having to deal with great numbers of properties where there are no significant problems.
The Government remain unconvinced of the need for a national mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, our consultation document was admirably even-handed. I wish therefore to explain the reasons why we have come to our conclusions.

1665
I emphasise that the Government accept that there is a problem of poor standards in part of the HMO sector and that urgent action is required. We estimate that there are over 600,000 properties in England of various sorts ranging from bedsits and shared student houses to larger hostels and bed and breakfast hotels. This type of housing makes a very important contribution to meeting the need for flexible and low cost accommodation, as my noble friend Lord Gisborough said. The demand is unlikely to fall in the foreseeable future. It is important therefore to ensure that such properties are of a reasonable standard and, above all else, that they are safe, particularly from the risk of fire. My noble friend Lord Gisborough rightly pointed out that some estimates of the fire risk in HMOs has been exaggerated. I do not believe that we would go as far as my noble friend in discounting the risk. We would settle on a figure of about 10 times higher than normal. That risk is clearly far too high, and that is why we have brought forward our package of measures. There is therefore clearly a good deal of common ground on all sides of the Committee in the demand for tougher powers enabling local authorities to improve conditions in those properties.
Perhaps I may set out briefly the principal elements of the Government's package. We are giving local authorities the option of establishing a much tougher kind of HMO registration scheme. Any local authority will be able to introduce a registration scheme for the whole or part of its area if it thinks that there is a serious HMO problem. That will allow local authorities to refuse registration if properties are sub-standard to an extent that is beyond remedy or if the manager is not a fit and proper person. Local authorities can also impose as conditions of registration that works are carried out to make the HMO suitable for occupation and relating to the management of the house. Registration will be renewable every five years and the new control and special control provisions may provide that registration can be revoked if the authority considers that there has been a breach of the conditions relating to the management of the house. We also propose substantially to increase the level of fees payable on registration and re-registration, and these resources can be used to supplement the local authority enforcement effort. So, if only for this reason, we expect most local authorities to make much greater use of registration schemes. We have also made available to local authorities a system of special control provisions which can be adopted with the consent of the Secretary of State. They will allow much tougher control of, and in certain cases, closure of HMOs which are having a serious adverse effect on local amenity. These provisions have been warmly welcomed in another place by Members who represent constituencies with coastal resorts. They acknowledge that the powers we have given local authorities are very wide indeed.
I also emphasise that the HMO package in Part II is not entirely a discretionary package which local authorities can simply choose to ignore. First, Clause 72 places a duty on HMO landlords to keep their property fit for the number of occupants. Local authorities will be able to prosecute landlords who fail to do so. Secondly, we propose to extend substantially the mandatory duty on
1666
local authorities to check that there are adequate fire safety precautions in all HMOs falling within the net of the model registration scheme and which are over two storeys high. This will be a major task for the authorities and will ensure that all high-risk HMOs are checked and monitored.
What is at issue is that the Opposition want a national mandatory licensing system which would be imposed on all local authorities. The Government's proposals are different in that we propose a package of measures, some mandatory and some discretionary, which will lead to effective action but at the same time leave local authorities with a degree of extra flexibility in how they tackle the problem. The Government firmly believe that these proposals are preferable to the straitjacket that national licensing would impose. It comes down to whether one trusts local authorities with this element of discretion. Both the Liberal and Labour Parties through their spokesmen have said that they do not. They are prepared to trust the education of our children to local authorities but will not trust them with a small element of discretion in the management of HMOs. I find that extraordinary. I fail to understand what lies behind that lack of trust, unless it be that because most local authorities are now under the control of one or other of the parties opposite they have a better understanding of those bodies than I do. But I cannot believe that that is the case and that the Opposition are right not to trust local authorities in the way that they should.
References have been made to the particular qualities of the proposed amendment. The amendment is a fascinating one. It would create criminal offences by order. Albeit at a rather late stage, it is changed to an affirmative resolution. That is a principle to which we do not subscribe, and it is a course that has been urged against us on several occasions by the Benches opposite. I find it extraordinary that they should put forward an amendment which would involve that.
The Opposition have failed to demonstrate that licensing would add anything to the powers available to local authorities. The Government's package is a tough one, with new powers which were welcomed by local authorities when we consulted them on the details. It is clear that they intend to use them. I have no doubt that these new policies will lead to a substantial improvement to conditions in the HMO stock. We are happy to trust local authorities with the discretion that we propose to give them; I am sorry that the Opposition are not.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I am amazed that the Minister has begun to be aggressive so early in the evening. Although I am sure that the Liberal Democrats can speak for themselves, the Minister said that the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party did not trust local authorities. As an example, he quoted education. This debate is not about education, but in so far as the Minister raises that issue he speaks on behalf of a government who have taken away large amounts of discretion from local authorities in education and many other fields. If ever there was a government in the history of this country who had not trusted local authorities it is this one, with capping, controls on finance, the removal of large areas of

1667
discretion from local government and turning local authorities into agents of central government. The Minister has the gall to say that we in the Opposition do not trust local authorities. I believe that he has gone too far by a long chalk. It was also a weak argument.
When the Minister spoke of his life history in a series of houses in multiple occupation I almost began to feel sorry for him. It tugged at the heart strings. This poor man had had a difficult time and he was to be the beneficiary of all this legislation. I thought how wonderful it was and that we would be helping a government Minister had this legislation been in place. But the Minister then departed from the thrust of the argument. If there are the full rigours quoted by the Minister, why is it that the kind of accommodation in which the Minister has been living for most of his life, to judge from what he has said, would not meet the standards referred to? If it would, it would be mere child's play to conform to these standards. The whole point is that the setting of standards ensures that those landlords who care more about short-term profits than the well-being and safety of their tenants will be called to order. Those other landlords who do well will surely not find it at all onerous or rigorous to have to comply with these requirements. The Minister has not made his case. Indeed, he weakened it significantly by his diversion into education policy.
Baroness Hamwee: My experience in local government has been that when the Government depart from their usual practice and give discretion to local authorities it is because the issue is one that central government find they cannot tackle because they do not have either the imagination or the will. That has been the increasing experience over a number of years.
I am afraid I do not take seriously the Minister's suggestions that the amendment is being proposed because of any lack of faith in local authorities. I am not going to trade statistics, although I am glad to have heard the Minister say that there was a serious risk. The tone of the Minister's answer suggests a complacency about the issue which I hope is not a real complacency.
The suggestion is made that such a scheme would lead to a reduction in the stock of accommodation. Among the supporters of such a scheme are the Institute of Housing, Shelter, and the National Consumer Council. I cannot imagine that they are organisations that would wish to see the stock reduced. I do not believe that that is a real argument. The cost to landlords, on the information I have—I have referred to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—would be about £30. These are not large sums. If the suggestion is that it is not the registration fees but the cost of putting properties back into order which will be a disincentive to landlords, that does not need answering.
Lord Gisborough: Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. She mentioned £30; but is she aware that many of these houses are old? This morning I was told of houses which it would be uneconomic to bring up to the required
1668
standard. I was told of one old house which had to have metal supports put around it in order to comply. Such houses would just go out of the market.
Baroness Hamwee: I am aware that there is a number of large old houses which would cost a great deal to bring up to standard; but is that an argument for approaching the housing problems in this country in this way? I do not believe that it is. I shall have to disagree with the noble Lord.
The amendment is proposed as a reserve power. We know the problems of shortage of parliamentary time. We have a thick Housing Bill. One would have hoped that the Government might see the sense in providing for themselves a power which they could implement if other provisions of the Bill for the discretionary scheme appeared not to be working as well as the Government clearly hope they might.
I had some difficulty in suggesting that additional powers should be handed over to the Government, lock, stock and barrel to introduce something if it is not the intention to start the scheme off in this way. But as I have said, the issue is serious. It is a matter of safety. It is not just a matter of amenity, as important as that is. The noble Lord referred to the special control provisions, but that is not what the amendment addresses. I shall conclude by asking the Minister a question. A good deal of his argument appeared to depend on many types of houses in multiple occupation being ones for which there should be no concern. I understand that a flat at the top of a house, or in a wing of a house, being let to a family other than the owner occupier of the rest of the house would be one of the exceptions which the Government are considering applying to the scheme as proposed in the Bill. If the Minister is saying that some types of division do not require registration, will the Government consider a mandatory licensing scheme for the types which they admit require registration and, as I would put it, licensing?
Lord Lucas: The question does not arise because we like the scheme as we have written it. We do not see the need for a national mandatory scheme. We believe that the flexibility that we have is the flexibility that is desirable.
Baroness Hamwee: Without being discourteous to the Minister, I do not believe that that is a satisfactory answer. The hour is late but it is a matter to which we must return. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Making and approval of registration schemes]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 36, line 39, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 195 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 196 and 221. Amendment No. 195 provides that a local authority "shall" make a registration scheme rather than leaving the matter to its discretion. Amendment No. 196 deletes subsections (2) and (3) thus requiring that the scheme shall apply to the whole of the local authority's district. Amendment No. 221 provides for the Secretary of State

1669
to take steps to publicise the registration scheme in concert with local authorities as an alternative to the provision in the Bill, which leaves the matter to each local authority. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: The amendments would make it a mandatory requirement for each local authority to introduce a registration scheme covering the whole of its district. That would carry with it the same objections as we have to national mandatory licensing by going unnecessarily far in dictating to local authorities how they shall tackle problems associated with HMOs.
If local authorities decide to introduce one of the new registration schemes they will, under our proposals, have maximum flexibility in the method of introduction. In many cases they may decide to introduce a scheme only for those parts of their district with the most HMOs and where the problems are worst. They will then have scope to phase in the scheme to other areas if they so wish. I understand, for example, that Bristol City Council, which is under the control of a Labour council, is gradually introducing registration schemes throughout the city on a ward-by-ward basis according to risk priorities and resources permitting. We congratulate the council on the innovation and effectiveness with which it is pursuing that course. Indeed, some authorities will not wish to use registration schemes, believing instead that they can work effectively with the other HMO powers available to them. These amendments would remove such flexibility.
We are keen to make sure that local authorities do have available to them effective registration schemes. However, unlike the parties opposite, we do not wish to be over prescriptive, telling local authorities exactly what they must do. We find it preferable for them to have choice and flexibility.
I turn now to Amendment No. 221. The Government's proposals will not require a national registration scheme and, therefore, publicity for it. But Clause 68 requires local authorities to carry out local publicity if they are planning a registration scheme in their area. The Government are planning national publicity for the code of practice which will be approved by the Secretary of State using the powers in Clause 74. Our view is that, together, those provide an adequate degree of publicity and that Amendment No. 221 would be unnecessary, even if it were phrased to tie in with our approach to the scheme as a whole.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not expect anything different given the debate that we have just had. I note what the Minister says on Amendment No. 221 and the question of publicity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 36, line 51, at end insert ("and to renew the registration as and when required by the scheme.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 205. Amendments Nos. 197 and 205 are designed to clarify the operation of Clause 64, which introduces greatly improved powers for local authorities to operate registration schemes.
One of the key changes is that registration will in future need to be renewed. We shall be debating how frequently when we come to Amendment No. 198. Amendment No. 197 clarifies the duty on landlords to make it explicit that registration schemes require not only that they must register, but also re-register as necessary.
Amendment No. 205 makes it clear that the power of the Secretary of State to fix different fees is in respect of different cases. Currently the word "different" is not included. For example, there is likely to be a higher fee for a first registration than for a re-registration, since in principle, a re-registration should involve less work. And, as now, the fee is likely to be related to the size of the property. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 37, line 3, after first ("of") insert ("not less than one year and not more than").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 199. The point here is very simple. Under the scheme in the Bill, registration is set at an initial period of five years and renewable at five-yearly intervals. This amendment would provide some flexibility for local authorities so that initial registration and the re-registration could take place in a period of time longer than one year.
The point is that a good and conscientious landlord could reasonably be given a lengthy period of registration whereas a landlord who had not behaved well could be given a shorter period so that he might be, as it were, on probation so that he could demonstrate his management qualities before being given a longer period of registration. The amendment would merely provide some flexibility which the Bill, as it now stands, does not provide. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: This is an important amendment. It is quite surprising the extent to which a house can deteriorate in five years, particularly if it is a house in multiple occupation. One has only to think of the turnover of tenants, the methods of heating and cooking and many other such matters. Therefore, I hope that the amendment commends itself to the Government.
Lord Lucas: I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that he has misunderstood the significance of the five-year period which we are proposing. The five-year registration period will set the maximum interval between inspections by the local authority. Local authorities have separate discretionary powers at any time to enter and inspect an HMO and if conditions have declined they may require improvements to be made or, in extreme cases,

1671
de-register the property. So in practice there is common agreement on all sides of the Committee that some properties will be more at risk and will need more frequent inspections.
There is an additional significance about the five-year period. We have provided that if a property is accepted for registration because it meets the standard set by the local authority, and provided that conditions do not then decline, it cannot be made the subject of further enforcement action by the authority for a further five-year period. That is to protect landlords who have made significant investment to meet the standard and require some assurance that they will not have to carry out further work for a reasonable period of time because the local authority has changed its mind about the appropriate standards required in that kind of HMO. A five-year registration period will, therefore, offer some protection to responsible landlords who have improved and maintained their properties.
Finally, I have already mentioned the fee income to local authorities which will be generated by the new registration schemes. We will be discussing fees in more detail shortly. But we have to be careful to strike the right balance here. The extra resources will be useful to the local authority, but they must be paid for by the landlord and there is the possibility that some might be passed on to tenants. There is also the danger that excessive fees might force the landlord to withdraw his accommodation from the market. That is why we think that paying a fee every five years represents the right balance and why there is a danger that fees every year would be unfair to the landlord. I hope the comfort that I was able to give the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, at the beginning of my reply will enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I cannot help wondering whether the Minister really appreciates the realities involved. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord the example of one property in which I have no direct interest but about which I have a little knowledge. The landlord I have in mind bought a property in London for £50,000 three years ago. It was in multiple occupation at the time. He was required to make major repairs to the property under the current regime of inspection and housing Act notices, but has blatantly refused to take any notice of such requirements.
To my certain knowledge, that landlord has taken £10,000 out of that house for three years. Therefore, he has made £30,000 out of the house but put virtually nothing into it. He has now sold the property for just under £45,000, having done no work to it at all under the current regime—and we are talking about a regime that will be even more relaxed. The Government are saying, "Yes, let's register this guy for five years. We can inspect the property", and so on.
However, as we have heard, houses can deteriorate quite significantly over a period of time; indeed, in less than five years. The Minister seems to me to be very protective of landlords. The fact that the Government are giving them five years in which to carry on their business with the security that they will be able to do
1672
so, actually flies in the face of the reality of the situation as regards some of the most degrading and unsafe accommodation which exists in this country, not to mention the lack of teeth, if I may put it that way, of local authorities to do much about it. In my view, the Government ought to think seriously about the way in which they are approaching the whole subject.
Lord Lucas: I am sure that the noble Lord is mistaken in thinking that what we propose is a more relaxed regime; indeed, we are discussing a much heavier regime than that which currently exists. Certainly a landlord behaving in the way described by the noble Lord would, I hope, be subject to an order from the local authority—that is, if the authority was attentive—stating that he should make the improvements required and that action would be taken if they are not made.
I cannot believe that an efficient local authority would allow such matters to continue for anything like three years before it ultimately took effective action to deregister the property. I believe that our proposal will be a much more effective remedy for the sort of problems outlined by the noble Lord than any system which exists at present.
Lord Dubs: The Minister said that I had misunderstood the Bill. I do not think that I did, although that is always a possibility. The point of this amendment is to give a local authority the flexibility to adjust the period to its assessment of the quality of landlord. The Minister says that under the present scheme if a landlord is a bit suspect, a local authority can carry out an inspection and deregister the landlord. It is a matter of judgment as to which is the more appropriate method. I still think that the method in the amendment of giving a local authority the initial flexibility to set different periods of registration is preferable to having to inspect after giving a five year registration period because the landlord may not be one in whom the local authority has complete confidence. However, I do not wish to take up more of the time of the Committee than is necessary. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 37, line 11, leave out from ("scheme") to second ("to") in line 12.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 201, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 202. This clause already makes it a duty for the person specified in the scheme to register a house covered by the scheme, in what will be subsection (1) of new Section 346A, which is referred to at lines 49 to 51 on page 36. Government Amendment No. 201 deletes what amounts to a restatement of that requirement in subsection(3)(b). I think that would have covered the point that my noble friend Lord Peyton identified in his Amendment No. 200. Amendment No. 202 is consequential on Amendment No. 201. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 37, line 13, leave out ("such").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 37, line 19, leave out (", subject to subsection (5)").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 203 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 204. It was only a few minutes ago that the Minister chided the Opposition parties and accused us of not trusting local authorities. Let us put him to the test. This amendment is, fortuitously, one that we tabled some time ago, although it would have been even more relevant to what the Minister said a little while ago. The effect of the amendment would be to give local housing authorities the discretion to set reasonable fees for registration, and for renewal of registration, by removing the Secretary of State's power to provide by order the maximum permissible fee payable, and when no fee is payable. Therefore, the question is simple: do we trust local authorities or do we not? I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We seem to be back in our accustomed positions on this one. The freedom that the noble Lord is proposing in these amendments is one which would have been denied to local authorities by his earlier amendments, but consistency is not required of the Opposition! I am afraid that I have to say for the Government that I do not think it would be right to abandon the idea of the Government setting a maximum amount that should be charged. We feel that such an abandonment would lead to a situation of widely varying charges throughout the country, and the danger that a small minority of local authorities might abuse their position. We do not think it would be right for the Government to allow that to happen.
Baroness Hamwee: So we trust local authorities, but not now, and not very much! Is that what the Minister is saying? I think it is. I do not wish to take up a great deal more time but I support the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just moved—indeed, my name is added to it. I hope the Government understand that while this may be our second preference, nevertheless we take our duties as a revising Chamber sufficiently seriously to consider and seek to amend the provisions of the Bill with some seriousness, even though it might not be our Bill in the first place.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: The Minister said a moment ago that he is afraid that local authorities might abuse their position. Yet we are talking about a situation in which local authorities have complete discretion whether to adopt a scheme. It seems odd to say that they might abuse their position by charging too much even though they do not have to enter the scheme. I think the answer is that the Minister does not trust local authorities and that is why he said what he said.
1674
I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 37, line 34, after ("to") insert ("different").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment when I moved Amendment No. 197. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 37, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing any model registration scheme, the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies representative of landlords, and such bodies representative of local authorities, as he thinks fit.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment provides that in preparing a model registration scheme, the Secretary of State will consult bodies representative of landlords and local authorities. Sufficient faith is shown in the Secretary of State for the amendment to provide that they will be such bodies as he thinks fit.
In another place, the Minister indicated that there would be consultation before model schemes are issued by the department. I welcome further information on that point from the Minister. It would be helpful to have the matter on the face of the Bill.
In addition, perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to tell the Committee when the Government intend to start consultations; whom they will consult; the timetable—when they expect to have model schemes available for adoption; how many different types of model scheme the Secretary of State has in mind to offer authorities; and, lastly, what scope the Bill will leave for authorities to adopt schemes different from the model scheme which reflect local priorities.
I have been contacted, as I dare say have other Members of the Committee, by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of universities. It raises questions with regard to registration. Perhaps I may add a request for confirmation that universities' purpose-built accommodation will be excluded from registration schemes given that such accommodation is subject to close controls at present. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: There is nothing wrong with Amendment No. 208. However, I regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did not move Amendment No. 207 which seemed by far the best amendment out of a series dealing with national model schemes. Had that amendment been agreed, it would have placed a considerable onus on any local authority to show cause why it had not adopted the national model scheme. My experience goes back a few years so it may not be quite so relevant now as it was then. However, the greatest amount of housing stress arose through houses in multiple occupation. In those days the majority were totally unsuited to families that included small children.

1675
It ought to be an obligation to prepare a national model scheme which should be capable of being adopted in many local authority areas.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I had intended to make the point before but I wish to make it now. A comparison can be drawn between the standards required in accommodation and those required in MoT tests for cars. We do not shrink from having high standards for our cars on the grounds that people would not pay the money to implement the requirements because we know that human safety and well being are involved. Therefore, we should not shrink from having the highest possible standards in accommodation for families and young people.
Lord Lucas: I fully share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the benefits of consultation and I can assure her that the Government agree entirely with the need to consult on the content of any model registration scheme made under Clause 64 of the Bill. This is precisely what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to do: he will, in fact, be consulting even more widely than the duty proposed in this amendment, which refers only to landlord groups and local authorities. For example, we will be talking to tenant groups as well.
This autumn we expect to talk to local authority associations, the Campaign for Bedsit Rights, the Small Landlords Association and the universities. During that consultation we shall cover the question of university halls of residence and will consult a number of other organisations to ensure that the consultation is properly comprehensive.
Consultation on the model registration schemes will be particularly important as a result of changes to the Bill made in another place. When the Bill was first presented to Parliament there were provisions on registration schemes on the face of the Bill which excluded certain categories of HMOs from being included in a registration scheme. Those categories were principally the smaller properties with only a handful of tenants, but houses divided entirely into self-contained flats were also to be excluded. Following the debate in Committee in another place, the Government brought forward amendments at Report stage deleting the exclusions but making it clear that exclusions of the smaller HMOs regarded as low-risk properties would be incorporated into the model schemes.
The Government also undertook to look again at the exclusion of self-contained flats and to try to ensure that houses divided into such flats which were predominantly let out to renting tenants would be registrable. Discussion on these points will therefore form part of the consultation process on the model schemes which I hope will take place later in the year.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I take it from the assurances that it is implicit that the Government will consult with a view to the possibility of a number of different types of
1676
model scheme. They will listen to representations made about the adoption of schemes which are different from model schemes and which will reflect local priorities. After all, the point of consultation is to make the best use of the views that are shared with the consultor.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, Amendment No. 207 was in any event the property of the Committee, had anyone else wished to debate it. I did not move it because I thought that for this evening we were beginning to exhaust the issue of local discretion. We may well return to it at a later stage. Having commented on the Government's consultation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 [Registration schemes: control provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 210 to 212 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 212A:
Page 39, line 33 leave out from ("or") to ("or") in line 34, and insert ("in the case of paragraph (d), where paragraphs (a) to (c) above do not apply, within 12 months of the application").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the question of appeal. Although it looks a little complicated and legalistic, the principle behind it is that if a local authority is neither granted nor refused an application, there should be a right of appeal from the five-week point, but not a 21-day time limit. In other words, it seeks to leave a little more scope and flexibility for dealing with the issues that arise in the matter of appeals and in the rather tight time limit laid down in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, drew our attention to the dangers that can come from landlords failing to comply with requirements of legislation for some considerable period of time. They can profit greatly from that while doing things that everyone would consider undesirable. That is the principal reason why we do not wish to give way to this amendment.
I can understand that a landlord may feel aggrieved if he misses the limited time period of three weeks in which he may go to court. However, the change proposed in the amendment would be neither sensible nor helpful to the landlord.
The reason why the appeal time is fairly short is that we want such applications to be dealt with quickly, in the interests of tenants' safety. There should therefore be adequate pressure on all parties—local authorities and landlords—to process the applications for registration as quickly as possible and for any appeal to follow soon after the decision has been made.
The clause as drafted allows an extension of those time periods if all the parties can agree. That applies to the five-week period that must be allowed for the local authority to process the application and the three-week period for appeal. These provisions should be sufficient to cope with the vast majority of cases.

1677
In exceptional cases where the local authority has failed to respond to an application for registration and the landlord inadvertently misses his chance of appeal, there is no bar on his submitting a fresh application for registration and beginning the process again. He would not have to pay a repeat fee, as payment is made on first registration. I hope that those assurances are enough to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: As I made entirely clear at the start of the debate on this part of the Bill, I regard safety as of the utmost importance. I therefore take the Minister's point seriously. However, I am less convinced by the argument that a landlord can go back and start the process again. There is a balance to be struck between providing a period within which the parties affected can operate without its being too protracted and a period so short that it is difficult to comply with and tempts the applicant to give up on one application and start the process again. There has been criticism of additional bureaucracy proposed from these Benches. That seems a fair recipe for additional bureaucracy. However, I shall not press the point at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 40, line 5, after ("registered") insert ("or revoke the registration").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 214. These amendments make some minor changes to the provisions in Clause 65 which allow the local authority to vary the terms of the registration or revoke it, if conditions in the HMO begin to deteriorate. The clause as currently drafted in the Bill is not quite right as the grounds for revocation do not, in the Government's view, cover every possibility that might occur.
Amendment No. 213 concerns the situation, which is likely to be very rare, when for some reason the registered property becomes unsuitable and incapable of being made suitable for multiple occupation. As presently drafted, the clause allows the local authority to vary the number of households for which it is registered, but to cover every eventuality the amendment would allow the registration to be revoked in these circumstances.
Amendment No. 214 would further allow the local authority to revoke registration if additional facts came to light after the property had been first registered or renewed to show that the manager of the property was not a fit and proper person. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 40, line 22, after ("that") insert‗
("(a) the person having control of the house or the person managing it is not a fit and proper person, or
(b)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Registration schemes: special control provisions]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 40, line 43, leave out ("their existence or the behaviour of their residents") and insert ("the way in which the houses are managed").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 216 and 218. All the amendments stand in the name of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
With these amendments we move to Clause 66, the special control provisions to deal with matters of amenity. That may sound trivial. I accept that the presence of large numbers of houses in multiple occupation can have particular effects on a district. But I feel that in a number of ways, the provisions go rather far.
The effect of the amendments would be to remove the "existence of the house or the behaviour of the residents" as a trigger for local authorities' consideration of the use of these provisions. The amendment replaces those terms with wording which places the burden of the use of the powers on the way in which an HMO is managed. Where serious nuisance problems occur in HMOs, it is frequently because of bad management. These amendments are intended to make that clear and lay the responsibility on the manager.
The powers in Clause 66 are very strong indeed. They allow an HMO to be closed down if, in the view of the local authority and after consulting the local residents and others, the:
"existence [of the house] or the behaviour of their residents … [is] adversely affecting the amenity or character of the area in which they are situated".
I believe that it would be better if there were powers to control poor management rather than to shut down houses to the detriment of the occupants. After all, there is legislation, including provisions in the 1985 Housing Act.
The reference to the behaviour of the residents appears to be an open invitation to attack HMOs on the NIMBY (not in my back yard) principle. I do not believe that that will encourage good standard HMOs as the Government suggest. I believe that the proposed words would provide a more objective test and a better form of control. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I support Amendment No. 215. In answer to a question that the Minister may put to me, yes, I do trust the majority of local authorities but I do not always trust every local authority. I have enough examples to support both contentions.
One of the points that bothers me about the provisions contained in the Bill—after all, this amendment, if accepted, would provide some safeguards—is that they not only give local authorities powers to deal with existing HMOs, but they can also prevent a new HMO being opened. That means that local residents can say, "We do not like the sort of residents the HMO will house." That opens the door to a great deal of prejudice and not much rational argument and may pander to some of the less healthy instincts one occasionally

1679
comes across when people do not like people of different lifestyles living in the same street or not too far away. It is important therefore that the amendment provides for the way in which the houses are managed. That is a much better approach than a provision regarding the behaviour of the residents or the existence of the HMO itself.
Perhaps I can take up the time of the Committee for a little longer to give an example from Wandsworth council. It so happens that it had other powers exceptionally, but I fear that it could use these powers if it did not already have those other powers. The example concerns an empty old people's home which the organisation of which I used to be the director—the Refugee Council—wanted to occupy for a few months to house Bosnian refugees coming to this country under a Home Office scheme.
Wandsworth council said that it would not allow the organisation to use that property for the Bosnian refugees because the local residents would not like it. In fact, that was not true. The local residents and the local church were quite happy about it. However, the council used its powers to say, "These are not the sort of people we want in this part of the borough." It was Balham.
My fear is that there may be occasions when local authorities will use their powers in a way which is undesirable. The majority of local authorities will not do that; the minority may. The amendment will provide at least something of a safeguard against the abuse of such powers.
Lord Lucas: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I are again thinking the same thoughts. Neither of us wants to see a situation where we get into some form of ethnic cleansing as a result of these provisions. For the sake of avoiding argument at later stages of the Bill, I note that if we had agreed to Amendment No. 209, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, lent his name, we would have got into a position where local authorities were free to do whatever they wanted in that regard. The provisions under Clause 66 will be subject in every case to the approval of the Secretary of State. I can assure the noble Lord that the scenario that he paints of councils trying to shift what they regard as undesirable people out of one ward into another or out of their area altogether is not something which will be permitted.
Local authorities need to deal with social and economic problems which can arise from a concentration of HMOs in a specific area where they are badly managed or where there are simply too many of them. That has been a specific problem in a number of seaside resorts such as Blackpool, Scarborough, Margate and Bournemouth. Many of the hotels or guesthouses that used to cater for the tourist trade have converted to become hostels offering bed and breakfast. Many of them cater for single, young people who rely on income support and housing benefit and who often move considerable distances to live in those seaside towns. For example, the magazine, Loot, which circulates in the London area frequently carries advertisements placed by hostel operators in Margate
1680
offering, "Free breakfast and evening meal, free Sky TV, no bills, move in today, DSS welcome, help with all forms". If all these extra benefits can be provided, it throws into interesting contrast the question of whether benefit levels are adequate.
Offering accommodation to people in need of housing is, of course, commendable. But too often there is a concentration of HMOs in particular areas, and many of them are not particularly well-managed. The result is that the whole character of an area can rapidly change. Unfortunately, social problems such as drunkenness or drug taking can become rife. Once an area begins this downward spiral, it becomes increasingly difficult for the remaining hotel businesses to attract custom—holiday makers simply do not want to walk in streets where they may face drunken abuse or where they may have to pick their way through used syringes.
In response to these concerns, the Government have brought forward the proposals in Clause 66 to allow local authorities to adopt "special control provisions". If an authority does adopt these provisions in an HMO registration scheme, it will be empowered to refuse registration (or revoke an existing registration) if the existence of the HMO or the behaviour of its residents has an adverse effect on the amenity or character of the area in which it is situated. In the case of an existing HMO, the local authority will be able to do this only if the person controlling or managing the HMO has failed in some way to take steps to prevent that adverse effect. For new HMOs, the authority can take into account the number of existing HMOs in the vicinity before deciding whether to permit or refuse registration.
Amendments Nos. 215, 216 and 218 remove the references to the existence of the HMO and to behaviour of the residents in the three places in which they occur in Clause 66, and replace them instead by a reference to "the way in which the house is managed". That would have the effect of considerably weakening the proposals. For it is often the behaviour of the residents in, or in the vicinity of, the HMO which causes the adverse impact on the area, and so this is something which the local authority should clearly be able to take into account in exercising its powers. It seems much better to us that these powers should be directed at the insult which neighbours are suffering rather than to some vague term about the quality of management of the HMO which is much more remote from that insult.
The fact that the local authority can take into account "behaviour" will not give it carte blanche to hold landlords responsible for anything which their tenants do. The authority may only act against an existing HMO if there has been some failure by the management to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to deal with any problems arising from the behaviour of the tenants. This will be a matter for local authorities to consider, and also for the courts if a landlord appeals against a local authority's decision. But I should have thought it might be regarded as reasonable for a landlord to deal with, for example, excessive noise or drunkenness arising within the HMO or its vicinity. The landlord could take steps, if necessary by evicting tenants who cause the problem, if the HMO is, to put it colloquially,

1681
ruining the area. General anti-social behaviour elsewhere in the town would not, of course, be within the control of the landlord.
I therefore cannot accept the amendment which has been put forward. By focusing solely on the performance of the manager, without implicitly requiring him to manage the property so as actively to reduce any nuisance caused by the behaviour of its tenants, it considerably weakens the scheme and would not give those local authorities which have been pressing for additional powers the scope they need to deal with the social problems they face.
Similarly, by removing the reference to the "existence" of the HMO, the amendment would prevent local authorities effectively controlling the rate at which new HMOs may be opened. The local authorities most affected by the problems are clear that they want a power of this type. It may give some comfort to the noble Baroness to know that Scarborough has written to my honourable friend to indicate that it would not expect, when it has these powers, to use them in more than five instances, and that number would be reduced even further once the initial weeding out process was concluded. This is not a problem which will need the kind of draconian measures which appear to be feared by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It will be one which, when the powers are there, should, we hope, fade away.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: It seems to me that this is a question of whether one requires the management of an HMO to control the tenant or one says that one will not allow these tenants in the area because they will create problems and a bad situation. I suggest that one of the risks in looking at the two extremes, if I may call them that, is that one runs the risk of trying to get the manager of an HMO to control the behaviour of the tenants which has nothing to do with where they live but with the behaviour outside in the street and in the community, which are not amenable to decisions by the manager. There is also the risk of pointing the finger at the tenants for bad behaviour and saying, "If you have HMOs you will have bad people here and it will be very difficult for people living in the community".
I do not want to digress too much, but it is rather like the discussion we had the other day about unemployment and crime. While it is wrong to blame an individual unemployed person for being a criminal, which he is not, one needs to recognise that if there is a high proportion of unemployment in society there is a commensurate increase in crime. There should be enough sociological evidence to show that if one has a density of HMOs in a particular area, there is a consequent risk of disturbances in the community and anti-social behaviour. Therefore, rather than targeting the individual who is living in an HMO and saying, "You are likely to be a bad person who should not be here", we need to ensure that there is not too high a proportion of HMOs in an area which is likely to lead to social problems. It is trying to find some balance in
1682
not blaming the tenants and the managers, but in saying that we all need to consider something which is likely to be problematical.
Lord Lucas: I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that these are provisions which have to be handled with great care and discretion in order not to create the sort of problems he has alluded to.
Baroness Hamwee: I have become rather more alarmed, rather than comforted, about the special control provisions as I have listened to this debate. I know that is not what the noble Lord intended. In general, the question of an area changing is a matter for planning rather than this kind of provision which, as I read it, gives scope for putting the blame in the wrong place or at any rate putting more blame on only some of the people who deserve it.
As I have said, the local authorities have power to control the poor management of HMOs. They can use the control provisions that we have already debated. They can prosecute through management regulations under Section 372 of the 1985 Act. They can remove control from a bad landlord where there is a risk to health, safety and welfare under Section 379 of that Act; and where a property is unfit they can use closing order powers.
To provide in legislation for the existence of a house giving rise to the possibility of applying certain control provisions seems to undermine what the Government have been saying about needing to encourage and support the stock. It may lead to some authorities outlawing HMOs whatever the Minister may say. It may undermine other government initiatives and joint initiatives with voluntary organisations including the use of private rented accommodation by homeless people and the expansion of accommodation under the Rough Sleepers' Initiative and various community care and other initiatives.
The arguments adopted by the Minister appear to lay the blame in the wrong direction. I fear, even more than when I read this clause, that it could be used to pander to some of the less deserving calls for changes in the character of the neighbourhood in order to reverse a movement. It is too late to pursue the matter now, but it will be interesting to come back to this matter and to review, in the light of what the Minister has said—I will read it in Hansard—whether these draconian powers should be allowed to remain in the Bill in quite such an extensive fashion. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 42, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Where the decision of the authority was to impose conditions of registration, the court may direct the authority to grant the application without imposing the conditions or to impose the conditions as varied in such manner as the court may direct.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes a small change to the powers available to the court when an appeal is made against the use of special control

1683
provisions as set out in Clause 66. As presently drafted, the court is allowed to direct the authority to grant the application for registration as made or as varied in such manner as the court may direct. The amendment would additionally provide that the court might, when registration was granted subject to conditions, direct that the authority delete or vary the conditions which the authority had imposed. This change would mean that the powers available to the court on appeal against the use of special control provisions would more closely mirror the appeal procedures in relation to normal control provisions as set out in Clause 65.
I beg to move Amendment No. 217.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 43, line 33, leave out from ("brought") to end of line 36 and insert—
("(b) if a further appeal to the Court of Appeal is brought, a decision on that appeal is given and the period within which an appeal to the House of Lords may be brought expires without any such appeal having been brought, or
(c) if a further appeal to the House of Lords is brought, a decision on that appeal is given confirming the direction (with or without variation).").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 217A. The short point is: what about an appeal to the House of Lords? The Bill provides for appeals to the Court of Appeal. Can the Government comment on appeals stopping at that point?
Lord Lucas: I share the objective of the noble Baroness that an occupancy direction should not bite until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. But it may be that this amendment is unnecessary. An appeal to this House in its judicial capacity is always by leave. If leave is granted by the Court of Appeal that court has power to make an order suspending the effect of the decision or direction which is the subject of the appeal. It also has power to grant a stay until the time for seeking the leave of the House has expired or the case is disposed of where the appeal court has itself refused leave. It is for this reason that when dealing with rights of appeal to the courts housing legislation contains no explicit provision on the face of the statute staying the effect of the decision beyond the decision of the Court of Appeal.
I shall consider whether there is any advantage in having something on the face of the Bill. If so, I shall bring forward an amendment at the next stage. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel sufficiently comforted by those words to enable her to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: For the moment, the explanation of the Minister is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 43, line 48, at end insert—
1684
Special control provisions: guidance to local housing authorities.
("348G.—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to local housing authorities concerning their exercise of special control provisions under this Part.
(2) In drawing up the guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult local housing authorities and other relevant organisations.
(3) In exercising special control provisions under this Part, the authority shall have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1).'"').
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 219 in the names of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The arguments in favour of this particular amendment are similar to those used for Amendment No. 215. However, the solution is slightly different. In Amendment No. 215 we talked about the way in which houses were managed, whereas in Amendment No. 219 the amendment simply requests that the Secretary of State shall issue guidance to local authorities as to how to use these powers. In his reply to Amendment No. 215, the Minister said that local authorities would not be allowed to abuse their powers, for example by way of ethnic cleansing at local level to which the Minister referred. This was based on an example that I had given. However, he did not say by what means local authorities would be prevented from abusing their powers. Amendment No. 219 gives a straightforward model. There would be guidance given by the Secretary of State to which local authorities would have to have regard. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I have considerable sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I accept that the powers available to local authorities under these provisions are considerable. There will be a clear need for them to be exercised with due care and consideration. However, there are a number of safeguards implicit in the legislative provisions setting out the special control conditions and, within those parameters, I think local authorities will be best placed to exercise their discretion in using the powers at their disposal.
There are a number of important points. First, special control provisions will not be available to local housing authorities as a matter of routine. They will be available only when an authority makes out a case for their use to the Secretary of State. At that stage, we shall make guidance available to local authorities on how these special control conditions can be incorporated into a registration scheme, although, as I have said, we shall not formally be issuing a model scheme which incorporates them.
There are important safeguards in relation to the service of an occupancy direction which will require the manager of the HMO to take all necessary steps, within a period not less than 28 days, to bring all tenancies to an end. First, Clause 66 provides that in deciding to make an occupancy direction the local authority shall take into account the interests of the occupants of the house and the person having control of the house as well as the interests of local residents and businesses; in other words, the local authority is required to take a balanced approach.

1685
Secondly, the clause also provides that any person aggrieved by an occupancy direction may appeal against it to the county court. Thirdly, following discussion in Committee in another place, an amendment was brought forward by the Government to provide that the statutory protection of tenure afforded to Rent Act tenants cannot be affected by an occupancy direction. That will prevent the exploitation of the use of special control provisions by landlords to gain vacant possession in these cases.
The special control conditions are designed to deal with particular problems which have arisen in a number of resort areas due to the proliferation of HMOs. It is important that they can be used to deal effectively with those problems; but at the same time the safeguards I have highlighted are designed to prevent them being over-zealously applied by local authorities.
I therefore see no immediate need for the comprehensive further guidance envisaged by this amendment. Of course, the Government will keep under close review the use of these powers and take any further steps necessary if problems occur. That may include the issuing of such further guidance, and the provisions under Clause 74 which allows the Secretary of State to approve codes of practice in relation to those matters would provide for that to be done.
In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his answer. As I understand it, he says that if a local authority applies to use the special control provisions, the Secretary of State would give guidance to the local authority. If I were a local councillor considering the use of those powers I should want to know what the guidance was before I asked to have the powers. It is becoming a little circular. I suspect that local authorities would get to know what was the guidance in a general sense. The Minister is being uncharacteristically difficult about this proposal. Nevertheless, to save time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Information requirements in connection with registration schemes]:
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 45, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) After a scheme is confirmed, the local housing authority shall—

(a) ensure the register of all properties is open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

(b) on request, and on payment of any such reasonable fee as the authority may require, supply copies of the register to any person.".").

The noble Lord said: I welcome the Government's proposal for registration schemes. The new proposals will ensure greater consistency in local authorities' approaches to registration schemes, and the landlords will better understand what is expected of them. Where
1686
a local authority has put a registration scheme in place, landlords must register their HMOs, and local authorities will be able to refuse registration if the HMO is below standard, overcrowded, or if the management arrangements in the HMO are unsatisfactory. It follows, therefore, that those HMOs which have been registered by the local authority will be of an approved satisfactory minimum standard. Good landlords will therefore be encouraged to participate fully in registration schemes as it will be to their commercial advantage to do so. If they are able to demonstrate to tenants that their HMO has been registered and therefore conforms to the minimum standards tenants are more likely to take a room in their property than in another which has not achieved registration. Tenants will also be able to take comfort from the scheme as they will be able to establish with the local authority whether the HMO is registered and, if so, will be reassured about standards.
For the scheme to work effectively, however, it is important that the information concerning registered properties is freely available to landlords and tenants alike. It is not clear that the Bill as currently drafted would require local authorities to publish details of the properties registered under the scheme. It would appear that the only requirement which local authorities currently have under the Bill is to make information about the nature and mechanics of the scheme publicly available, not necessarily the properties listed in the register. If the details of the properties themselves were available it would reinforce the role of the local authority, give reassurance to tenants and give accreditation to landlords of registered properties. That would raise public confidence in the whole scheme and increase transparency.
It is worth noting that both the planning system and the rent register system already operate with open registers and I would encourage the Government, through my amendment, to adopt the same principle with regard to HMO registration schemes. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: We find ourselves in sympathy with my noble friend's amendment but I should like the opportunity to consider the precise wording in further detail and to return to it on Report. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Restriction on notices requiring execution of works]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 46, line 11, leave out ("they consider that").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 223 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 224. I warmly welcome Clause 70 of the Housing Bill, which amends

1687
Section 352 of the Housing Act under which local authorities are empowered to require works to a property to render the premises fit for the number of occupants. Many landlords have found in the past that they have been served with a succession of Section 352 notices at relatively short intervals. That may result from the fact that the standards required by the local authority become more onerous rather than the conditions in the HMOs becoming worse.
Under Clause 70, if an authority serves a notice and the works specified are carried out the local authority may not serve another notice within a five-year period unless the authority considers that there has been a change in circumstances in relation to the property. This new five-year period is important and will give landlords greater certainty with regard to the management of their property and the clause will be welcomed by landlords in the private rented sector as a useful attempt to prevent undue disturbance in the management of HMOs.
My amendment seeks to tighten the drafting of Clause 70 and remove some of the discretion which local authorities will undoubtedly have under the new provision in the Housing Act 1985. As currently drafted, a local authority would be able to serve another notice before the end of the five-year period if there had been any change in circumstances in relation to the premises, however small that change of circumstance might be. It also states that a local authority may serve a notice if it considers that there has been a change in circumstance. That appears to provide plenty of grounds for dispute regarding, first, whether there has been a change of circumstance significant enough to merit a further notice and, secondly, whether the local authority is right to consider that there has been a change of circumstance.
My amendment will mean that only material changes to the property could trigger the possibility of another notice and ensure that the identification of those changes is not restricted to the discretion of the local authority. It will ensure that the new provision in Section 352 of the Housing Act is used on a more objective basis. Without the amendment, over-zealous local authorities may be inclined to serve additional notices where there have been, in their opinion, even insignificant or minor technical changes to the property. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We are content with Clause 70 as it stands. We feel that if the landlord thinks that the relevant change in circumstance is only trivial, he can appeal to the court. A court is likely to use the de minimis principle and uphold the appeal if the change has indeed been insignificant. Under those circumstances, we feel that the proposed changes not only introduce an unacceptable element of uncertainty into the Bill but also achieve nothing.
Lord Gisborough: I thank my noble friend and withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 225:
1688
Page 46, line 14, after ("premises") insert (", the nature of its occupation").
The noble Lord said: There is a very small point at issue here. Under Section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 a local authority can serve notice requiring specific works to render an HMO suitable for the numbers of occupants and the households in occupation. Those requirements enable provision to be made for sufficient and suitable amenities such as toilets, baths and showers, and also to provide adequate means of escape in case of fire or adequate fire precautions.
However, the provisions do not enable the local authorities to allow for changes in occupation of the premises. That seems to be something which may alter quite rapidly over a period of years and certainly within the five-year period stipulated. The amendment would enable the local authority to take into account changes in the nature of the occupancy of the HMO in addition to the other criteria which they can already take into account. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I support the amendment in the light of the amendments which I propose to table later in respect of the special needs of children and young families.
Lord Lucas: It is beyond our imagination to think of any change in the nature of occupation which would not also entail a change to the availability or use of the facilities. Those circumstances are already provided for in the clause as drafted. If the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Northbourne, can envisage anything else, perhaps they will write to me.
Lord Dubs: In the light of the Minister's comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 226:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
PERIOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH AND APPEALS AGAINST NOTICES SERVED
(" .—(1) In section 352(4) of the Housing Act 1985, for "21" substitute "42".
(2) In section 353(1) of the Housing Act 1985, for "21" substitute "42".").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 226 introduces a new clause to the Bill to increase the period of compliance with, or appeal against, notices. Section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 gives local authorities the power to serve a notice on the owner of an HMO requiring works to the property. The notice will specify what works the local authority believes should be carried out to the property. In the notice, the authority must also specify a date by which the works must be commenced. That can be as soon as 21 days after the date of the notice.
During that 21-day period, landlords have an opportunity to lodge an appeal against the notice. My amendment proposes that both those periods should be extended to 42 days to allow landlords sufficient time to assess their position and either commence the works or lodge an appeal.
Twenty-one days is far too short a period for proper consideration of the notice received from the local authority and the works which need doing. It is too short a period in which to obtain estimates and quotations from contractors and to commission the work. It is also too short for proper consideration of the possibility of an appeal against the notice.
The majority of owners of HMOs are private landlords rather than corporate bodies who may be unfamiliar with the complexity of the legislation and may not have access to legal resources. For the average private landlord letting, say, two or three houses on a part-time basis, the receipt of a notice under Section 352 may well be his first encounter with a local authority's housing department. If served with a notice, the landlord would have three weeks in which he would need to read up and become conversant with the law and regulations, consult with lawyers and surveyors, obtain quotations for the works; assess the validity of the notice, consider the possibility of an appeal, and, perhaps more importantly, attempt to discuss the issue and negotiate with the local authority environmental health officers. Therefore, it is appropriate that the limits in question should be extended to 42 days. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I accept that it would be quite unreasonable in nearly all cases for landlords to receive an enforcement notice without any prior warning and then have only a three-week period in which to take the necessary steps. The reason for such a tight time limit is that, if the property is in such a state of disrepair that the tenants' welfare is at risk, the authority must be in a position to demand urgent action. It is general practice for local authorities to allow much longer.
When we come to deal with Amendment No. 240 we shall be looking at some provisions which I believe will ameliorate the situation. That amendment will require a local authority to give written notice of its intentions to serve an enforcement notice under Section 352 or Section 372 of the 1985 Act and to hear representations before any formal enforcement action can commence. That would mean that taking formal enforcement action by serving a Section 352 notice would only occur as a last resort or when urgent action is necessary to protect the safety or welfare of the occupants of an HMO. Under those circumstances, when that amendment is incorporated, I believe that my noble friend Lord Gisborough should find the legislation agreeable to him.
Lord Gisborough: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. On the face of it, it would seem that that would be satisfactory. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Duty to keep premises fit for number of occupants]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 47, line 21, at end insert ("which may expose any tenant or other occupant of the premises, or any other person, to risks to their health or safety").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 227 I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 229, 231 and 232.
Clause 72 is a key part of the Government's package of measures to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation. Under the clause, which amends the Housing Act 1985, landlords will be under a general duty of care to ensure that they manage their properties in such a way as to prevent the necessity for the service of a Section 352 notice.
Breach of that general duty of care will, under the Government's proposals, be a criminal offence. That is a quite wide-ranging and, some might say, draconian new power which local authorities are being given. Some landlords have expressed considerable unease at this new duty of care, not because they are unwilling to promote good standards in their properties but rather because they fear that they may be criminalised for trivial matters, or in respect of things which are outside their control. Therefore, we must ensure that there are appropriate safeguards to ensure that that power is not abused.
Amendment No. 227 seeks to ensure that a landlord could only be prosecuted for a breach of his duty of care where there is an actual risk to the health or safety of any person in the premises and that circumstances falling short of a threat to health and safety would not put the landlord in breach of the duty of care. The amendment is particularly important when one considers that landlords have been threatened in the past with Section 352 notices for relatively trivial matters, such as a requirement that each unit in an HMO should be provided with its own refrigerator and individual wash-hand basins, even though such facilities had not been requested by the tenant.
The duty of care is intended to prevent landlords from supplying unsafe or unhealthy accommodation. There is a danger, however, that the duty of care will go further than this and include matters which go beyond health and safety and are much more to do with amenity standards. Is it right, for instance, that a landlord might face a £5,000 fine because a tenant's partner has moved into the property, possibly without the landlord's consent and as a result, the house should now, according to the local authority, have three lavatories rather than two because the number of residents has increased by one? The duty of care must not be so severe as to discourage prudent law abiding landlords from having anything to do with residential letting, leaving only the cowboys who will ignore the law, whatever legislation the Government put in place.
Amendment No. 229 further amends the duty of care so that a landlord who had breached the duty of care but had a reasonable excuse for doing so would not be prosecuted. In all these issues we must remember that

1691
housing is of an infinitely variable character and form. This amendment makes allowance for the practicalities of carrying out work under particular circumstances. For instance, a landlord may wish to enter the premises to carry out works to ensure that he is not in breach of his duty of care but finds that the tenant is being obstructive and is refusing access to the property. I have experienced that. It would be quite unreasonable if a landlord were to be penalised for failing to comply with the general duty of care when matters were beyond his control. Many HMOs are let to students who may ask that the landlord does not carry out work to the property during term time. It would be unreasonable of the landlord to ignore this request and to do so may leave him open to a charge of harassment. On the other hand, he may be obliged to ignore his tenants' request because if he does not carry out work to the property he would find himself in breach of the general duty of care.
My amendment is not intended to be a let out for those landlords who have no intention of bringing their property up to a required standard. It will, however, allow for unforeseen circumstances to be taken into account. It is worth remembering that when the Bill was originally drafted the landlord was only deemed to have committed an offence if he had knowingly failed to comply with the duty of care. The "knowingly" provision was removed from the Bill at the Committee stage in another place. The Government suggested, however, that an alternative form of words should be put in its place. That has not happened. My amendment suggests that those words should be, fails to comply "without reasonable excuse". I hope the Government will be able to adopt this as an appropriate compromise.
When considering whether a landlord is in breach of the duty of care, Amendment No. 232 will ensure that the local authority can have regard to all the circumstances of the particular case and take account of the infinitely variable characteristics of buildings and circumstances in the private rented sector. In particular, the local authority in considering whether there has been a breach of the duty of care will be able to look at the physical nature of the building and the cost of remedial work. It will ensure that where there are inherent but reasonable obstacles to meeting the standard, the duty of care may not necessarily be breached. The local authority may want to consider, for example, circumstances where the house is shortly to be demolished; houses about to undergo a change of use; houses where the work for good reasons cannot be undertaken for the moment; and houses that nearly meet the requirements but cannot be further upgraded without disproportionate expenditure or disruption. In all of these cases it would be unreasonable for a local authority to require extensive works to the property. My amendment would ensure that the duty of care would be implemented flexibly and with discretion.
Amendment No. 231 seeks to ensure that landlords have adequate advice about their new duties in order that they are able to perform them economically and promptly. Under my amendment local authorities would be required to provide information to assist landlords with their duties. The local authority is in a good
1692
position to provide this as its officers are already in possession of extensive specialist experience in the field, and the advice required by my amendment could be given by local authorities' existing environmental health departments. Without the amendment there is danger that the new duty of care will be seen as an unreasonable and intolerable burden. The requirement to provide landlords with advice should foster a greater spirit of co-operation, and break down some of the barriers which currently exist between landlords and local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I had not intended to speak because this is not the section of the Bill in which I am most closely involved. However, I cannot resist asking the Government to reject Amendment No. 227.
Some of the worst housing that exists is at the bottom end of the HMO sector. Local authorities' powers are still often too modest and too hard to enforce to ensure that appropriate accommodation is provided for people for whom it is home. Any efforts to dilute already not very strong powers would be greatly regretted.
I refer, for example, to the notion that it is not the landlord's fault if there are insufficient toilets because additional people have arrived. The whole point of having standards is to ensure that there is adequate sanitation, water supply, safe storage, fire protections, lighting, safety on the stairs, and such considerations. It is hard enough now for local authorities and environmental health officers to make those standards stick. If the Committee were minded to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, the task would be made even more difficult and the housing conditions for many people would become even poorer.
Lord Lucas: I am sure that the noble Baroness realises that we accept only Opposition amendments apart from our own. It would be bad for morale on our Back Benches if we were to encourage them by accepting their amendments!
However, I hope that I can give my noble friend some comfort. I do not believe that Amendment No. 227 takes us beyond what the Government already propose. The duty on landlords under Clause 72 is framed by providing that the landlord must prevent standards falling in the HMO to a point where the local authority could serve an enforcement notice. But authorities can only do that if they feel that the facilities in the property relating to cooking, washing, sanitation or fire safety are not reasonably suitable for the number of persons occupying the property. I am sure that the whole Committee would agree that if any of those circumstances occurred then the tenant's health or safety could arguably be at risk.
Amendment No. 229 modifies the offence in relation to the new landlord's duty by providing that an offence would occur only if the landlord failed to comply with the duty without reasonable excuse. I have several points to make. First, the duty is already qualified by stating that the landlord should take only such steps as are reasonably practicable to comply with the code.

1693
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the code of practice which can be approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 74 will provide guidance to the landlord on how to comply with this duty. The code will be evidential in a court of law which means that if a prosecution is brought for breach of the duty, then the code shall be admissible in evidence. But it will be free for either party to produce reasons for departure from the code. So there is no need to qualify the criminal offence under the duty in Clause 72 as proposed by the amendment. The same argument applies to Amendment No. 232.
There is a further point. The Government's intention is that the proposed code of practice, while setting out a new consistent national standard for HMOs, should not be over-prescriptive concerning what must be done in each case. The aim will be for a goal-based code with recommended action being focused only on the high risk properties. HMOs with a lower risk should be subject to a lighter touch in relation to enforcement procedures. It will not be easy to achieve such an aim, but, if successful, I think many of my noble friend's concerns and those of many landlords will be met.
Finally, Amendment No. 231 requires that local authorities should be required to publicise the duty and advise landlords how they can carry it out. My response again relates to the HMO code of practice which the Government propose to make and which will set out the standards necessary to fulfil the duty. There is specific provision in Clause 74(2)(a) which states that the Secretary of State should only approve a code if he considers that it has been published in such a manner that it has been brought to the attention of those likely to be affected by it. So I can assure my noble friend of two things: first, that when the HMO code of practice is published, arrangements will be put in place for it to be widely publicised; and, secondly, that the landlord's new duty under Clause 72 will not be brought into force until a reasonable time after the code is available so that landlords have time to study it and take the necessary action to improve their properties.
I hope that these assurances are sufficient to persuade my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. It will be read by my advisers and we will see where we go from there. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 230:
Page 47, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to ensure that—

(a) he publicises the duty under this section nationally to persons having control of houses in multiple occupation and to persons managing houses in multiple occupation; and

1694

(b) he consults local housing authorities to ensure that they publicise the duty under this section to persons having control of houses in multiple occupation and to persons managing houses in multiple occupation in their districts."").

The noble Lord said: In the light of the assurances that the Minister gave on earlier amendments, I shall not move Amendment No. 230.
[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 231 and 232 not moved.]
Clause 72 agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 233:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
GAS APPLIANCES: DUTY OF OWNER OF APPLIANCE
(". After section 368 of the Housing Act 1985 insert—
"Gas appliances: duty of owner of appliance.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the person who owns a gas appliance or any installation pipework, chimney or flue installed in a house in multiple occupation or any part of it let by him, to ensure that a certificate showing safe installation, maintenance and chimney and flue cleaning shall be given to the tenant a reasonable time before he signs the tenancy agreement and every twelve months thereafter during the term of that tenancy.
(2) The aforesaid certificate shall specify the name, address and, where it is gas work, the CORGI registration number of the person who did the relevant work and the date the work was done.'"').
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 233 is grouped with Amendment No. 234. Both are in the names of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The amendments propose new clauses to be inserted in the Housing Act 1985 dealing with gas appliances. They involve in one case the duties of the owner of the appliance and in the other of the person managing or having control of the house in which the appliance is situated.
The first amendment places a duty on the owner of an HMO to provide a prospective tenant with a certificate showing the safe installation and maintenance of gas appliances and of installation pipework, chimneys or flues before a tenancy starts and annually thereafter. This would reverse the current position under the relevant gas safety regulations whereby a tenant can request written information from the landlord, but the regulations are dependent on that request. Subsection (2) provides for the particulars in the certificate and requires the landlord to show that the engineer who checked the appliances was properly qualified to do so.
We have referred, more briefly perhaps than the subject requires, to a number of deaths every year in the home as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning caused by faulty appliances. Many of the deaths occur in private rented accommodation. Of the deaths in private rented accommodation, a disproportionate number—perhaps I may put it that way without seeking again to trade figures with the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough—take place in HMOs.
As I said on an earlier amendment, there have been a number of tragic deaths. Carbon monoxide poisoning is particularly insidious. It is not easy—it may be impossible—to detect the problem and anticipate it.
The Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1994 depend on the tenant requesting evidence. As Members of the Committee, in particular the right reverend Prelate, have said, the tenants in properties affected are in the worst possible position to seek such evidence. They do not have the strength that financial means would give them; they do not wish to put their security at risk.
It is late and the seriousness of the position will speak more strongly than I can of the need for these or similar amendments to ensure that there is a better enforced regime. Although I have spoken briefly, I hope that the Committee will accept that that should not be taken to indicate that I do not regard it as a serious matter. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I support Amendments Nos. 233 and 234. It might save the Committee's time if I also speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 235 and 236, which deal with a similar point but relate not to gas appliances but to appliances powered by combustible fuel—that is, wood, oil, gas, peat or solid fuel. The principle is the same as in Amendments Nos. 233 and 234.
Lord Gisborough: I support the principle of the amendment. A great number of deaths are caused by faulty gas appliances. I am advised that it is now possible to have the equivalent of an electrical fuse box in the gas industry. Such a system would be a great asset and would save a lot of lives.
Lord Lucas: We are of one mind with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, except that we wish to see these changes made through the gas safety installation and use regulations. We accept what the noble Baroness said about the weakness of those regulations in requiring tenants to complain. That will be changed. The Health and Safety Commission has agreed to bring forward an urgent amendment on the lines proposed and intends to issue a consultative document in July with the intention of introducing new regulations to take effect around the end of October. I hope that will be sufficient for the noble Baroness.
Lady Hamwee: For once I am very happy to rely on regulations. I am sorry that the matter requires recognition, but glad that the Government have recognised it.
Lord Lucas: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, since the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, spoke to the following group of amendments, perhaps I might reply to those too.
This is clearly an area of concern. A coal-burning fire does not present the same magnitude of problems as a gas fire generally. Very few of them blow buildings up. Clearly, however, a number of people die every year as a result of the burning of other fuels. We know from government research that that is so. We have some information about the types of fuel and the part of the system that is involved in such accidents. However, we
1696
do not know the underlying cause of the deaths—whether it is, for example, poor insulation in the first place, poor maintenance, lack of any maintenance, abuse, or some other cause.
We do not know for sure how many such accidents occur in HMOs or in the wider rented sector; nor do we know whether legislation in this area would be appropriate or effective. The Government will undertake further research to determine the size and nature of the risks. When we have completed that research, we will respond to it appropriately.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his very helpful reply.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 234 to 237 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 238:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO LIMIT NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS IN HOUSE: SUPPLEMENTARY
(". In section 354 of the Housing Act 1985, at the end insert—
"(8) A direction under this section is a local land charge."").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Williams and Elvel and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The amendment has to do with local land charges and directions that can be made under Section 354 of the Housing Act 1985. If there is a change in ownership, by inserting this stipulation regarding a local land charge, that charge will stay with the premises should there be a new owner. A new landlord would therefore be made fully aware of all legal obligations attaching to the property before such a purchase was made. The new landlord would therefore either have to accept the implications of what was in the local land charge or could decline to purchase the property. In that way there would be a safeguard as to the continuity of this provision when property changed hands from one landlord to another.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord explained his amendment with great eloquence. I cannot in any way improve on what he said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Means of escape from fire]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): If Amendment No. 238A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 239.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 238A:
Page 47, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 48 and insert—
("(3) The local housing authority shall consult, and have regard to the views of, the fire authority concerned before exercising any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) and shall include the views of the fire authority in any notice issued under section 366.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the consultation process with the fire authority is one which recognises the

1697
first-hand knowledge and experience of fire officers in all aspects of fire safety and response to fire and other emergencies. If the Minister can give me assurances as to the extent of the consultation, that will be a welcome response to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: It goes without saying that we would expect the local authority to take the views of the fire authority on board before taking any action. In view of other circumstances in the property, it may not, however, always be appropriate for the local authority to adopt exactly the solutions recommended by the fire authority; nor could we support them, including the views of the fire authority, in any notice issued under Section 352. Although we do not anticipate many cases where the local authority would serve a notice with different requirements, it could lead to confusion for the recipient if the works required were not exactly the same as those recommended by the fire authority.
Safety is, of course, paramount. We want to ensure that fire authorities are fully aware of the high risk of HMO properties in their areas. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I understand the point about the difficulty of including the views in notices. However, I was not suggesting that the Government took every point that was made by the fire authority but that they had regard to them, which is not quite the same. However, having heard the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 48, line 3, at end insert ("and
(b) after "different areas, and" insert—
"(aa) in particular, shall apply the duty under subsection (2) to houses in multiple occupation which are three or more storeys in height."").
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment is in regard to Section 365 of the 1985 Housing Act. That section gives the Secretary of State the power to specify HMOs towards which local housing authorities have a duty to require that landlords provide adequate means of escape from fire and other fire precautions. The amendment is to provide that all HMOs with three or more storeys would be covered.
I could give to the Committee details of different types of HMOs and houses which would be covered by this provision. I do not believe that I should win Brownie points by reading those details on to the record at this hour. However, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain to the Committee what he has in mind with regard to the scope of the extended duty and the timetable for consultation.
I understand that the Government indicated in another place that they are to undertake research into fire risks in HMOs. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the
1698
Committee what timetable would apply to that and whether the research to be undertaken will inform the scope of the extended duty. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We have indicated that we would wish to make the duty apply to all HMOs which would be potentially registrable if a local authority were to adopt the department's model registration scheme, providing that the property had three storeys or more. But we want to firm up on the precise coverage of the duty only when the consultation we have promised on this Section 365 order and on our model registration schemes are complete.
Amendment No. 239, if I have understood it correctly, would place a requirement on the face of the legislation to ensure that every HMO with three or more storeys was covered by any new order under Section 365.
We wish to be able to consider excluding such categories as university halls of residence, subject to what may emerge in the consultation. We therefore prefer the freedoms we have under the Bill but quite clearly we are thinking along the same lines as the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not know whether the Minister can indicate the timing that is likely to apply to the consultation.
Lord Lucas: I do not immediately have any answers as to the timing of the consultation period. It is a matter of prime importance because on it rests the whole HMO scheme. The noble Baroness also asks about the timing of the research. That will start later in the year and will take a year or two as we have to study individual cases.
Baroness Hamwee: I suspect therefore that we shall return to the subject when we see the result of the research. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 240:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
WORKS NOTICES: IMPROVEMENT OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
(". After section 377 of the Housing Act 1985 insert—
"Works notices: improvement of enforcement procedures.
377A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a local housing authority shall act as specified in the order before serving a works notice.
In this section a "works notice" means a notice under section 352 or 372 (notices requiring the execution of works).
(2) An order under this section may provide that the authority—

(a) shall as soon as practicable give to the person on whom the works notice is to be served a written notice which satisfies the requirements of subsection (3); and

(b) shall not serve the works notice until after the end of such period beginning with the giving of a notice which satisfies the requirements of subsection (3) as may be determined by or under the order.

1699
(3) A notice satisfies the requirements of this subsection if it—

(a) states the works which in the authority's opinion should be undertaken, and explains why and within what period;

(b) explains the grounds on which it appears to the authority that the works notice might be served;

(c) states the type of works notice which is to be served, the consequences of serving it and whether there is a right to make representations before, or a right of appeal against, the serving of it.

(4) An order under this section may also provide that, before the authority serves the works notice on any person, they—

(a) shall give to that person a written notice stating—

(i) that they are considering serving the works notice and the reasons why they are considering serving the notice; and

(ii) that the person may, within a period specified in the written notice, make written representations to them or, if the person so requests, make oral representations to them in the presence of a person determined by or under the order; and

(b) shall consider any representations which are duly made and not withdrawn.

(5) An order under this section may in particular—

(a) make provision as to the consequences of any failure to comply with a provision made by the order;

(b) contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate (including provisions modifying enactments relating to the periods within which proceedings must be brought).

(6) An order under this section—

(a) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case (including different provision for different areas), and

(b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) Nothing in any order under this section shall—

(a) preclude a local housing authority from serving a works notice on any person, or from requiring any person to take immediate remedial action to avoid a works notice being served on him, in any case where it appears to them to be necessary to serve such a notice or impose such a requirement; or

(b) require such an authority to disclose any information the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest".").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 240 I hope to speak to it at slightly less length than the amendment.
This amendment meets a commitment given by David Curry, the housing Minister in another place last November, to reflect the principles of enforcement set out in Section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It introduces a new clause providing for the Secretary of State to make an order to improve the procedures for enforcement of amenity or safety standards, or management standards under Part XI of the Housing Act 1985. Those new procedures are designed to improve the transparency, fairness and consistency of enforcement processes.
The main effect of a deregulation order made under this clause would be to allow the existing enforcement procedures to be modified so as to require a local authority to give written notice of its intentions to serve an enforcement notice under Sections 352 or 372 of the 1985 Act, and to hear representations before any formal enforcement action in instigated.
The new enforcement procedures will meet the concerns of some HMO landlords who, when faced with a notice under Sections 352 or 372, have no other recourse than to appeal within 21 days to the county court if they do not think the works demanded are necessary or wholly appropriate—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. We believe that formal action should always be looked on as a last resort, and by modifying the procedures of enforcement action in the way provided for by an order under this clause it will help local authorities to reach sensible decisions in consultation with HMO landlords, and ensure that formal enforcement action is only taken where absolutely necessary. I realise that in many areas local authorities have already adopted such a procedure, and have built up good working relations with HMO landlords. This amendment will ensure that such enforcement practice is adopted universally.
We are aware, however, that there are occasions when a local authority needs to take urgent action to protect the safety or welfare of the occupants of a property. Nothing in an order made under this new clause will prevent an authority from taking immediate enforcement action in any case where they believe it is necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 241:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
CONTROL ORDERS: SUPPLEMENTARY
(".—(1) In section 379 of the Housing Act 1985 (making of control order), at the end insert—
"(5) Within eight weeks of the date of service of the control order, the local housing authority shall serve on the dispossessed proprietor notice of their intention to—

(a) retain the control order;

(b) revoke the control order; or

(c) make a compulsory purchase order.

(6) Where the authority have exercised their powers under subsection (5) above, the dispossessed proprietor may appeal within twenty-one days to the county court on the grounds that the decision of the local authority was unreasonable."
(2) In subsection (2) of section 384 of the Housing Act 1985 (appeal against control order), for the words "local authority serve a copy of a management scheme relating to the house in accordance with section 386, or such longer period as the authority may in writing allow"substitute the words "control order was made and served".
(3) For section 386 of the Housing Act 1985 (duty to prepare management scheme), substitute—
"Management accounts etc.
386.—(1) After a control order has been made, the local housing authority shall maintain management accounts which record income and expenditure in respect of the property.
(2) The authority shall balance such accounts at six monthly intervals, and at the point of revocation of the control order, and shall pay any surpluses to the dispossessed proprietor.

1701
(3) In the event of any deficit on an account, the local housing authority shall seek payment from the dispossessed proprietor and shall have the powers conferred by Schedule 10 to this Act where accounts are not settled."
(4) Section 389 of the Housing Act 1985 (compensation payable to dispossessed proprietor) shall cease to have effect.
(5) In Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, Part I (management schemes) and Part II (payment of compensation to dispossessed proprietor) shall cease to have effect.
(6) In Part III of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, for paragraph 16(1) substitute—
"16.—(1) When a control order ceases to have effect, a final balance shall be struck in the management accounts.
(2) Where such balance is—

(a) in surplus, it shall be paid to the dispossessed proprietor, and

(b) in deficit, it shall be recoverable from the dispossessed proprietor in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 10 to this Act."

(7) In Part III of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, for paragraph 18 substitute—
"18. If a control order is revoked by the county court on an appeal against the order, the local housing authority shall strike a final balance in the management accounts and shall deal with such surpluses or deficits as may exist as set out in paragraph 16."
(8) In Part IV of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, for paragraph 22 substitute—
"22. The provisions of this Part of this Schedule apply where the local housing authority make a control order with respect to a house, and within eight weeks of the making of that order determine to make a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of the house."
(9) In Part IV of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, paragraph 23 shall cease to have effect.
(10) In Part IV of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, for paragraph 25 substitute—
"25.—(1) Where a control order ceases to have effect by virtue of paragraph 24, the local housing authority shall pay to the dispossessed proprietor such surplus on management account as may have accrued.
(2) Where any deficit on account exists, the provisions of Schedule I0 to this Act relating to recovery of expenses shall apply."
(11) In Part IV of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, paragraph 26 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 241 in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, deals with control orders, which are the strongest powers available to local authorities to deal with dangerous houses in multiple occupation. Because those powers are particularly strong ones, the amendment concerns itself with a number of points of detail. The difficulty is that there have been changes to the rented sector over the years and one of the areas of particular concern has been houses in multiple occupation.
Perhaps I may set out briefly what the amendment will do. It introduces a new requirement for a local authority to reach a decision within eight weeks of making a control order on its future proposals for what it wants to do with the property. Secondly, it will simplify procedures by substituting a requirement for the local authority to make a management scheme with a requirement merely to maintain management accounts. Thirdly, it will streamline the final accounting methods when the new management accounts are closed. Fourthly, it will streamline the arrangements when a
1702
control order is ended following confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. The amendment helps in the way in which control orders are exercised by local authorities. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I have listened with interest to the noble Lord's arguments. I am aware that the current system seems rather bureaucratic and can be complex to administer. The Committee will appreciate, however, that the power to make a control order is the most drastic power available to a local authority. We think it is correct that it should require careful consideration before it is embarked on and fastidious handling while the order is in place. After all, a local authority is in effect confiscating an asset and running it on behalf of the owner. Control orders are not often used but they provide an essential last resort.
The noble Lord's amendment suggests radical changes to the control order provisions. First, it seeks to abolish the requirement on a local authority to prepare a management scheme shortly after it makes a control order. Under existing legislation, as part of a management scheme, a local authority must list the works it intends to carry out to the property and the owner has a right to appeal if he considers that those are excessive or unreasonable. Removing this right of appeal would be unfair to an HMO owner who, in the long run, will have to pay for any works which are carried out.
The amendment also removes the automatic right of the owner to receive an amount of compensation every three months. Surpluses, to which the amendment refers, are most unlikely to accrue if there are major works. The owner may well have obligations such as a mortgage to keep up on the property. It would be totally unacceptable, therefore, to remove his source of income when the authority is not prepared to buy the property. In the long run, a local authority can still recover compensation payments when the control order ceases.
For these reasons we are unable to accept the major elements of the noble Lord's amendment. There is one aspect, however, about which we are happy to think further. I refer to the provision to stretch the time limit from four to eight weeks, which would give the local authority a more sensible deadline in which to decide what is the best way forward. We should like to reflect on this point. I hope that, with that very small crumb of comfort and the recognition that giving in to three Opposition amendments in a day without a murmur is an extraordinary event, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I hope it is the merit of the Opposition amendments rather than the quantity which influences the Minister's reaction to them. I should like to read in Hansard what the Minister said and reflect more fully on his response to the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 [Codes of practice]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 48, line 43, at end insert—
("Codes of practice: disputes.
395B. Where the Secretary of State has under section 395A approved a code or codes of practice giving guidance on the requirements of subsection (1A) of section 352 or on the duties referred to in section 353A if—

(a) a dispute arises between a local housing authority and the person having control of a house subject to the provisions of such a code or codes—

(i) as to whether the house complies with the requirements of the code of practice, or

(ii) as to whether works being carried out or proposed to be carried out will enable the house to achieve compliance with the code; and

(b) the local housing authority has given notice that it is minded to issue a notice under section 352, the matter may, at the request of the person having control, be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.".").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 242 relates to the proposed code of practice on standards in HMOs. My amendment proposes that there should be an appeal mechanism where disputes arise between landlord and local authority over interpretations of the code. As the Bill is currently drafted, if there were a dispute over the requirements of the code, there is no mechanism for resolving that dispute other than the local authority serving a Section 352 notice requiring works, and the landlord appealing through the county court against that notice.
This strikes me as being particularly unsatisfactory. County courts are ill-equipped to deal with, and make judgments on, technical matters relating to building standards. My amendment to the Bill seeks to ensure that there is a simple, quick and cost-effective way of resolving disputes between landlords and local authorities over the interpretation of the code. Planning applications, building controls and fair rent determinations all have appeal procedures that do not involve the court system.
I know that organisations as diverse as the British Property Federation and the National Federation of Housing Associations favour an alternative approach to dealing with disputes of this type.
In my amendment I have suggested that these disputes should be resolved by reference to the Secretary of State. Such an appeal system would encourage a fair, reasonable and consistent interpretation of the code both within individual authorities and between different authorities. Moreover, the very fact that an appeal procedure was in place would encourage both landlords and local authorities to have a constructive and co-operative approach to the implementation of the code of practice and the improvement of standards in HMOs in their areas.
It may be that an appeal to the Secretary of State is not the most appropriate mechanism. The National Federation of Housing Associations has suggested that the model appeals mechanism introduced by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 should be
1704
used in respect of the code of practice and that might provide a suitable alternative appeal mechanism. It would also be consistent with the Government's original proposal that the local authorities' powers should be implemented in line with the model enforcement regime recommended by Section 5 of that Act. This proposal seems, however, not now to feature in the Bill.
Whichever mechanism is deemed most appropriate, I would urge the Government to give very careful consideration to the possibility of approving an appeals system that does not involve the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: As I believe my noble friend Lord Gisborough has realised, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is not at all amused at the thought of having to spend his time in the way that my noble friend suggests that he should. My right honourable friend believes, and I think quite rightly, that his input should be restricted to the code of practice that he will have to approve using powers under Clause 74. That code will be evidential in court proceedings. We believe that it is appropriate for the court to decide on individual cases which are brought before it. With that thin comfort I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I thank my noble friend for that answer which does not answer the fact that planning applications and building controls do not involve the court system. However, it is too late to dispute it now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Minor amendments]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 242A:
Page 49, line 30, at end insert ("or unless the individual is to take up residence in order to care for a person residing in it who requires such assistance.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 76 deals with Section 355(1) of the Housing Act 1985, which is a direction limiting the number of occupants. This amendment proposes that in the case of a carer who comes into the premises to care for someone who already resides there and who needs assistance, the carer is deemed not to exist for the purposes of calculating the number of occupants. I imagine that the number of times when this situation arises must be very limited indeed and these matters are always something of a balance. It has been put to me that in this case the interests of the individual requiring care should override the general proposition. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We feel that if premises are suitable for only 10 people then they are suitable for only 10 people. If one introduced an eleventh to care for one of the others the person being cared for might gain some net benefit, but only at the expense of other residents' convenience and, more importantly, safety. We believe

1705
that the limits on the population in HMOs are important and should be respected, although we understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I believe that this is a matter of balance, and sometimes it is a difficult balance. I will not pursue the matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed.
Clause 77 agreed.
[Amendment No.242B not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
1706
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Hospitals: Building and Running Costs
  Hospitals: Building and Running Costs
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: Investigation
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: Investigation
  BSE: Confirmed Cases
  BSE: Confirmed Cases
  BSE and Warble Fly Treatment: Investigation
  BSE and Warble Fly Treatment: Investigation
  Agriculture Council, 3rd-4th June
  Agriculture Council, 3rd-4th June
  Smarden Incident: Groundwater Testing
  Smarden Incident: Groundwater Testing
  Europe: Human Rights
  Europe: Human Rights
  EC Human Rights Commission Report: Greece v UK
  EC Human Rights Commission Report: Greece v UK
  Turkey: Trial of 98 Intellectuals
  Turkey: Trial of 98 Intellectuals
  Baring Sea: Radioactive Waste
  Baring Sea: Radioactive Waste
  Chechnya: Detainees
  Chechnya: Detainees
  Council of Europe: Local Government Charter
  Council of Europe: Local Government Charter
  Water Reservoirs: Storage Capacity
  Water Reservoirs: Storage Capacity
  Heathrow Airport: Tunnels
  Heathrow Airport: Tunnels
  Heathrow Express Project
  Heathrow Express Project
  Class 92 Locomotives: Track Work Funding
  Class 92 Locomotives: Track Work Funding
  Freight Facilities Grants: NAO Review
  Freight Facilities Grants: NAO Review