Sitting of 17 June 1996

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

  CHILD CARE PROCEDURES AND PRACTICE IN NORTH WALES
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there shall be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Examination Team on Child Care Procedures and Practice in North Wales.—[Mr. Hague.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Revenue Support Grant
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the outturn of the 1996–97 revenue support grant settlement. [31646]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Welsh local authorities and police authorities have budgeted for net revenue expenditure of £2,934 million in 1996–97. It is too early to estimate what actual expenditure will be.
    Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State must be aware that Neath and Port Talbot council has suffered unique discrimination at the hands of the Welsh Office's revenue support allocation. How can he justify the fact that one half of former West Glamorgan, Swansea, has levied a 4.5 per cent. council tax increase whereas, before damping, Neath and Port Talbot, the other half, levied 45 per cent.—nearly 10 times as much? How can he justify the fact that Trebanos village is split down the middle, and one side pays £90 more? In March, both sides were paying exactly the same. He must intervene. Responsibility does not lie with the council. It has inherited a standard of service, which has been agreed by the Welsh Office, and is having to carry the can for the Welsh Office's discriminatory settlement. Surely he should intervene and prevent catastrophe next year, if not this.
    Mr. Hague: The settlement is not discriminatory, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The council tax damping schemes that I have introduced are designed to reduce the effect of discrepancies such as the one he described. The effect is that no council tax increase in Wales can be more than 25 per cent. in the current year. A total of £3.7 million of council tax reduction grant has gone
    502
    to Neath and Port Talbot. Its standard spending assessment per capita is higher than the Welsh average, so it would not be fair to say that it has suffered unique discrimination.
    Mr. Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject.
    Madam Speaker: In that case, we shall move on.

    Business Rates
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received with regard to the consultation document his Department published in May on the level of business rates on shop, post office and small businesses in rural Wales; and if he will make a statement. [31647]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): There have been four responses to the consultation, including one from the hon. Gentleman. The consultation period runs until 21 June.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the importance of the matter to small businesses and shops in rural Wales, why has there been only a five-week consultation period? Why have organisations that represent people who live in rural Wales, such as the young farmers clubs, Merched y Wawr and women's institutes, not been invited to comment? Will the Minister give an assurance that, in view of the inconsistencies in the definition of rural area, whereby areas such as Ruabon, Llanwern, and Margam are defined as rural, but areas such as Llanrug, Felinheli, and Criccieth are not—which must be wrong—he will look at the definition again and ensure that businesses such as bakeries and rural pharmacies are included in the provisions so that they have a future in rural Wales?
    Mr. Jones: The original list of consultees was extensive. The hon. Gentleman will agree that, in view of all the publicity for the rural White Paper, it would be surprising if any group that wanted to put forward its opinion was not aware of the matter. Any group that has sought a copy of the document will have been provided with one by the Welsh Office.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, our proposals envisage covering 519 communities—84 per cent. of the land area of Wales. In addition to the definition that we have used, which is the only accepted definition that originates from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we propose to define a further 17 appropriate communities, which would bring in settlements such as Newcastle Emlyn, Usk and Bala. I am aware of the settlements that he mentioned, and we will consider them as part of the consultation process, but no other respondent has made a similar point.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the 50 per cent. relief scheme for shops and post offices will be widely welcomed throughout Wales, covering, as it does, 84 per cent. of the land area? Has he had the full endorsement of the Opposition parties or are they, as I suspect, about to hijack the proposal for electioneering

    503
    purposes? Will he confirm that some thousands of small businesses in Wales already receive transitional relief as a result of the revaluation last year?
    Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, especially about the welcome that has been given to the proposals. He is too optimistic in imagining that we will hear much about policy from the Opposition. The principal Opposition party is most nervous about giving any details about anything until it has become well-established Conservative policy. I doubt whether Plaid Cymru's policy of local income tax and extra corporation tax will sit at all well with small businesses in Wales.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: When he analyses the responses to the consultation, will the Minister examine the undoubted decline in private ownership of shops in towns and villages in rural Wales? Does he recognise that, once the consultation is completed, the introduction of rate relief, especially for village post offices, is urgent, because they continue to close and villages are losing their services?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I are of like mind about the importance and desirability of making progress on that matter. He will welcome our latest planning guidance. which is equally relevant to village shops and other rural businesses, and in which we have introduced a sequential test for local authorities when they consider out-of-town shopping developments. They should consider in-town, edge-of-town and then out-of-town developments. That is much more succinct than the extant guidance.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that small shops, small post offices and small businesses are the sorts of businesses that would be badly hit by a national minimum wage?
    Mr. Jones: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He makes that point most appropriately. Small businesses in Wales are worried, as are the people whom they employ. They know that the Opposition's policy of a minimum wage and the social chapter could increase unemployment in Wales by between 40,000 and 80,000, which, at the top end, would almost double unemployment in Wales.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Perhaps the Minister should concentrate on the present and leave the future to us. Why is he answering this question when, last week, the Welsh Office put out a press release that said that all rural affairs were being pulled into one portfolio and that the Minister responsible would be the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)? Perhaps that is another unforced reorganisation in the Welsh Office. On rural affairs, does he share our concern about reports such as that by Peter Midmore of Aberystwyth university that the immediate, direct cost of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to the rural economy would be the loss of 1,000 jobs and £80 million of production? We want an urgent debate on the crisis and, in particular, an opportunity to examine the Government's response to it. Why is the Welsh Office so reluctant to give in to our calls for a meeting of the Welsh
    504
    Grand Committee? Do the Government not understand the seriousness of the situation in rural Wales or are they running away for fear of answering for their policies?
    Mr. Jones: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman's claims. I am answering the question under the basic premise of my day-to-day responsibility, under the Secretary of State, for local government financial matters.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, I do not have the study that he mentions before me, but I certainly share his concern about the scale of the problem, which is betokened by the fact that the Government have already committed more than £1 billion to respond to the problems faced by our farmers and everyone else involved. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Welsh Grand Committee. There is certainly no reluctance on the part of the Government to have a meeting on the subject that he mentions—or on any other subject—but what we find difficult to understand is why Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are trying to eliminate the rights of Back Benchers at such a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee.

    Tourism (Cardiff)
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assist the development of Cardiff as an international tourism destination. [31648]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The Wales tourist board, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, local authorities and Cardiff Marketing Ltd. are working together to promote Cardiff as a major international tourism destination.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that superb visitor attractions such Techniquest and Harry Ramsden's fish restaurant, both of which I had the pleasure of visiting earlier this year, are making a significant contribution towards Cardiff Bay development corporation's target of 2 million visitors by the end of the century? What help can my hon. Friend and his Department give to those who would like to see an opera house in Cardiff bay, as yet another international facility to attract visitors?
    Mr. Jones: I am glad to know that my hon. Friend has visited Harry Ramsden's and Techniquest. By coincidence, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had the same pleasures on Thursday and Friday. I can report that we all returned from Porthcawl reinvigorated with fresh confidence for the future. I can tell my hon. Friend that I believe that Cardiff Bay development corporation is well on track to achieve its target. Its current year target is more than 1.3 million visitors, and I think that both its targets will be achieved. I would welcome opportunities to explore further possibilities for tourist attractions, not least an opera house or whatever would be felt most agreeable to the local community.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received on funding for higher education in Wales. [31649]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): This year, my hon. Friends and I have received 20 letters from Members of Parliament, representative bodies and individuals about higher education in Wales.
    Mr. Dafis: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post and I am glad to see him on the Treasury Bench. Did he listen carefully to the representations of the heads of higher education institutions in Wales who told him and the Government that the combination of cuts in spending that are projected to continue until 1999 and the increase in student numbers are creating an impossible situation in higher education? In particular, the 44 per cent. reduction in capital spending is serious, especially as there is no sign that the private finance initiative will take off and work effectively in Wales. Will he seriously address this situation, recognising the enormous importance of higher education to the Welsh economy and to the future success of Wales as a nation and act accordingly by at least suspending further cuts until the Dearing report has been completed and provided to the Government?
    Mr. Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the generosity of his welcome. I regard higher education as one of the Government's great success stories. It goes without saying that the increase in the proportion of our young people with opportunities for higher education has led to some of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers. From one in eight, we have moved to one in three young people now having such opportunities. That is why it was clearly right for the Government to entrust Sir Ron Dearing with studying the implications of that increase. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the heads of higher education last week. My right hon. Friend has said that he will take account of the points that they put to him in the coming public expenditure survey round and, in due course, when he considers any recommendations from Sir Ron Dearing. The private finance initiative should be strongly welcomed. A balance has to be struck in that initiative and, at the moment, aiming for 30 per cent. seems to be the right balance.

    Maternity Care
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on standards of maternity care in hospitals in Wales. [31650]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Public satisfaction with NHS health care remains high—typically more than 90 per cent. Information from the 1995 Welsh health survey shows that more than 19 out of 20 women surveyed were satisfied with the care provided by midwives, in particular.
    Lady Olga Maitland: For most women, childbirth is the most important time in their lives during which they need medical assistance. Has my hon. Friend studied a report from the Department of Health in England entitled "Changing Childbirth", which gives greater priority than ever before to assessing the individual needs of a mother and to helping her to make her own choices about the management of childbirth? Does he intend to implement the report's proposals in Wales?
    Mr. Jones: I am well aware of the Department of Health report to which my hon. Friend refers. We have a
    506
    protocol that covers the matter, and it is being updated. The work is being led by the North Wales health authority. In addition, the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer have commissioned a review of the matter, focusing on making progress with the various parties in the protocol. The report is imminent.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Now that the problems of the internal market have been seen clearly in Wales, will the Minister guarantee that there will be no reduction in the standard of maternity care as a result of the substitution of staff grade doctors for consultants in maternity units?
    Mr. Jones: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no one in the NHS in Wales wants any reduction in care.

    Barry Docks
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to encourage the redevelopment of Barry docks. [31651]
    Mr. Hague: On 3 June, I welcomed the launch of the redevelopment of Barry docks, which is being undertaken as a joint venture between Associated British Ports and the Welsh Development Agency, with the potential to create 2,000 jobs and 1,000 new homes.
    Mr. Sweeney: On behalf of the people of Barry, I thank my right hon. Friend for his recent visit to the Barry waterfront, where he made a stirring speech. Does he agree that the project, which will mean many new jobs for the Vale of Glamorgan, represents the most important development since the docks were built? Is it not a prime example of partnership between ABP—from the private sector—the WDA and local authorities?
    Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his reference to my speech on that occasion. This is a significant project that, when completed, will do much to improve the economy of the dock area, Barry town and the Vale of Glamorgan in general. It is a fine example of partnership between the public and private sectors, and builds on our excellent record since 1979 of land reclamation in Wales. So far, more than 15,000 acres have been involved. It is the largest and most sustained programme of its kind in Europe.

    Welsh Assembly
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received on the establishment of an assembly for Wales. [31652]
    Mr. Hague: Since 1 January, I have received three letters about a Welsh Assembly—one in favour, and two against.
    Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful for that interesting response. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no demand among the people of Wales—or among the good people of the north-west of England—for yet another tier of government? They think that the levels of government we currently have are bad enough. Does he

    507
    agree that going down that cul de sac would be an attack on the very integrity of the United Kingdom and would begin the break-up of the Union?
    Mr. Hague: I agree with my hon. Friend that an extra tier of government would be a waste of time, a waste of space and a waste of money. It would weaken, not strengthen, the position of Wales in the United Kingdom. The people of Wales voted by four to one against the proposal on the previous occasion they were consulted on it. What puzzles them is that the Opposition want to overturn such a referendum without having the guts to say that they would hold another one.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not apparent that we need an assembly now, if only to protect essential Welsh interests? We are increasingly losing out to Bristol. The latest casualties are the forensic laboratory in Chepstow and the traffic commission office in Cardiff. It appears that the Secretary of State is falling down on the job and needs some reinforcement.
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman represents one of the Newport constituencies, where, on St. David's day, I was able to announce 800 new jobs because of one of the largest investments into Wales that has ever been undertaken—so I do not think anyone has been falling down on that job. That is the type of thing that has been taking place in recent years, and the establishment of an assembly would be no help whatsoever in such work.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What could a Welsh Assembly, under a supposed Labour Government of the future, achieve that the Welsh Grand Committee cannot? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Grand Committee is a much better forum to protect and advance Welsh interests than a spurious assembly without a proper mandate?
    Mr. Hague: The Welsh Grand Committee could achieve a good deal more if the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) would agree to its having a Question Time, which is what I have been asking him to do, but certainly an assembly could not achieve very much. Opposition Members cannot agree about how its members would be elected, so they cannot get very far with saying what it might achieve.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Might it just be that the reason for the small response to the Secretary of State is that the people of Wales do not take him very seriously, do not think it is worth writing to him, recognise that he does not want to meet our local authority leaders and feel that he and his team are no longer relevant to Wales?
    Mr. Hague: They write to me in their thousands about many other subjects, so they appear to take me and my colleagues seriously. It may just be that they regard this subject as an utter irrelevance and waste of time.
    Mr. Morgan: Does not the Secretary of State have to agree that a Welsh Assembly would be far more efficient and democratic than the present set-up in considering a wide range of issues, from his unconscionable dithering about the location of the new Euro-freight terminal to the new proposals for the Welsh ambulance service? Should
    508
    not the future of the Welsh ambulance service be debated and discussed in the open by the people of Wales, instead of being sorted out behind closed doors by a small, tightly knit cabal of personally motivated people—the 10 men who run the present ambulance trusts in Wales?
    Mr. Hague: All those matters are handled by Ministers who are accountable to this House, and they can be debated in this House. The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that, if such matters were devolved to a Welsh Assembly, Welsh Members of this House would no longer be able to hold Ministers accountable on those subjects, so democratic accountability would be weakened, not improved.

    RAF Valley
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Ministry of Defence about maintaining Royal Air Force maintenance facilities by Royal Air Force personnel in Ynys Môn. [31653]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The recently let service contract at RAF Valley preserves the defence of the United Kingdom, improves value for money for the taxpayer and provides local employment opportunities. That represents a good outcome.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister reflect that that is not the view of RAF personnel who live at RAF Valley, or of RAF personnel throughout the United Kingdom? They consider that it is not in the best interests of our defence that we should privatise the repair and maintenance of Hawk and other essential defence aircraft to organisations that have not trained people in these skills, and that will not train them in future. Is it not time that the Government reflected that that short-termism is not in the interests of that part of Wales in terms of cutting essential public expenditure there, and is undermining the defence of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Evans: About 200 existing civilian employees will transfer to the new contractor, retaining their current terms and conditions under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and about 400 new civilian jobs will be created.
    I think that everyone in the House acknowledges that the Conservative party does not control many local authorities in Wales, but the leader of Anglesey county council greeted the move as
    "very good news. We are very pleased that the company has won this contract. It is the proof of partnership",
    and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who represents the area, said:
    "This announcement could be a tremendous boost to local employment".
    I therefore believe that the hon. Gentleman's is an isolated view.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. Is he aware that, last week, the campaign group that was set up to defend jobs at Valley had its first meeting with BRAMA—the company that secured the contract for aircraft maintenance at Valley?

    509
    Is he aware of the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Wales—that, when a training programme is agreed between the company and the training agencies, money will be available for that programme? Will he now give me an assurance that, when the company and the agencies have finally agreed on that training programme, he will agree to meet a deputation from the island to consider funding?
    Mr. Evans: Yes, I am aware of the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave. That commitment has been welcomed locally. As to the hon. Gentleman's other points, let me make it clear that the Welsh Office has always been prepared to speak to anyone. Unfortunately, Welsh local authorities do not want to speak to the Welsh Office.

    Local Authority Housing
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses have been built by local authorities in Wales in each year since 1979; and how many he expects will be built in the current year. [31654]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Information for each year between 1979 and 1994 has been published in "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 15, 1995", a copy of which is in the Library. In 1995, 176 dwellings were completed. A forecast for this year is not available.
    Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister agree that the figures from 1979 to the current year—a paltry 176 dwellings were built in 1995—show a massive decline in the number of houses being built by local authorities when housing need is rising? The Government are not providing the finance and are not letting local authorities spend capital receipts. My local authority has several million pounds of capital receipts. Why is it not allowed to have a phased increase in capital receipts expenditure to house homeless people in Flintshire?
    Mr. Evans: As the hon. Gentleman should know, during the period to which he referred, the Government provided significant resources for housing associations to develop houses for people who wanted to rent and for people who wanted to take the low-cost home ownership route. Housing associations' success in delivering that programme is outstanding, and he should pay due regard to it. As to his proposition that the Delyn authority should be allowed to use—
    Mr. Hanson: It is Flintshire.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is the hon. Member for Delyn, and I have the figures for Delyn, which reveal that there are no receipts available to be used in any event. The hon. Gentleman indicated that he referred to the Flintshire authority. One of the difficulties of the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that it may result in houses being provided in areas where there is least need for them. The Government's policy is to ensure that we build social housing where it is needed for the homeless. We did that during the 1980s and we will continue to do it during the 1990s and beyond.
    Mr. Llwyd: The Minister will be aware that, a couple of years ago, the Welsh Affairs Committee released a
    510
    report on affordable housing in Wales. He will know from that report that there is a crying need for social housing throughout Wales. As one who used to be involved with Tai Cymru, he will know that the present trickle of funding will not meet anything like the need. Present policies will do nothing for young people who want to get married and move into their own homes. The present position is disastrous, both in rural areas and in urban areas.
    Mr. Evans: The policies that have been developed by Tai Cymru and rural housing associations have done a significant amount to address some of the sensitivities that were previously ignored by large-scale council housing programmes in rural areas—as the hon. Gentleman will know. He substantially underestimates the volume of the programme that the housing associations are currently delivering. I understand that some 3,500 homes will be delivered in the Principality this year. The hon. Gentleman should be praising, not denigrating, that record.
    Sir Raymond Powell: I welcome the Minister to his new post. I want him to answer one specific question. Will he tell me, the House and the people I represent why the Government will not allow money that my local authority has in the bank to be spent on housing development to house the people on our waiting lists?
    Mr. Evans: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his recognition in the birthday honours list. He is well aware of the sincerity of that welcome; I have known him for many years.
    I have the figures for the hon. Gentleman's authority, which I presume is the Ogwr authority. Funds are, in fact, available for that authority to use. Before the hon. Gentleman demands that they should be increased still further, perhaps he will ask the authority what it is doing to utilise the resources that it can use.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new brief in the Welsh Office, although I must say that I sympathise with him in regard to the rather weak material that he has had with which to answer the question. May I also, on behalf of the Welsh Opposition Front-Bench team, congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) on his recent elevation to a knighthood? His family will be especially pleased, and his wife, Lady Marion, deserves her title as much as he deserves his.
    Will the Minister confirm that public sector house building has been reduced by about 30 per cent. since 1979, that Tai Cymru's approved development programme has been reduced by about the same amount since 1992–93 and that building by Tai Cymru has never reached the target that it would have liked to have reached? It is not surprising that homelessness in Wales and the number of people living in bedsits have doubled in the past decade. Is the Minister not ashamed of that record?
    Mr. Evans: I am afraid that the real cause of homelessness is the breakdown of relationships rather than a failure on the part of Government to provide new housing. Just since 1989, some £1.1 billion has been invested in Welsh housing associations, producing 25,000

    511
    additional homes in Wales. The massive programmes delivered by councils in the days to which the hon. Gentleman refers—those halcyon days to which he seems to want to return, when Labour authorities were actively engaged with Labour Governments in building the Gurnos and Penrhys estates on mountain tops in south Wales—have gone. I believe that they have gone for good, and rightly so.
    It is important for us to have new social housing programmes that deliver housing of the sort that people want to live in—very much more sensitive, smaller-scale developments. That is what Housing for Wales has been doing; and I think that the £1.1 billion programme that has been in operation since 1989 is substantial in itself.

    Voluntary Organisations
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the past three years. [31655]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The latest available figures at outturn prices for direct grants are £12.3 million for 1992–93, £14.1 million for 1993–94 and £13.8 million for 1994–95. In addition, indirect grants are paid via other bodies.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a cost-effective form of public expenditure? Can he tell me by how much expenditure has increased since 1979, and how many organisations are in receipt of it?
    Mr. Evans: I have a sheaf of information about the individual bodies that have been funded by the Welsh Office, directly and indirectly, but, in view of the time factor and your strictures, Madam Speaker, I shall send a full note of that information to my hon. Friend. I am grateful for his recognition of, and support for, the important work done by the voluntary sector in Wales, which we in the Welsh Office fully recognise.

    School Standards
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in raising standards at general certificate of secondary education level in Welsh schools. [31656]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Progress has been heartening. The percentage of 15-year-olds gaining five or more A to C-grade GCSEs increased by 8 per cent. between 1992 and 1995. It is important to build on those achievements. Our "Bright Future" programme shows the way forward. I join parents in Wales whose children have been taking GCSE examinations in the past two weeks in welcoming that progress.
    Dr. Spink: I am delighted with, and welcome, that answer. Does my hon. Friend believe, like me, that the Government's policies of promoting parental choice, of more diversity in schools, of testing children, and of publishing the results—especially league tables—have driven up standards? Does he think that Labour should be ashamed of its opposition to our sound education policies?
    Mr. Evans: My first plaudits would be to pupils and parents and to their teachers for their achievements.
    512
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a framework must be set in place, too. We must constantly set ourselves higher targets. I am pleased that, from now on, every secondary school in Wales will set targets to ensure that each year it beats its previous best. If we are to build the economy that Wales needs for the future, we must ensure that the Principality's children are educated to the best standard possible. As my hon. Friend said, we must do so against the background of the Opposition's vehement opposition to testing and the national curriculum. Interestingly, they have eventually come round to recognising the value of our achievements.

    Single Currency
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation he has made of attitudes towards a single currency expressed in the bi-annual survey of business opinion published on 4 June by the Institute of Directors in Wales. [31657]
    Mr. Hague: None. A decision about a single currency will be made if and when necessary.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that cuts of £18,000 million will be necessary to meet the convergence criteria for a single currency? Which services are most likely to be cut? Will it be health, education or social services? Does he also accept that almost all the major economic decisions would be transferred from democratically elected Parliaments to the most powerful quango not only in Wales but in the world—the European central bank?
    Mr. Hague: Future taxation and spending decisions are for the Government and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On any transfer of decision making, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we shall not do anything that would damage the nation state. If we thought that any action would do so, we would choose the nation state.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend observed Welsh and overseas reaction to the proposed single currency, notably in Germany yesterday where workers are on strike and are expressing their feelings about expenditure cuts by the German Government? What does my right hon. Friend think?
    Mr. Hague: That emphasises my point that any decision on a single currency should be taken at the appropriate time, and that any positive recommendation to join should be put to a referendum.

    Derelict and Contaminated Land
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on (a) derelict and (b) contaminated land in (i) Cynon Valley and (ii) Wales. [31659]
    Mr. Gwiylm Jones: The Government's policy on contaminated land in England and Wales is set out in the document, "Framework for Contaminated Land", which was published in November 1994. Since 1979,

    513
    the Government have committed some £300 million to reclaiming derelict land in Wales, including about £17.5 million in Cynon Valley.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister is aware of the great concern in the Cynon Valley about the toxic waste left dumped at the village of Abercwmboi after the closure of the Furnacite plant. Ironically, the plant was closed because of environmental considerations, yet its toxic waste has been dumped on the doorsteps of those who lost their jobs when the works shut. People want a permanent solution to the problem, not the temporary one that the Welsh Development Agency is offering. Will he agree to a permanent solution, and will he make the necessary money available to the WDA?
    Mr. Jones: As the hon. Lady knows, the matter cannot proceed until all the necessary permissions have been obtained. It is being studied by her local authority, which, in tandem with the Welsh Development Agency, is considering the consultants' reports. I know that the agency is satisfied that its proposals are appropriate, satisfactory and cost-effective.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that the WDA is making serious cuts in its derelict land reclamation programme? Deep navigation and the Taff Merthyr site in my community could cause serious delays in the development of sites. Given the sad record of closures as a result of Government decisions, such development is vital. Will he, through the Secretary of State, ensure that the agency's capital budget is refinanced? The Secretary of State's predecessor promised that, if property sales did not produce returns, the Government would make up the difference in the budget—thereby restoring the agency's land reclamation programme.
    Mr. Jones: We will naturally consider future years in the light of the situation then prevailing. For the current year, the WDA has a budget of £14 million for land reclamation, and it is determined to maintain that budget.

    Trading Links (European Union)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve trading links between Wales and the European Union. [31660]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend recently announced a three-year extension to the Welsh trade mission programme. A visit to Germany took place last month, and a mission will go to Belgium and the Netherlands in November. Also, the first approvals under the Wales-Ireland Interreg II programme will be issued shortly.
    Mr. Flynn: Is not the main reason why 100 Japanese companies and a small number of Korean companies have settled in Wales that those businesses like that location, which gives them access to the European Union market? What effect is the present civil war in the Conservative party having on companies that are thinking of bringing high-tech jobs to Wales? When will the Prime Minister make a clear declaration that Wales and the United Kingdom will remain at the heart of the EU market?
    Mr. Jones: I detected the slightest welcome from the hon. Gentleman for yet another announcement of inward investment in Wales—a matter on which his party has been conspicuously silent. May I further infer from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he would condemn any proposals by his party to impose the social chapter or minimum wage, or to introduce a Welsh Assembly? All those measures would be massive disincentives to further inward investment in Wales.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service were rejected for prosecution in (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96. [31636]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In 1994–95, out of some 1.38 million cases, 161,429 were discontinued. In 1995–96, out of some 1.28 million cases, the number discontinued totalled 152,729.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Attorney-General aware that, between 1980 and 1989, the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police increased by 96 per cent? During the same period, the number of individuals found guilty at Crown and magistrates courts fell by 31 per cent. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate the anger and frustration felt by the victims of crime on finding that the Crown Prosecution Service does not pursue criminals through the court procedures?
    The Attorney-General: I would well understand it if that happened, but the hon. Gentleman's figures do not show anything of the sort. They refer to the number of cases notified to the police, which are different from the number of cases in which the police are able to bring charges to the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service. The hon. Gentleman and the House will be pleased to note the ever-closer working relationship between the police and the CPS, which is the effective way to bring wrongdoers to justice and thereby best satisfy the victim.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Did my right hon. and learned Friend notice the extraordinary recent case in which a business man who arrested a persistent burglar on his premises found himself prosecuted? If so, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the charges against the business man were completely thrown out by the jury and that the judge awarded costs to the defendant? Why was that prosecution not rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service in the first place? Did it completely take leave of its senses in bringing that case?
    The Attorney-General: I noted that case and the same sort of questions entered my mind. I rapidly discovered that there was much more to the case than met the eye. The victim—who was a past wrongdoer on a number of occasions—was apprehended by not one but four people, who repeatedly assaulted him over three hours. At no point during that time were the police notified.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Can the Attorney-General confirm that discontinuance of cases is never influenced by a manpower shortage in the CPS? Is he aware that, at branch level, there is considerable dissatisfaction among CPS staff because of the consistent failure to replace professional staff when they leave, and that many professional staff feel discouraged by the service and are leaving in significant numbers?
    The Attorney-General: I am certainly not aware of the latter point about professional staff leaving in significant numbers. I will consider the matter, but I do not believe that that is true. I am certainly aware of the pressures that come on any organisation when budgets are under pressure, but the CPS is rallying extremely well to that and I look forward to seeing it as I travel throughout the country in the coming weeks.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about cases that the CPS decides not to pursue? Is he aware of the deep frustration felt by police officers who have spent a long time preparing what they regard as open and shut cases, only to find that the CPS does not appear willing to pursue them, for reasons unknown to the police? What would be his advice to a police officer who has been frustrated in that way? Should he turn to his Member of Parliament, as he has in this case, or is there a better procedure that police should pursue? Should it not be the CPS's objective to ensure that the police officer concerned in a case has a full understanding of how and why it has behaved on that case?
    The Attorney-General: The short answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's serious question is yes. The CPS goes to great lengths to ensure that, on any occasion where it needs to discontinue a case, the police are not only fully informed, but fully consulted. Discontinuances that are not agreed with the police amount to only some 4 per cent. of those that are discussed with them, which is three quarters of all such cases. I advise my hon. Friend's constituent, who is a police officer, to get in touch with the police administration support unit or the crime support unit that relates to his local branch. That should provide a thoroughly effective method of communication. What I do understand from my hon. Friend is that it is essential that communication gets through from the officer to the CPS and vice versa so that everyone, including the victim, understands exactly what is happening.
    Mr. Hoon: What proportion of cases accepted for prosecution are subsequently abandoned and at what stage in the criminal process is that decision taken? Is it not clear that the later in the process criminal proceedings are abandoned, the greater the wasted costs and the greater the concern about the original judgment to launch the prosecution?
    The Attorney-General: That may be the case. Obviously, the further down the road one goes, the more costs have been incurred and it is undesirable to abandon a case at a late stage. If it must be abandoned, it is right that it should be done as early as possible. That is why the CPS and the police are working closely to "get it right first time", as it is now known in the jargon, so that the police can provide the CPS with the proper material from the outset. Joint performance management will, I hope,
    516
    improve the proportion of cases that are got right first time. The number of discontinued cases is quite small. If the hon. Gentleman considers the statistics, he will notice, for example, that the number discontinued in the Crown court is only 8 per cent. As a lawyer, he knows how many difficulties can arise, especially with witnesses, who may disappear, so that is not an especially remarkable figure.

    Successful Prosecutions
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to increase the number of successful prosecutions. [31638]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The CPS and the police are working together on several initiatives to bring the right cases promptly to court, including further charging standards, guidance on case preparation and measures to assist the police with early advice.
    Mr. Flynn: If Ministers are not inclined to accept the accurate figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), will the Solicitor-General accept the House of Commons Library figures showing that, from 1980 to 1995, a period of unprecedented rising crime, the number of people appearing for sentence at Crown court went down from 14,300 to 3,400, which is disgraceful? The crime clear-up rate—the crucial factor—has gone down from 40 per cent. in 1980 to a mere 26 per cent. now. Is it not true that Conservative law and order policy is that the innocent are punished and suffer while the guilty run free?
    The Solicitor-General: That is not true. The conviction rate in the magistrates court is 98 per cent. and in the Crown court is just over 90 per cent. The cases received by the Crown Prosecution Service from the police have fallen from 1.53 million in 1993 to 1.3 million in 1996. The police police and the prosecutors prosecute, but they can prosecute only those cases that are sent to them.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the use of information technology by the police is increasing the number of successful conclusions of cases? Does he believe that it would be a useful tool for the CPS? If so, what plans does the CPS have to use information technology to ensure that there are more successful prosecutions?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. Information technology is a tool being increasingly used both within the CPS and in its relations with other criminal justice agencies. The case-handling computer system is now installed in 38 branches. By the end of the year, it will be installed in 57, including London. The e-mail system of transferring information is being piloted in Southampton and Ipswich and I shall be visiting Southampton within the next two weeks to see it in operation. I expect it to be considerably extended across the country within the coming months.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General what further legislation he plans in the current parliamentary Session to expedite the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. [31639]
    The Solicitor-General: Initiatives include co-ordinated police training to ensure early delivery of the right material to the Crown Prosecution Service and pilots to test the use of electronic mail between criminal justice agencies. None of those initiatives requires legislation.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman noticed that Question Time for him and the Attorney-General is unique, in that they do not attract the usual fawning and obsequious questions from Conservative Members? Is that not because there is widespread dismay about their stewardship of the Crown Prosecution Service and our justice system?
    The common experience of Members of Parliament across the House is that the CPS is not performing and is not responsive and sensitive to those who feel that they are victims, and that there are inordinate delays and insufficient prosecutions pursued with vigour. Is it not time that something was done about that? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear it in mind that that is the view of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, as demonstrated by the fact that no support comes from those on the Benches behind him?
    The Solicitor-General: Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Those hon. Members who go to their local branch of Crown prosecutors—they are few and far between, I regret to say—almost without exception come away very impressed with the professionalism, care, skill and dedication of the people who work in the CPS. Let that be known.
    Mr. Sweeney: In order to expedite the work of the CPS, is it not absolutely essential to reduce the amount of paperwork and to improve relations between the CPS and the police? Would my hon. and learned Friend care to comment on those two matters?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, I agree that it is. As I travel round the country or appear in court cases and speak to police officers at all levels, almost without exception they speak highly of the professionalism shown in their cases by the Crown Prosecution Service. Whenever possible, we are astute at reducing the paperwork involved in the preparation of cases. In the past 12 months, we have introduced a scheme to reduce paperwork in guilty pleas in the magistrates court, which should annually reduce the amount of paperwork by about 5 million pieces.

    Death (Actions of A Corporation)
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General in how many cases he has initiated legal proceedings where the actions of a corporation have led to the death of an individual in the past 10 years. [31640]
    The Attorney-General: A corporation that commits a criminal act leading to the death of an individual may be prosecuted for a range of possible offences, depending on the circumstances of the case. The possible offences include manslaughter. The Crown Prosecution Service does not record statistics for different categories of defendant, but, in the past three years, there have been two prosecutions for manslaughter against corporations. The first of those resulted in a conviction of the company itself and the second in the conviction of its managing agent.
    Mr. Cohen: Does that not show that the Attorney-General is soft on criminal companies? Has not the Law Commission said that there should be a new offence of corporate killing, which can be effectively enforced and have attached to it unlimited fines? Should there not also be prison sentences for dangerous bosses? Is it not about time that cowboy companies got the message that they will be held accountable for acts that are reckless, negligent and endanger lives?
    The Attorney-General: The first answer is no, it shows no such thing. If the hon. Gentleman has any examples of cases in which he thinks that there has been softness or in which there should have been a prosecution, no doubt he will let me know. I believe that such matters are vigorously prosecuted, and that those two cases show that the Crown Prosecution Service not only is prepared to prosecute corporations but, when it has done so, it has done so successfully.

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996

    Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996

    London Regional Transport Act 1996

    Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996

    Arbitration Act 1996

    Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Act 1996

Child Abuse (North Wales)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about child abuse.
It has been known for several years now that very serious sexual and physical abuse of children took place in homes managed or supervised by the former Clwyd county council in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1991, North Wales police began an extensive investigation into allegations, and obtained just under 2,600 statements from individuals. Those resulted in eight prosecutions and seven convictions of former care workers. Nevertheless, speculation has continued in north Wales that the actual abuse was on a much greater scale than those convictions suggest.
When I last reported to the House on this issue—in a written answer on 18 April—I expressed my regret that Clwyd county council, which had commissioned its own inquiry into these matters, had apparently failed to ensure that this would be undertaken in a way which would enable its conclusions to be publishable. I explained that I had written to the five successor authorities to Clwyd county council requesting that they seek urgently to produce a version of the report that could safely be published.
The successor authorities have subsequently informed me that they are unable to meet that request. In their view, the report is likely to contain evidence that was given in confidence to the inquiry team, and is in any case so seriously and extensively defamatory that an acceptable version of it cannot be produced.
In the light of my own legal advice, I have considered whether I could make the report as it stands available to the House. I have concluded that, in view of the nature of the defamation it contains, it would not be a proper use of parliamentary privilege to do so.
I find this a deeply unsatisfactory outcome, and one that reflects badly on the former Clwyd county council. It devoted two years and a substantial amount of public money to an inquiry, the report of which cannot safely be published. When public authorities establish investigations, they should do so in a way which, at the very least, permits the principal findings and recommendations to be made public.
One factor in the failure of Clwyd county council to publish the report it commissioned was a concern about the implications of publishing for its insurance cover. This also seems to me to be an unsatisfactory situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will be considering, in consultation with the local authority associations, whether there is a need for guidance on this matter.
The Government's main priority remains to do everything necessary to secure the safety and well-being of children in care. It was for that reason that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), appointed Miss Nicola Davies QC in May 1995 to undertake an examination of relevant documents and to advise whether a public inquiry into the abuse of children in north Wales was required. She recommended not an inquiry but that a detailed examination of the practices and procedures of the social
520
service departments in the former Gwynedd and Clwyd county councils and of the private homes in their areas be undertaken. I appointed Adrianne Jones to carry out this work.
Adrianne Jones has now produced her report. I am grateful to her and to her team for the way in which they have undertaken their task, the thoroughness of their report and the speed with which it has been produced. I am also grateful to all those in north Wales who have co-operated fully in this work. I have arranged for it to be published in full today, and have made copies available in the Libraries of both Houses.
In her report, Adrianne Jones found that, since 1991, when the Children Act 1989 was implemented, the substantial advice, guidance and regulation available to social services authorities had resulted in a progressive tightening of operational, management and personnel procedures in the Gwynedd and Clwyd county councils. There was a framework of policies and procedures in place. However, there were some significant gaps: the authorities were not sufficiently rigorous in developing their own operational guidelines, and did not ensure that these were followed systematically.
The report contains a total of 41 recommendations. Most are directed at the successor local authorities, and are aimed at improving the planning, management and monitoring of children's services. I accept the thrust of Adrianne Jones's conclusions, and mean to ensure that her recommendation for more resources to be devoted to the social services inspectorate for Wales is acted upon as soon as possible. I shall be reporting to the House shortly on how I propose to take all her recommendations forward.
Adrianne Jones's report will make a substantial contribution towards achieving my objective of securing the safety and well-being of children in care in north Wales, but it also reveals that, despite the Children Act, the Warner report and all the other actions that the Government have taken in recent years to protect children, serious shortcomings remained up until the abolition of Clwyd and Gwynedd county councils earlier this year. This is a disturbing conclusion, which has to be coupled with continuing public concern about the full extent of what happened and how it could apparently have continued undetected for so long.
The Government are determined that there should be no cover-up of events in the past, and that every possible step is taken to protect children in care in the future. In the light of these developments, we have decided that further initiatives need to be undertaken.
First, we decided that there should be a judicial inquiry. The terms of reference of this would be: to inquire into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974; to examine whether the agencies and authorities responsible for such care, through the placement of the children or through the regulation or management of the facilities, could have prevented the abuse or detected its occurrence at an earlier stage; to examine the response of the relevant authorities and agencies to allegations and complaints of abuse made either by children in care, children formerly in care or any other persons, excluding scrutiny of decisions whether to prosecute named individuals; in the light of this examination, to consider whether the relevant caring and investigative agencies discharged their functions

521
appropriately and, in the case of the caring agencies, whether they are doing so now; and to report its findings and to make recommendations to me.
The inquiry will be conducted within the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, and both Houses will be asked to approve the necessary resolution when it is moved tomorrow. I intend to invite Sir Ronald Waterhouse to be its chairman. His experience makes him ideal for the task. He has already indicated that he would be prepared to accept such an invitation, and I shall discuss with him a target date for the completion of this work.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who has responsibility for children's issues in England, is also arranging for a further review of the safeguards against the abuse of children living away from home in England and Wales. It will be conducted by Sir William Utting, the former chief social services inspector at the Department of Health. He will be asked to review the safeguards introduced for England and Wales by the Children Act 1989 at its implementation in 1991 and the further measures taken since to protect children living away from home, with particular reference to children's residential homes, foster care and boarding schools; and to assess whether those safeguards are the most effective that can realistically be designed to protect such children from abuse and other harm, and whether they are being satisfactorily enforced. My right hon. Friend is informing the House of the details of that review in a written answer today. Sir William will report to my right hon. Friend and me, and his report will be published.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be keeping in touch with the progress of Sir William Utting's review. Consideration will be given to his recommendations with a view to implementation as appropriate in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be keeping in touch with the progress of Sir William Utting's review. He will also set up an audit of the arrangements for the care and protection of children in Scotland who are looked after away from home.
Additionally, a White Paper entitled "Crime and Punishment", published today, proposes enhanced monitoring and supervision of all offenders on release from custody in Scotland. Under those arrangements, all high-risk offenders may be subject to an extended period of supervision on release. It is probable that a large majority of sex offenders will be included in that category. Further, a proposed Crown right of appeal against a decision of the court not to impose a supervision order in a particular case provides an additional safeguard.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is also publishing today a consultation paper on sex offenders. It outlines proposals designed to improve the protection of the public from, and to enhance opportunities for the treatment of, such offenders.
There are five main proposals: to strengthen the arrangements for supervising convicted sex offenders; to require sex offenders to notify the police of their address and any subsequent changes to it; to extend the power in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to enable samples to be taken for the purposes of DNA testing from convicted sex offenders who are serving a prison sentence imposed before that power came into place; to introduce provisions to prohibit sex offenders from seeking
522
employment involving access to children; and to limit the access of defendants to victims' statements and photographs in sexual offence cases.
The child abuse that was allowed to occur in north Wales, and the apparent failure of the authorities concerned to deal with it, represents a very sad chapter in the history of public child care. The Adrianne Jones report helps to point the way for the future, but its conclusions will reinforce public concerns about the management of children in care in north Wales. The proposals that the Government are announcing today—a judicial inquiry into the events in north Wales, the review by Sir William Utting and the increased supervision of sex offenders after release from prison—demonstrate the determination of the Government and the House to tackle the evil of child abuse and to secure the safety of all children in care.
Mr. Ron Davies: I welcome the belated statement from the Secretary of State, and pledge the unqualified support of the Labour party for the fullest possible inquiry into the extent of child abuse in north Wales.
For more than a decade and a half, hundreds of allegations have been made by children that they have been the victims of organised sexual abuse. Dozens of lives have been wrecked, and a least a dozen have been lost. Young people who, by the nature of their circumstances, were at their most vulnerable have been exploited, abused and violated. Those young people were brutalised by the individuals charged with their care, and let down collectively by the agencies charged with their care.
Does the Secretary of State understand that his attempts at the Tory party conference last weekend to score party political points on the issue will be viewed with utter contempt by those courageous individuals who, over the years, have been trying unsuccessfully to prompt his Department into action?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department promised a public inquiry nearly four years ago, and will he join me now in commending the campaign of politicians in Wales—prominent among them Malcolm King, the former chair of Clwyd social services committee—senior police officers, the public and the media on finally forcing the Government to honour their promise? Does he understand that his criticism last weekend of Clwyd county council's Jillings inquiry is without a shred of justification? Will he confirm that that inquiry was, as it should have been, independent of the authority? Will he confirm that the terms of reference of that inquiry were agreed with his Department? Will he also confirm that Welsh Office Ministers have over the years consistently refused to meet representatives of Clwyd county council to determine the best way forward?
Given the Secretary of State's criticism today of the Jillings inquiry, why is he only considering that guidelines will be necessary to overcome the difficulty of publishing without insurance cover? Surely that case has been established, and it is his responsibility to ensure not whether but how that new policy should be implemented.
We have not yet had the opportunity to read the Jones report. When we have, we shall support the matters that we believe to be relevant. The great fear must be, however, that the local authorities to which it refers have

523
been abolished. I hope that the Secretary of State will not seek refuge in bolting that stable door after the horse has gone.
Now that our demand for an inquiry has been met, will the Secretary of State clarify the following matters of detail? Will he confirm that the inquiry will be fully independent, that there will be no unnecessary in camera sessions, and that there will be full publication of the report and all supporting documents? Will he explain why Sir Ronald Waterhouse will report to him, whereas the Utting review will be published? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to publish the Utting review but not the Waterhouse report? If that is so, it will be unacceptable. I assure him that we all understand the importance of appropriate confidentiality, but, given the nature of the inquiry, the public interest in disclosure must outweigh the private interest in confidentiality.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the terms of reference will be sufficiently wide to examine the whole question of organised child abuse? The allegations centre on a former local authority children's home network. Does he accept that the nature of the allegations indicates the possible existence of a wider paedophile network, extending throughout society and into its most powerful reaches?
Will the inquiry be empowered to examine the role played by North Wales police, especially the allegations that files relating to child abuse in Gwynedd have disappeared? Will legal representation be available for child complainants, and will legal aid be available to them and to adults who may need legal representation? Will the inquiry be allowed to review the operations of the Crown Prosecution Service in Wales? Perhaps it will be empowered to consider that one individual is alleged to have decided that, in respect of hundreds of allegations in Gwynedd, prosecutions would not have been in the public interest.
There is widespread public interest and concern at the complacency of the Welsh Office over the years. Will the inquiry therefore have full access to all Welsh Office documents? In particular, will it be able to examine the circumstances in which successive Welsh Office Ministers—some still in the House—over many years wrote to Alison Taylor, a respected former social worker from Gwynedd, assuring her that, in their words,
"there are no grounds for concern".
Will the inquiry be able to examine the role of the Welsh Office social services inspectorate, to find out why, throughout the entire decade of the 1980s, while the allegations were emerging, it declined to investigate one allegation or carry out one inspection of any children's home in Clwyd? If the answer to those questions is not yes, the Government will inevitably face the allegation that they are conspiring in a further whitewash.
I am happy to see the proposals for the welcome review, and for the Home Secretary to review the procedures that deal with sex offenders. When we have had a chance to examine the detailed proposals, we will respond.
Will the Secretary of State accept the Opposition's ruthless determination to ensure the fullest scrutiny of all procedures concerning the care of vulnerable children? No one, however powerful or high and mighty, should be
524
allowed to escape the consequences of their actions. For us, the matter is above party political considerations. I hope that he understands now that it should be for him as well.
Mr. Hague: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the thrust of my statement. There are only two points about which I would seek to argue with him. I do not think that it is a belated announcement. He should recognise, as I hope he has, that, if the Jillings report had turned out to be a sound report that could have been published, and if the Adrianne Jones report had suggested that in recent years all necessary procedures and practices were correct and had been put in place, the case for an inquiry would have been weaker. Those two matters have crystallised only in the past 10 days.
The other point about which I disagree is the hon. Gentleman's accusation that we have made party political points. I agree that the matter should be above party politics, and I am not aware of having made any criticism at all of Opposition Members or their parties. I am not aware of having made any party political points. I certainly do not intend to make any, and I am glad that he does not, now that he has got that off his chest.
I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on all or most of his detailed questions, Yes, it will be a fully independent inquiry. Under the terms of the Act under which such inquiries are set up, there can be private sessions, although they are encouraged to be held extremely rarely. It would be for the judge to decide whether it was in the interest of the inquiry, and in the public interest, to hold some sessions in private. One can imagine that, in some situations involving children, that could be desirable.
I intend that the report will be published. I believe that the terms of reference are drawn sufficiently widely, and they cover the police. The inquiry can examine the conduct of the police. It can consider the conduct of the Crown Prosecution Service, but not decisions about the prosecution of named individuals. That is a long tradition in such matters, designed to defend the independence of the prosecuting authorities. However, any new information could be passed to the prosecuting authorities.
Legal representation will be available to witnesses appearing before the inquiry. It will be free to investigate the work of the Welsh Office and the social services inspectorate in Wales, as the hon. Gentleman has requested. I hope that, with those assurances, he will agree that it is a widely drawn inquiry that will be able to get at the truth, as all hon. Members are most determined that it should.
Sir Roger Sims rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Sir Roger Sims: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the House.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement, the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and the other measures to which he has referred, will be warmly welcomed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, of which I am a member? The considerable

525
body of evidence that the commission has received shows that the abuse of children in institutions is a widespread and continuing problem. It is part of the wider issue of child abuse, because the adults involved are members of community as a whole.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while inquiries and reports are necessary, it is essential that, thereafter, measures should be implemented to ensure the prevention of further abuse and to wipe out this scourge of our society?
Mr. Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the announcements. I congratulate him on his elevation at the weekend.
The fears of which my hon. Friend speaks are part of the justification for the announcements. I absolutely agree that it is important for measures to be implemented where they are necessary. I will proceed, as I said in my statement, to implement measures recommended in the Adrianne Jones report speedily, without waiting for the results of the public inquiry.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be eager to implement measures arising from the review that he has set in train, and that he would like to see it conducted as speedily as possible for that to happen.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims).
I welcome the appointment of Sir Ronald Waterhouse as chairman of the judicial inquiry. His wide experience, and his close knowledge of north Wales, will prove to be great advantages. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in carrying out the inquiry, Sir Ronald will be free to make recommendations about the way in which, and the resources with which, the police investigate allegations of child abuse, particularly in smaller police forces such as the North Wales police, in which, generally speaking, there are limited resources for special inquiries?
Can the Secretary of State also confirm that it will be possible for Sir Ronald to look at the nature of the institutions in which often vulnerable children are placed, as demonstrated by the evidence that emerges in the courts when prosecutions are started many years later? Can he also confirm that it will be possible for witnesses at the Waterhouse inquiry, many of whom are now adults leading ordinary lives, many of them married with children, to have anonymity in terms of public identification?
Mr. Hague: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right about Sir Ronald Waterhouse. His origins in north Wales, his knowledge of that area and his experience in the criminal division and the family division of the High Court make him ideally suited to this task, and I am delighted that he has agreed to take it on. He can indeed look into procedures and behaviour, if that seems appropriate, in the course of his inquiry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's question about privacy for witnesses raises the point to which I referred in answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies): that there may be instances of the inquiry wishing to arrange matters to protect the privacy of witnesses, and to do so, as far as it can, without
526
compromising the publicity that should rightly be given to these proceedings and to the public interest in them. The hon. and learned Gentleman can be satisfied on that point.
Mr. Rod Richards: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and I particularly congratulate the Government on their decision to hold a judicial inquiry into child abuse in north Wales. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern for those people who may have been or were abused many years ago, and who are now adults and may have families of their own? To have their pasts raked over, whether in public or in private, would be an extremely painful experience. What protection and what measures are in place for such people, who do not want to revisit the horror of their past?
Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. Of course, he took a close interest in these matters during his time in government. The question he raises is one of the factors that we have had to bear in mind and weigh against the wider public interest and the need for a public inquiry. As I said in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I hope that, where necessary, the inquiry will be able to find a way to protect privacy, while also satisfying the public interest and ensuring that all information that should be made public is made public.
Mr. Martyn Jones: While welcoming the inquiry almost wholeheartedly, I have to say that my colleagues in Clwyd have been calling for one for a long time. We have been aware of the kind of abuse that is happening. One of my constituents came to my surgery and described the kind of things that went on. They are horrendous—there is no other way of describing them—and I am delighted that we are now to look at this matter. Although these matters are historical—
Hon. Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that this is a sensitive matter, but the hon. Gentleman must put his question, as he has not yet done so.
Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the inquiry takes place with all speed concomitant with getting the truth? Although the cases are historical, the people involved are still suffering hurt. Does he acknowledge that Clwyd county council was not at fault, in that it tried to get a judicial inquiry for the benefit of the people affected? Although the Jillings report may have been flawed, at least it tried to get the facts into the open. I am glad that the judicial inquiry will now do that.
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman has called for an inquiry before, and we have discussed it before. Had other investigations been carried out to general public satisfaction—in that their reports were published and were seen to deal with the matter—and had the Adrianne Jones report revealed that procedures in recent years had been satisfactory, there would have been a weaker case for a public inquiry.
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about speed, and how that must be balanced with the need to look into the matters properly. In consultation with Sir Ronald

527
Waterhouse, I intend to set a target date for the completion of the inquiry, and I do not want to do so in an arbitrary way today. In the meantime, we will proceed to implement the recommendations of the Adrianne Jones report. The report of the inquiry will be in addition to that report, rather than instead of it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must safeguard the remainder of today's business, and the House will understand if I now ask for brisk questions from Members and brisk answers from the Minister.
Sir Wyn Roberts: May I assure my right hon. Friend that he was absolutely right to decide to hold this inquiry, which was inevitable following the failure of the local authority to publish the fillings report because of possible defamation? The judicial inquiry is necessary as a result of the Adrianne Jones report, which looked into the situation following the implementation of the Children Act in 1991 and found it inadequate. Does he agree that Adrianne Jones deserves our thanks for her work and her recommendations, including her recommendation to strengthen the inspectorate at the Welsh Office?
Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend is right to say that we should be grateful to Adrianne Jones for her efficient and speedy work. He highlights one of her recommendations, and I will be acting upon it quickly.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is no more foul crime than the abuse of children, and that those who commit it continue to do so because they rely on secrecy? Is he aware of my question on the Order Paper today that asks for a public inquiry into the situation in Cheshire? For more than two years, I have been asking the Home Office to make public information about convicted paedophiles. Is he aware that it takes 10 months for anyone to get information before they employ someone in a children's home? Is it not likely that these people are still operating within the child care system?
Mr. Hague: The hon. Lady's fears are part of the reason for the measures that I have announced, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I share her concerns. Investigations are continuing and prosecutions pending in Cheshire, and it is important that they are not prejudiced by Government action. That is why the inquiry that I have announced is concerned with Clwyd and Gwynedd.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unforgivable for children to be taken into care, and then not be properly cared for? Will the Government ensure that there are no more cover-ups, not just in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom? If the problem is as widespread as has been thought, is there a target date for Sir William Utting to report?
Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. There should be no cover-up of any description. We all want action to be
528
taken as speedily as possible. It will be for Sir William Utting to determine the timetable of his review, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and that decision needs to be taken as quickly as possible.
Dr. John Marek: The Secretary of State did the right thing this afternoon, and I believe that the people of north Wales will thank him for it. I have three short questions. First, will he assure us that the Jillings report will be made available to the inquiry? Secondly, will he assure us that, should any evidence or any matters before the inquiry concern matters relating to Cheshire, if they cannot be considered by this inquiry they will at least be passed on to the relevant authorities in Cheshire? Thirdly, he says that the inquiry will be unable to consider aspects of decisions by the CPS whether to prosecute individual people; can he assure the House that that exclusion will be drawn quite tightly?
Mr. Hague: Yes, the Jillings report will be made available to the inquiry. Information relating to other parts of the United Kingdom will, of course, be passed on to the relevant authorities. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need to interpret relatively tightly the exclusion that we have placed in the terms of reference. The rationale for that is the importance of finality and fairness to potential defendants and victims and witnesses, but it does not mean that the generality of the work of the Crown Prosecution Service is beyond the scope of the inquiry.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: May I add my welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement about this horrendous affair? He mentioned various reports that would be made to various Ministers and Secretaries of State. During his important statement, he did not once mention co-ordination or co-operation between Secretaries of State and Ministers in the study of those reports, or the commitment of those Ministers and Secretaries of State to draw what lessons they could from other reports from other parts of the United Kingdom. Can he reassure the House that that will happen?
Mr. Hague: I think I can reassure my hon. Friend—and he will see from the fact that my right hon. Friends and I have all announced this today—that we have been working on this range of measures together, and we shall of course continue to study this subject in close co-operation.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: May I assure the Secretary of State that the welcome he has received from both sides of the House for his decision to hold a judicial inquiry also extends to my party? We want that inquiry to be set up quickly, and we extend our congratulations on the appointment of Sir Ronald Waterhouse as its chairman.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that many of the young people, who are now adults, who had so many painful experiences have had to recount those experiences countless times in recent years? He made a clear, categorical statement that there should be no cover-up. Will he reinforce that? Those young people must go through another very painful experience. They have

529
campaigned long and hard for this judicial inquiry; they need to be satisfied that it will be full, and that the Government will act on its full recommendations.
Mr. Hague: I am grateful for the welcome that the hon. Gentleman gives on his behalf and that of his party. Obviously, I share his determination that the inquiry should be full and independent, and that everyone should be able to see clearly that there has not been, and cannot be, a cover-up in the light of the inquiry's work. That unites hon. Members in all parts of the House today.
Mr. Anthony Steen: As judges can ban from keeping animals people who are found guilty of cruelty, and bearing in mind the fact that people leaving prison after serving a term for sex offences can open a home or holiday camp for children that very day, did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that those who are found guilty of sex offences towards children will be banned for all time from employment with children? If we can do it for animals, we can do it for children.
Mr. Hague: To clarify for my hon. Friend, I said that, in the Home Secretary's consultation document, he would propose to introduce provisions to prohibit sex offenders from seeking employment involving access to children. I believe that that gets at the point my hon. Friend raises. Further details can be found in the consultation document, and any further decisions or legislation will depend on the reaction to it.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Is the Minister aware that some of my constituents were in so-called care at Bryn Estyn? They are asking the following questions: how can an insurance company dictate whether a report is published simply because of possible liabilities? Why did the Welsh Office, over 20 years, take such a laid-back attitude when it knew what was going on? Was it to protect public and political figures? If so, will they now be named?
Mr. Hague: I share the hon. Lady's concerns about the insurance situation, as she will have gathered from my statement. I am currently discussing it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The actions of the Welsh Office—as is the case for all public authorities and institutions—will be open to investigation by the inquiry. We should not prejudge the results of that inquiry today.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend recall the outcome of the inquiries that took place in the aftermath of the Orkney and Cleveland scandals? I feel quite nervous about the format that my right hon. Friend has proposed. When this format has been used in the past, and when local bureaucracies have been challenged by inquiries, no individual has been responsible for anything within those bureaucracies—no one was sacked, called to task or held responsible.
In the light of those inquiries, will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that accountability in these inquiries will mean that people who have been incompetent or plain evil will be sacked or prosecuted? Accountability must come from individual accountability for actions. We do
530
not want to hear about practices, procedures, guidelines and resources. The inquiry has to find people who did wrong.
Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right: we want to see accountability. It is a challenge for any inquiry of this kind, and for any of us dealing with these matters, to penetrate bureaucratic indifference or collective responsibility. However, I hope that the inquiry will seek to do that. There have already been a number of prosecutions—and there may be further prosecutions if new evidence comes to light. I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said.
Mrs. Llin Golding: As a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, I am sure that the Minister is aware of its deep concern about the lack of protection for children in this country. Will the Utting review look at children when they leave care so that fewer of them end up on the streets as prostitutes? Will his statement enable the legal system to be looked at so that children can give evidence against paedophiles—who can then go to court, so that they can be charged and so we know who they are?
Mr. Hague: I can satisfy the hon. Lady on her second point. I am not sure whether her first point falls within the scope of the Utting review, but my right hon. Friend or I will be happy to clarify it, and to write to her about it.
Mr. David Hanson: I join my fellow former Clwyd Members of Parliament in welcoming the inquiry. First, will the Secretary of State say when Clwyd county council first asked for a judicial inquiry? Secondly, when did the social services inspectorate in the Welsh Office bring these matters to his attention? Thirdly, does he intend to have any discussions with the named chair and judge involved in the inquiry with regard to possible press coverage and the damaging effects that it may have on the victims of the abuse?
Mr. Hague: Yes, I should like to discuss the latter point with the judge who will be conducting the inquiry—although it will be for him to use his judgment on it. As many hon. Members have said, we want to see legitimate public interest in these matters satisfied, but we want necessary privacy maintained. The local authorities believe that there should be a public inquiry—they have put that view to the Welsh Office over the past few months, and I have taken it into account in reaching this decision. I cannot remember the precise date of the discussions offhand. I have been aware of these matters since I entered the Welsh Office.
Ms Ann Coffey: I welcome the Utting review of procedures in children's homes and fostering agencies. As the Secretary of State will know, however, the Government have already issued a consultation document entitled "Moving Forward" to look into the registration and inspection of such homes and agencies—a key protection issue. Although the consultation was completed in February, no Government proposals have been forthcoming as a result.
Does today's announcement mean that that consultation will be put on the back burner, and that we shall now have to wait for months for the current review and for the

531
Government to act on some of the problems—particularly those of unregistrable small children's homes—of which they are aware, and on which action is urgently needed?
Mr. Hague: No. The Utting review is assuredly not intended to delay work that has already been set in train. Indeed, the scope of that work was designed partly to take into account work already in progress, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is eager to advance.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Have all those who were accused of child abuse, and named in witness statements revealed in the appendices to the Jillings report, been prosecuted? If some have not, and some names remain, are any of those people still working with children anywhere in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hague: I understand that not everyone named in a statement was prosecuted. Several hundred cases were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, and there have been seven convictions; 2,600 statements were taken. I do not know where the current employment of any of those people is.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Is the Secretary of State aware that, for some two or three decades, similar allegations have been made in Northern Ireland about the Kincora boys home? Can he confirm that the Utting review will be able to examine those allegations in the same way as the Waterhouse inquiry is examining the allegations in north Wales?
Mr. Hague: No. The Utting review is not concerned with past allegations; it is concerned with a review of the legal framework. As I explained in my statement, however, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will keep in close touch with the review in order to consider what measures should be taken in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State congratulate those sections of the media—including HTV Wales and Private Eye—which, courageously and at great cost to themselves, exposed the abuse that we now know to have taken place in north Wales?
Is not one of the main problems the fact that, in court cases, those who have been abused are poor witnesses in their own interests? Their experiences of being in care have led them to a position in which their truthfulness is often questioned, while the accused are often experienced witnesses because of their profession. Will the Secretary of State, as a parallel measure, accept the recommendations of the NSPCC, which is now asking for improvements in the way in which court cases are conducted when vulnerable young people are involved?
Mr. Hague: I have already explained that legal representation will be available to witnesses in the inquiry. I know that the judge conducting the inquiry, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, will want to consider how best to help people who may feel inhibited in giving evidence.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Secretary of State for Scotland's watching brief. Is there not a particular need to pay close attention to the, admittedly small, number of children who, when placed in care, are sent from one country to another within the United Kingdom? Several years ago, the children of a family living in the west of Scotland were sent to a home in the north-east of England, owned and managed by a religious order, where they were systematically abused. Is it the case that a social worker working with such a family has ready and unannounced access to such homes in England and Wales, or in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hague: I will certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I believe that it can also be considered as part of the work that we have announced today.
Mr. John Gunnell: In the light of the events that led to the inquiry and of Dunblane, have the Government finally abandoned their plans to deregulate the vetting of those who work with young people in playgroups? Has any rule been proposed by the Utting review, or by the review that preceded it, on the inspection of homes for young people? If so, will it apply to homes in public and private ownership? Will the Utting review consider the value of registering residential care as an occupation, as part of the measures to introduce a general social services council?
Mr. Hague: The legal framework applies to public and private homes, so one would expect the Utting review to cover both. I have no new announcement to make on the other subjects.
Mr. David Jamieson: The Minister will be aware that, because of the operations of paedophiles in a minority of independent boarding schools, the Children Act 1989 made such schools' pastoral arrangements liable to inspection. Why, therefore, did the Government pass a deregulation measure allowing those schools to dispense with social services departments and appoint their own lighter-touch inspectors? Is this an example of deregulation potentially placing children at risk?
Mr. Hague: No. The Government's intention to date has been to focus on problems where they clearly exist, or are thought to exist. The legal framework will be reviewed by Sir William Utting, who I know will want to bear in mind a wide variety of points.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: We welcome today's announcement of a judicial inquiry into events in north Wales, but does the Secretary of State accept that the need to co-ordinate the different actions now proposed—the Waterhouse judicial inquiry that the right hon. Gentleman has announced, the Utting review that the Secretary of State for Health is announcing and the Home Secretary's review of sentencing and probation procedure for paedophiles—is paramount?
Will he forgive me if I suggest that the impression given by Ministers in the past few days—going back to last Thursday's Prime Minister's questions—has been of their almost competing with one another for the limelight

533
rather than co-operating, as suggested by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone)? Will he acknowledge that, without careful co-ordination, there is a danger of interdepartmental cross-sterilisation, if I may call it that, between the different inquiries?
Does the Minister accept that our residential child care system is now on trial? These children's homes were supposed to provide care: instead, they dished out a diet of sadism by day and sodomy by night. If this tragedy is not to be repeated, it must be followed not by more inquiries but by action.
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of co-ordination. My announcements today have been co-ordinated between all the Departments concerned, and the continuing work of all Departments will be co-ordinated. He is also right to emphasise the importance of action. The Government have taken a wide range of action in recent years to improve the legal framework as it relates to children.
Where reports such as the Adrianne Jones report, which is published today, recommend action, we shall not be long in taking it. I intend to carry that forward speedily.I welcome the hon. Gentleman's general words of welcome and the reaction of hon. Members. We shall take forward this work with great seriousness and all possible speed.

FAMILY LAW BILL [LORDS] [MONEY] (NO. 2)
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Family Law Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor in connection with the provision of marriage counselling.—[Mr. Burns.]
Question agreed to

Orders of the Day
  Family Law Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 13

  PROVISION OF MARRIAGE COUNSELLING
  '.—(1) The Lord Chancellor or a person appointed by him may secure the provision, in accordance with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, of marriage counselling.
  (2) Marriage counselling may only be provided under this section at a time when a period for reflection and consideration—

  (a) is running in relation to the marriage; or

  (b) is interrupted under section 7(8) (but not for a continuous period of more than 18 months).

  (3) Marriage counselling may only be provided under this section for persons who would not be required to make any contribution towards the cost of mediation provided for them under Part IIIA of the Legal Aid Act 1988.
  (4) Persons for whom marriage counselling is provided under this section are not to be required to make any contribution towards the cost of the counselling.
  (5) Marriage counselling is only to be provided under this section if it appears to the marriage counsellor to be suitable in all the circumstances.
  (6) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

  (a) make provision about the way in which marriage counselling is to be provided; and

  (b) prescribe circumstances in which the provision of marriage counselling is to be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor.

  (7) A contract entered into for the purposes of subsection (1) by a person appointed under that subsection must include such provision as the Lord Chancellor may direct.
  (8) If the person appointed under subsection (1) is the Legal Aid Board, the powers conferred on the Board by or under the Legal Aid Act 1988 shall be exercisable for the purposes of this section as they are exercisable for the purposes of that Act.
  (9) In section 15 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (availability of, and payment for, representation under Part IV of the Act), after subsection (3H) insert—
  "(3I) A person may be refused representation for the purposes of any proceedings if—

  (a) the proceedings are marital proceedings within the meaning of Part II of the Family Law Act 1996; and

  (b) he is being provided with marriage counselling under section (Provision of marriage counselling) of that Act in relation to the marriage.".'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 18, 104 and 52.
  Mr. Streeter: I start where I should start—with a fulsome tribute to my immediate predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans),

  535
  whose stewardship of the Bill was exemplary and who was largely responsible for its strengthening in Committee.
  The amendments respond to concern that couples should be encouraged to access marriage counselling and other marriage support services that may help a couple to save their marriage. There has been cross-party support for such amendments, but I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) for seeking to ensure that those amendments are based on voluntary access to services rather than compulsion—which we and the marriage support services believe is likely to generate more effective referrals and a better chance of counselling proving successful.
  I pay tribute to the various organisations that comprise the marriage support services not only for their advice during consultation and in preparing the legislation, but for all that they do in supporting couples in crisis. Marriage support services make a major contribution to the well-being of society, for which the House thanks them.
  The Government are committed to providing a system that gives couples information, access to services and time to consider whether their marriage can be saved—and to ensuring the best possible use of available resources. The amendments go further than any previous Government have in providing support for marriage.
  Amendment No. 18 seeks to give explicit force to that commitment, by stating that the parties to a marriage that has broken down will be encouraged to take all practicable steps to save it by counselling or otherwise. The importance of counselling is thus given explicit emphasis, but is not to be regarded as exclusive. The Government are endeavouring to provide the basis for a continuum of information and services for couples at all stages in their relationship. That provision will cover not only couples who may, sadly, be considering divorce, but couples who are deciding to marry, as well as assistance early during a problem in a marriage—before the difficulty becomes a crisis.
  Considerable concern has been expressed in debate about adequate attention being given to the funding of measures that seek to prevent a couple's relationship difficulties reaching the stage at which they consider divorce. Amendment No. 52 requires the Lord Chancellor to have particular regard to such services when making grant-in-aid payments for marriage support services and research.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: There is an implication that such services will cost money. How much will they cost, and where will that money come from?
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the Government do not believe that a problem will go away by throwing money at it. I am sure that he agrees that investing in healthy marriages will save the country money in the long term. Bearing it in mind that the legislation will not come into force for two years, we do not yet know precisely what the take-up will be, but it is important to invest in strong and stable marriages.
  Such services could include marriage preparation initiatives, work at major turning points in a couple's relationship, such as the birth of a first child,
  536
  and information about services provided at places where people might otherwise go for information, so that take-up of marriage support services can be encouraged. That provision will support the work of the interdepartmental working party—not a glamorous title, but an important project that has highlighted early intervention as a priority. The working party has today issued a consultation paper on how best to deliver those services. The results of that consultation will inform the funding of pilot projects that have particular potential for reducing the incidence and costs of marriage breakdown. We have also announced that research will be undertaken into the problems faced by couples at different stages in their relationship, so that we can match services to need more effectively—which will involve funding additional to existing grant-in-aid provision.
  Clause 8, which concerns the information meeting, already specifies that information must be given to couples about counselling and support services. It provides for couples eligible for non-contributory legal aid to be encouraged to take up an explanatory meeting with a marriage counsellor. The amendment seeks to ensure that such meetings will be held with suitably qualified staff and that standards can be set and maintained. The amendment enables the circumstances in which such meetings are held to be prescribed, to ensure that the funding for such meetings is used appropriately—that there is value for money.
  New clause 13 is designed to encourage the take-up of marriage counselling during the period of reflection and consideration. Such a service would be voluntarily entered into. The information meeting will ensure that couples are aware of such services and will be encouraged to access them where they may be of assistance, but the Government do not believe that such a service will be effective if it is compulsory. That view is shared by marriage counselling services.
  The amendments ensure that service standards can be set and maintained, by giving the Lord Chancellor, or a person appointed by him, the power to attach conditions to the funding of marriage counselling. That may include standards of training or other qualifications. I should emphasise that such services will be focused on marriage counselling and not on any other form of counselling that does not have the couple's possible reconciliation as a primary objective. That service will be supported by additional funding. Before the arrangements are finalised, such arrangements will be piloted extensively, to ensure that the service is effective and that standards can be assured.
  The amendments provide a structure that is designed to support strong and stable marriages. In this country, there has never been such a framework to support marriage and I urge the House to support the amendments.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Labour Members welcome the Government's conversion, albeit relatively late in the day, to the view that marriage guidance and counselling, and establishing a framework within which that might take place, are important. When I look at Conservative Members and my hon. Friends around me, I recall the Second Reading debate, when some of us expressed regret that the Government had, at that time, missed an opportunity to set the Bill and the debate on it within the context of what the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Basil Hume, has described as the

  537
  larger project of supporting and strengthening the institution of marriage and of the family. It has, therefore, been the task of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that considered the Bill to seek to focus the minds of the Minister's predecessor and of the Government on the importance of establishing the framework, to which the Minister referred.
  The framework has been established. A place has been found for marriage guidance, counselling and a specific focus on reconciliation. Concern remains, and with good cause. One sees whence that cause emanates when one bears in mind the intervention of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Concern remains about the commitments on resources in this sector. Without clear, adequate funding guarantees, there is no way in which it will be possible for organisations such as Marriage Care, Relate and others, to which I pay tribute and which are doing valuable work in this sector, to contribute to the success of any such framework. We want the Minister to give, in no uncertain terms, that guarantee to establish the initial infrastructure, without which information meetings encouraging people to move towards reconciliation, where it is appropriate, will be of little avail. We want a clear commitment that that infrastructure will be established, but, more than that, at this stage of our deliberations, we want the Government to come clean about the cost.
  At the outset of the consideration of the Bill—both here and in the other place—the claim was made that it was cost neutral. Some of us have made it crystal clear that that simply cannot be the case. There is no way in which the Bill, either as it was originally constituted or as it is now—it has improved in some respects, and the Government amendments show one particular area of improvement—can be funded within the existing budget.
  We shall shortly be required to make a decision not simply on this new clause, but on the future of the Bill. There is no way that we can do that on Third Reading without at least some guidance on costs from the Minister and a clear sign that the Government no longer hold to the absurd proposition that the Bill is cost neutral. We want to hear from the Minister—indeed, we are entitled to hear—in quite unequivocal terms how much he thinks this measure will cost and whether he has moved away from the position taken by his predecessor and the Lord Chancellor, that the Bill is cost neutral.
  In the context of this group of amendments, the Opposition are sceptical about the clarity and depth of commitment to reconciliation and to the saving of marriages that can be saved. Unless the Minister can give the necessary guidance on costs, that scepticism will be entirely justified, because we shall not see the resources necessary to give these amendments the force and power that are vital if they are to achieve that which they set out to achieve.
  With that caveat—and it is a real caveat—we broadly welcome the new clause and associated amendments.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome this group of amendments, not least because they are the result of a commitment given to me in Committee by the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). Therefore, I would be extremely churlish if I did not welcome them. They are extremely important amendments that will
  538
  markedly improve the Bill. All along, one of our objections to the Bill has been that it seemed simply to oil the wheels of divorce. We thought it terribly important to ensure that in the new divorce process—which will be based not on fault, but on a period of time elapsing—there was some encouragement towards marriage counselling. We have achieved that aim, and the necessary important provision will be included in the preamble to the Bill.
  We achieved that concession early during the Committee's proceedings. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for what he said in Committee, because, without his support, it would have been impossible to achieve a majority and so encourage the previous Minister to accede to the amendments. It was rather more of a struggle to achieve funding for marriage guidance. I understand that, because the Lord Chancellor's Department had to clear it with the Treasury.
  We have already achieved agreement that, after the initial information meeting, it will be possible for the parties to have a free meeting with a marriage counsellor. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly stated that there were some arguments about whether that requirement to see a marriage counsellor should be compulsory or voluntary. Originally, the hon. Member for Brent, South and I tabled amendments to make it compulsory. However, I accepted what the previous Minister told us—that marriage guidance counsellors did not want to be part of a compulsory mechanism, but wanted the entire process to be voluntary. What we have achieved is that when people go along to the information meeting—which will be a proper, one-to-one meeting—they will be at least encouraged to see a marriage counsellor, and that meeting will be free.
  These latest Government amendments are significant achievements, because when the whole process starts and someone makes a statement of marital breakdown, the funding for marriage reconciliation will be on exactly the same basis as the funding for mediation.
  Our concern has always been that some excellent organisations, such as Relate, which traditionally have been marriage guidance organisations, will ride in behind the Bill, because a huge new pot of gold will be poured into mediation, and that they will be encouraged to shift resources from marriage counselling—which we all support, but which has received a paltry £3 million a year—to mediation. There is nothing wrong with mediation if the divorce will definitely happen. It is better to have mediation than to have lawyers arguing about costs.
  It would be wholly wrong if we had a market-driven approach that encouraged those organisations to put their resources into mediation rather than into marriage counselling. The amendments are terribly important, and I very much hope that they will be welcomed by marriage counselling organisations.
  I welcome what the Minister said. Having heard the Minister and the hon. Member for Brent, South in this—so far—short debate, I think that, in future, there may be cross-party support not only for a divorce Bill but for a marriage Bill. People in the Republic of Ireland must wait for a time before they are allowed to marry. Perhaps we should, as Cardinal Hume said, put as many resources into marriage and into encouraging marriage counselling at the beginning of the process as we are now putting into the end of the process, when it may be too late. That is for

  539
  the future. Perhaps the Government will consider introducing a marriage Bill in the next Session. It would be a very popular Bill.
  It would be wrong to be churlish. It is a pity that we could not have achieved this extra money for marriage counselling before we had to consider the Bill—but this is the Bill that we have. I very much welcome what the Minister said today.
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: These amendments represent a huge step forward by the Government. People who have worked in marriage counselling in the past know its value only too well. Like many other hon. Members, I have met local Relate groups and have heard how important they think counselling is. When I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, I took part with other hon. Members in a series of hearings about the family for the United Nations Year of the Family. We heard clearly how important it is to get in there and to give support at the early stages when things go wrong.
  Therefore, like many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome the Government's recognition of counselling. As has been said, that recognition is not before time. There have been many discussions and much pushing over this matter, and it is good to see cross-party support pushing the Government forward into a sensible position.
  I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) about costs. It is good to hear the Government talking about putting money towards the Bill, but I am worried that they have not considered the matter carefully. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's comments.
  The Minister's earlier clarification that counselling will be voluntary is important, and it has been vital in achieving cross-party support. Certainly, the view of all those who work in this area is that we cannot force people into counselling, but that we must ensure that they have access to it and that they can afford it.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) talked about the importance of preparation for marriage. I should like us to give much more emphasis to marriage preparation in schools. Marriage preparation should be in the national curriculum, and I look forward to when that happens.
  I welcome the provision, as do many of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  Dame Jill Knight: I have one or two questions about this matter. I am quite worried about where counsellors will come from. To my certain knowledge, in some areas, it is impossible to make an appointment with a marriage guidance counsellor in under a year. How will we find all these extra marriage guidance counsellors? Unless we know that they can be found, perhaps we are being a bit hypocritical in passing a law that says counsellors shall be there, as if one could spirit them out of the ether. I do not think that that is possible.
  I have been worried about Relate ever since it decided that it was not so much interested in marriage, and dropped the term "marriage guidance" from its name. I have yet to be persuaded—I should very much like to be—that Relate
  540
  counsellors really are interested in ensuring that careful thought is given to the end of a marriage. I am not at all sure that Relate is so concerned, as are some hon. Members, about the institution of marriage.
  If counsellors are to be spirited from the Church, I must admit that I should like to know a bit more about the clergy or their associates who may be giving advice. In recent years, there have been some rather extraordinary statements from Church people, who—even by example—do not always support and believe in marriage, in the manner that some of us would very much like.
  4.45 pm
  I strongly support the idea that we must do more in preparation for marriage. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) was quite right that attention should be paid to that in schools. I should like it if we could have talks with the BBC, ITV and other parts of the media, which daily send the message that marriage no longer matters and that living with people is the acceptable thing to do. Youngsters watch television so carefully, and they take their pattern of life from it.
  Before youngsters ever get to the point of marrying, there should be much more careful thought about how to show them that marriage is an aim of enormous importance to our country and to our society, and that it is not something that they can take on lightly. As has been said in another context, I would much rather have a fence at the top of a cliff than an ambulance at the bottom. I hope that attention will be paid to that most important fact.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Dealing with marriage counselling services is not quite as simple a matter as merely passing a few amendments in the House or even finding some money for it. The underlying problem lies in the great muddle and confusion in our society about the nature of marriage. I should have thought that the only way to make coherent proposals in legislation would have been for the genesis of the Bill to be a commission on marriage rather than a Law Commission report dealing with the processes of divorce.
  Many questions are outstanding, such as how these counselling services will be provided, how the organisation will be developed and what concept of marriage—as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said—will be presented. What about the undertakings in the register office ceremony? What will be the nature of those undertakings? Will counselling play any role in the preparation of such marriages? For marriages that take place in church, what will be the role of the Churches in preparing for marriage and in subsequent counselling services?
  Having spoken to Church leaders, I do not think that Churches have thought out those questions, and I do not think that counselling services have thought them through at all—because they have not been asked the questions by the Government. They have not been asked, "Why are marriages breaking down, and what can be done about it?"
  If we had started in that manner, we would have had a rather different Bill. But this is the Bill that we have—so what do we do about it? I unreservedly welcome the amendments, but I must tell the Minister that it will not

  541
  be quite such an easy matter. I hope that he will approach it in real depth when he considers how the organisations and the concept of marriage are to be developed properly.
  Mr. John Patten: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on tabling the new clause and related amendments. He has certainly hit the ground running since he assumed his new responsibilities.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who asked where the resources are to come from, which is a proper question to ask. I also listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who asked where the counsellors are to come from. I should like to probe a little further and ask: who is to counsel the counsellors? Who is to safeguard the standards of counselling available under the Bill?
  First, I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister what mechanisms the Lord Chancellor's Department, under the guidance of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, intends to set up within the Department to screen the counselling organisations and counsellors, whether paid or voluntary. Of course, I pay tribute to the many voluntary counsellors, especially those from Church organisations, through to those from professional organisations and back again, who so selflessly give of their time. Some people might think, however, that the rot set in at some organisations when they adopted more politically correct titles such as Relate or Marriage Care. I stood at the Bar of another place and heard the phrase "couple counselling" falling from the lips of a noble prelate.
  We must be extremely cautious if we are to provide large sums in the search for a small band of counsellors, some of whom might not be wholly committed to the sustaining of marriage and might be more concerned with couple counselling, or whatever it is fashionably called.
  Secondly, I also urge my hon. Friend the Minister—I hope that he finds time to deal with this point when he winds up the debate—to give an idea of when the proposals that we are now debating, should they be accepted, will be brought into effect. There is not much point in the Government tabling amendments, which, although welcome, still give rise to unanswered questions such as, "Where are the resources coming from?" and, "Where are the counsellors coming from?" and which contain the suggestion that all will be well, if they may not come into effect for many years. In other words, I suggest that none of the Bill's provisions should be put into effect until those relating to marriage counselling have been introduced, because the first will fail without adequate and proper provision for the second.
  I shall look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say, while I congratulate him on the excellent amendments.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) is advocating something that would be harmful. It is perfectly plain to everyone who has been following the Bill's progress in another place and in this House that at present 75 per cent. of divorces go through in about six months after the application has been lodged. If we delay implementation of the Bill, we shall not get the benefit, which will have a significant impact on the number of divorces, of requiring people to wait for at least a year, if not longer, from the moment of application.
  542
  I have quoted elsewhere the evidence from Canada, where a minimum provision of a year has led to one divorce application in five being withdrawn by the person who made the application. To throw away that benefit—the time for reflection and possibly for reconciliation, although not necessarily by counselling—will lead to more divorces and potentially to more unhappiness in people's future marriages, should they commit themselves to a further marriage.
  Counselling is an important issue. It would be taking an un-Conservative view to say that all marriage counsellors have to be either state funded or state approved. There are many areas of independence in which Parliament and Government should have a limited role. If we—rightly—make provision for marriage counselling, we ought to allow a good deal of freedom. Many marriage guidance organisations are Church based, but do not provide services only for members of their own faith.
  Hon. Members are perhaps divided, although not along party lines, on what the Bill actually does. I take my lead from His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, who spoke wisely in another place, saying that he was glad that the Bill was called not the Divorce Bill but the Family Law Bill.
  It is worth reminding the House of words written 30 years ago, before political correctness could be accused of infecting any of our Churches. The report entitled "Putting Asunder" states:
  "We were persuaded that a divorce law founded on the doctrine of breakdown would not only accord better with social realities than the present law does, but would have the merit of showing up divorce for what in essence it is—not a reward for marital virtue on the one side and a penalty for marital delinquency on the other; not a victory for one spouse and a reverse for the other; but a defeat for both, a failure of the marital 'two-in-oneship' in which both members, however unequal their responsibility, are involved together. So we arrived at our primary and fundamental recommendation: that the doctrine of the breakdown of marriage should be comprehensively substituted for the doctrine of the matrimonial offence as the basis of all divorce".
  If we are concerned about marriage counselling, and if we are looking for reconciliation and to provide couples with the opportunity to decide to continue their marriage, if that is their choice, we ought to tread lightly.
  The suggestion that people involved in marriage guidance support the idea of extra counselling because it means extra work for them is to undervalue the commitment, which is often voluntary, of people who, through Church or secular organisations and whether because of some sense of humanity or faith, give of themselves and their time to try to help save the marriages of others and help reduce the avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap that often occur when a relationship turns out to be less than perfect and when the commitment of marriage, which may have been entered into wholeheartedly, is fractured.
  We should not make too much of marriage guidance organisations changing their names; instead, we should be concerned about the continuity of those involved in them. Members of my family have been involved in marriage guidance for the past 50 or 60 years and, on their behalf, I would take it as a gross insult to hear it said that they are the victims of political correctness. They want to increase people's happiness and help their marriages if possible.

  543
  If marriages end other than in death, they want to try to ensure that it happens without rancour or harmful effects on others.
  Dame Jill Knight: It is not easy or cheap for an organisation to change its name; indeed, it is very complicated. Does not my hon. Friend think that there must have been a reason for an organisation to drop the word "marriage" from its title? Is not that significant; or have I and others got it all wrong?
  Mr. Bottomley: I would not want to accuse my hon. Friend of getting anything all wrong, but there are different perspectives. I do not want to go into too much detail on that point, because I want to get more deeply involved in other matters later.
  I think that I was the first hon. Member to introduce a debate on family policy and strengthening the family. That was in 1978. I think that I also introduced the second debate in 1982. The aim of helping families and establishing a family policy is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is wrong to read too much into a change of name. Many voluntary organisations have changed their name over the years, but we should remember that the vast majority of people involved in counselling want to help marriages last and understand the distress of people who come along for counselling. Perhaps it would be useful if more people went to counselling even before they began to consider divorce.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I understood that one of the principal reasons why the Marriage Guidance Council changed its name to Relate was that so much of its work consisted of teaching in schools and helping people to create relationships other than within marriage—not household relationships, but helping people to overcome bereavement or to get used to retirement, for example—and it thought that its original title was far too narrow.
  Mr. Bottomley: We can agree that most of the work undertaken by organisations such as the Jewish Marriage Council or what were the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and the Marriage Guidance Council is to help people who want their marriages to have a chance of lasting.
  Mr. Streeter: We have had an interesting and helpful debate, and I am grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the new clause. I should like briefly to respond to a number of points that have been raised, as we have a long way to go.
  Once again, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) raised the important issue of costs. I am tempted to say that we believe that the Bill is cost neutral, although it is not as cost neutral as it used to be. However, that would be daft.
  First, it must be obvious that if there is mediation—and one person is representing two people—instead of legal proceedings where each party has a lawyer, only one person is being funded and there is clearly a saving to be made. Secondly, we believe that the Bill will achieve a reduction in conflict and litigation generally in the divorce
  544
  process. Therefore, we anticipate further saving. However, our funding commitments will entail further resourcing, which will be provided.
  5 pm
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) asked about the time scale. We have two years before the implementation of the provisions. It is not my expectation that the Bill will reach the statute book without the marriage guidance provisions being firmly in place. We have two years to ensure that funding is available, and I can give the House an assurance to that effect. We shall be in government to make sure that our assurances are met.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of marriage and the family. Let me stress that the interdepartmental working party on family and marriage is going out to consultation today, seeking ideas as to how exactly we can intervene earlier to support family and marriage. When I have put the Bill to bed this evening—I hope, tucked up safe and sound with the overwhelming support of the House—it will be my highest priority to make sure that the working party does an excellent job in the next 12 months, to elicit ideas as to exactly what we can and should do to support marriage and the family at an early and positive stage.
  Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said, and I agree with him entirely. He will know that new clause 16, in my name, has not been selected for debate. It deals with family impact statements. Will he give the House an undertaking that he will refer that idea to the working party and review group? If civil servants and Ministers had to incorporate an impact statement when legislation was being drafted, we would have a better idea—just as we do in local government with environmental impact statements—as to the possible effect of everything, from cuts in child benefit to making divorce easier or more difficult. We would have an idea of the possible effects on the family, not least on the 750,000 children in Britain who no longer have access to their fathers.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Family impact statements are certainly worth consideration, so I can give him the assurance that he seeks. However, I am not sure that the working party is quite the right forum for his proposal.
  Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the working party will have to consider what more can be done to prepare young couples for marriage and to make marriage stronger—or at least to make them understand what they are taking on. I draw upon my experience of taking young couples through a pre-marriage counselling course organised by my local church. My wife and I were involved in that for a number of years and we found that, out of an average crop of six young couples, only four would opt for marriage and two would decide that it should be either not then or not at all. We considered it to be a success rather than a failure if a couple found out before marriage that perhaps they were not right for each other. I support that concept entirely.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston asked where all the counsellors would come from. The system has two years to develop, and it is for the counselling industry—

  545
  to use an inappropriate description—to respond. Counselling organisations know that funding is available and we want them to come forward, just as private nursery schools will take advantage of the excellent nursery voucher scheme that the Government have introduced.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister saying that money is available now for the training of additional counsellors, so that they will be ready to take on all the new customers at the end of two years? Is there money for training, and where will it come from?
  Mr. Streeter: I shall certainly consider that point and come back to the hon. Lady.
  In my experience, Relate is committed to the concept of marriage, and I understand that it is part of the principles of that organisation to believe in marriage. I agree that marriage counsellors who do not believe in marriage are like ministers of religion who do not believe in God.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) raised some important matters that the working party will address, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised a number of important points about standards. Wherever the Lord Chancellor's Department, or any organisation empowered by it, enters into a contract with marriage counsellors, we shall ensure that standards are in place that will satisfy my right hon. Friend's concern.
  Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) raised an important point about the voluntary sector. I agree with him that many excellent voluntary organisations give counselling advice, and they are worthy of our support.
  Mr. Boateng: I am afraid that the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) gave the game away in respect of the Government's thinking—or the lack of it—in relation to funding. He has said on Report that he will take on board the additional expenditure that is necessary in order to fund the training and provision of counsellors during the two-year implementation period. He promised to give that some thought. My hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate, for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) have raised the subject time and again during our deliberations on the Bill. We have raised it on Second Reading and in Committee, and now we have been told that it deserves some thought.
  The Government and the Department concerned must have given some thought to how much it will cost to get the bare framework in place for counselling. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) mentioned that in some parts of the country it takes a year to get an appointment with a counsellor. What is the Government's commitment, how much will it cost and where will the money come from? The Minister's notion that he is in a position to give a commitment in relation to some unspecified amount to be incurred by way of expenditure in the next two years—although he does not know how much it will be—demonstrates lack of thought and a lack of clarity in the Government's thinking on those matters. It really is not good enough, and it is clearly a matter that we shall have to take into account during our deliberations on the remaining stages of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

  POWER OF ABRIDGEMENT (TRANSITIONAL PROVISION)
  `.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make rules prescribing circumstances in which the court may abridge, in respect of a marriage, any period specified in section 7(3) or (13) or section 8(2) where it appears to the court that any party to the marriage or any children affected would otherwise suffer inequitable treatment in comparison to other cases where there had been an irretrievable breakdown of a marriage.
  (2) Rules made under this section shall cease to have effect on the fifth anniversary of the day on which Part II of this Act came into effect.'. —[Mr. Boateng.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 107, in schedule 9, page 83, line 15, at end insert—
  'Transitional arrangements for those who have been living apart
  —(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order provide for the application of Part II to marital proceedings which—

  (a) are begun during the transitional period, and

  (b) relate to parties to a marriage who immediately before the beginning of that period were living apart,

  subject to such modifications (which may include omissions) as may be prescribed.
  (2) An order made under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision as to the evidence which a party who claims to have been living apart from the other party immediately before the beginning of the transitional period must produce to the court.
  (3) In this paragraph—

  "marital proceedings" has the same meaning as in section 21;

  "prescribed" means prescribed by the order; and

  "transitional period" means the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 3 is brought into force.'.

  Government amendments Nos. 93 to 95.
  Mr. Boateng: New clause 6 is designed to ensure that no injustice is done to the petitioning spouse to a divorce under the old law, who has lived separate and apart from his or her spouse for two years and is seeking a divorce by consent at the expiry of that period—or for five years, where there is a refusal of consent on the part of the respondent—as a result of the Lord Chancellor's bringing into effect the relevant provision of the Bill.
  One of the alarming aspects of the Government's approach to the Bill is that they seem to have been caught between two conflicting impulses—the technocratic impulse, which has been present throughout consideration and formulation of the Bill, and the impulse to be seen to be paying at least some lip service to the maintenance of marital bonds. That has led them into error.
  At one stage, it was the Government's view that there should be no transitional provision. So, it was just one's bad luck if one happened to have been working on the basis of the old law and was one year and 11 months into separation, or, indeed, one's misfortune if one had a

  547
  recalcitrant and obstructive spouse and was four years and 11 months into a five-year separation. One would just have to begin all over again.
  That was clearly grossly unjust and caused widespread concern among the general public. We tabled the new clause and an alternative in amendment No. 107 to deal with that injustice. During a five or two-year transition period, the Lord Chancellor would have power to make necessary regulations to avoid an ensuing injustice to the parties. Such power is particularly important where children are involved. Uncertainty and damage can be done in such circumstances to children whose parents are precluded from arriving at new arrangements for their welfare or to children whose parents are precluded from entering into new, more formal relationships—when, perhaps, a child has been born of a new relationship—in order to secure their children's legitimacy. Unnecessary and unjust delay in those circumstances is clearly undesirable. Such delay would certainly occur were the House not to agree the need for transitional provisions.
  I hope that the Government will accept that there is a need for such transitional provisions and that, accordingly, the Bill will be improved by their inclusion. The Opposition look forward to the Minister's early and positive response, while recognising that, when a similar amendment was tabled in Committee, the then Minister would have none of it. I hope that, now, good sense prevails and the Minister will be able to satisfy the Opposition and the House on the point.
  Mr. Streeter: I speak against new clause 6, and in favour of amendment No. 107, which was also tabled by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I have taken advice from parliamentary counsel, and that suggests that, in order to achieve what I take to be the intention of new clause 6 and amendment No. 107, the wider-ranging, order-making power of the latter would be more suitable, because it would allow the court to adjust more of the Bill's provisions than simply the time periods. Bearing in mind the way in which the Bill's provisions interlink, that may be necessary to ensure workability.I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against new clause 6 and in favour of the amendment.
  Amendment No. 107 provides for those couples who have been living apart immediately before the new provisions of the Bill coming into force. It addresses the situation where parties are in the process of a two or five-year separation period and have therefore not commenced divorce proceedings. As currently drafted, the Bill provides that parties in such a position would be required to undergo the full process under the new system, with no account being taken of any prior period of separation. Clearly, it would not be right to require couples to wait twice for their divorce.
  The amendment allows the Lord Chancellor to modify the requirements of part II to provide that account may be taken of prior periods of separation, on proof of such separation being produced to the court, for a transitional period of two years. I appreciate that, in this respect, the Bill's current provisions may well lead to difficulties,
  548
  especially where children are involved and where further delay would be unfair and detrimental to their welfare. I therefore have pleasure in agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I welcome both the amendment and my hon. Friend the Minister's welcome for it. In practical terms, the amendment matters to the couples involved. In terms of number, it is not that important because only a small proportion of divorces occur after a five-year separation, and a relatively small number of divorces occur after two years when, in effect, both parties concur in the application. As my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) have said, it would be wrong if the Bill's provisions were to catch for an extra year or so those who are in the process of waiting for two or five years.
  Mr. Boateng: I welcome the Minister's accession to amendment No. 107. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8

  DIVISION OF PENSION RIGHTS
  `.—(1) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 25B (benefits under a pension scheme on divorce, etc.), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), by inserting—
  "(c) in particular, where the court determines to make such an order, whether the order should provide for the accrued rights of the party with pension rights ("the pension rights") to be divided between that party and the other party in such a way as to reduce the pension rights of the party with those rights and to create pension rights for the other party.".
  (3) After subsection (7) of that section, by adding—
  "(8) If a pensions adjustment order under subsection (2)(c) above is made, the pension rights shall be reduced and pension rights of the other party shall be created in the prescribed manner with benefits payable on prescribed conditions, except that the court shall not have the power—

  (a) to require the trustees or managers of the scheme to provide benefits under their own scheme if they are able and willing to create the rights for the other party by making a transfer payment to another scheme and the trustees and managers of that other scheme are able and willing to accept such a payment and to create those rights; or

  (b) to require the trustees or managers of the scheme to make a transfer to another scheme—

  (i) if the scheme is an unfunded scheme (unless the trustees or managers are able and willing to make such a transfer payment); or

  (ii) in prescribed circumstances.

  (9) No pensions adjustment order may be made under subsection (2)(c) above—

  (a) if the scheme is a scheme of a prescribed type, or

  (b) in prescribed circumstances, or

  (c) insofar as it would affect benefits of a prescribed type.".

  (4) In section 25D (pensions: supplementary), by inserting—
  (a) in subsection (2)—

  (i) at the end of paragraph (a), the words "or prescribe the rights of the other party under the pension scheme,"; and

  (ii) after paragraph (a), the following paragraph—

  "(aa) make such consequential modifications of any enactment or subordinate legislation as appear to the Lord Chancellor necessary or expedient to give effect to the provisions of section 25B; and an order under this paragraph may make provision applying generally in relation to enactments and subordinate legislation of a description specified in the order,";
  (b) in subsection (4), in the appropriate place in alphabetical order, the following entries—
  " 'funded scheme' means a scheme under which the benefits are provided for by setting aside resources related to the value of the members' rights as they accrue (and 'unfunded scheme' shall be construed accordingly);
  `subordinate legislation' has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978;"; and
  (c) after subsection (4), the following subsection—
  "(4A) Other expressions used in section 25B above shall be construed in accordance with section 124 (interpretation of Part I) of the Pensions Act 1995.".'.—[Mr. Denham.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. John Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 24.
  Amendment No. 97, in clause 5, page 3, line 5, after `assets', insert 'or rights'.
  Government amendment No. 47, in clause 9, page 7, line 43, at end insert—
  '(8) If the parties' arrangements for the future include a division of pension assets under section 25B of the 1973 Act or section 10 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, any declaration under subsection (2) must be a statutory declaration.'
  Amendment (a) to the amendment, after 'assets', insert `or rights'.
  Amendment No. 109, in clause 15, page 11, leave out lines 1 to 18.
  Mr. Denham: New clause 8 is important to the Bill. Its acceptance would—I hope will—be welcomed by many people, but perhaps most by thousands of women who are facing the possibility of divorce, often in circumstances which they have not chosen, and who know that the consequence of divorce may be poverty in retirement. I speak of the impact on women, although the proposals of course are gender neutral. The inability of legislation to enable pensions to be split at the time of divorce largely affects women.
  It has been recognised for at least 30 years that divorce can have a devastating impact on the retirement income of a divorced spouse. There has been a growing recognition of that impact in recent years. Sadly, that has not been recognised by the Government. Every action that the Government have taken in that matter has been marked by delay. Everything that has been achieved has been grudgingly conceded—often in the face of either an actual, or a potential, defeat in Parliament.
  The basic problem is well recognised on both sides of the House. For a long time, it has possible in principle to take into account the value of pension assets as part of a
  550
  divorce settlement. In practice, however, that could be done only where there were sufficient other assets to be offset against the pension. Real justice could be achieved only if, in some way, the value of pension assets could be shared in appropriate proportions between the divorcing couple.
  In practice, that has not been possible. The result has been that many women who have spent lifetimes bringing up children, looking after a home and sacrificing their careers to their husbands' success have been punished for everything that they have ever done. They have been left without a pension on income support and means-tested benefits, as, in a sense, a burden on the taxpayer—a burden that they never wanted to be. Throughout their lives, they have exercised family responsibilities with every intention of living in independence and security in retirement. Being forced to claim benefits in retirement was the last thing on their minds.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential that the Government set a clear timetable on the matter because, as we know, many women are suffering grievously because of the basic inherent inequity?
  Mr. Denham: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am about—I hope at not too great a length—to set out the history of the matter, which I am afraid shows that the House should not take too seriously bland assurances from the Government. The history is not a good one.
  A system that puts an unnecessary benefits bill on the taxpayer and unnecessarily takes independence and security from individual women cannot be right. Despite the fact that the position has been long recognised, the Government have initiated nothing save a mysterious report on pensions and divorce, which is long overdue and has not yet been published.
  It was during the passage through the other place of the Pensions Act 1995 that the first progress was made. The Government bowed to cross-party pressure to concede the approach known as attachment, or earmarking. Under that procedure, once a pension is in payment, part may be paid by the pension provider to former partners. That was an improvement on the previous position in law but that gain—this relates to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—remains a meaningless paper commitment.
  In 1995, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), said that the earmarking of pensions would apply to orders made after 1 April 1996. Now we are told that it will apply only to new applications for divorce made after 1 July 1996. That is a huge slippage, given that there are some 170,000 divorces a year. One can only speculate on how many women have been hit by the Government's lack of urgency.
  The House was told in February by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), that the reason for the inexcusable delay was to allow consultees sufficient time to comment on the proposals. Two weeks before 1 July, there are no regulations out for consultation, no commencement order has been published and there is no sign of good faith from the Government, showing that they are moving urgently to implement the measure. I stress that history because it is possible that

  551
  the Government will ask the House to accept their good faith on the matter. Their record of inaction and delay in implementing earmarking suggests that something a good deal more explicit will be necessary—above all, a clear timetable for the implementation of pension splitting.
  After the historic vote in another place, the Government have accepted the principle of pension splitting. It is an improvement on earmarking for the simple reason that a woman will no longer be tied to her husband's life, life expectancy or career after a divorce. Instead of divorced spouses having to wait for their partner's pensions to come into payment, after their partners have retired, at the point of the divorce the pension can be split into two independent pensions. That is the way we should go.
  We argued that it was possible for the Government to introduce the principle of pension splitting in the Pensions Act 1995. The Government failed to do that. It is now possible to do it in the Family Law Bill. New clause 8 is intended to do just that. Its purpose is to produce a framework within which it would be possible, by regulation, to achieve a limited form of pension splitting this side of the next century. There is no reason why they cannot accept it.
  I should explain briefly how new clause 8 improves on the present clause 15, which was adopted in another place. That clause was a historic victory and had cross-party support but it has some weaknesses. It is not sufficiently clear about the difference between a pension asset and a pension right, which are not necessarily the same things in different schemes. The provision for unfunded schemes is not clear. Most difficult of all, it allows the courts too much flexibility and may lead to a situation where there is no standard pattern of pension splitting, which would be enormously expensive for those who are called upon to implement it.
  New clause 8 improves the existing clause in each of those respects. It is clear about the rights involved. It enables regulations to prescribe the shape of the benefits that would be reduced for the member of the scheme and the shape of the benefits that would be created for the divorced spouse. It would enable the regulations to be clear about the rights of the spouse once the benefit is set up. It would give clear rights to schemes in respect of the circumstances in which assets should be transferred to a new, free-standing pension or retained within the existing scheme. It will enable a limit to be set in the case of unfunded schemes to prevent an expensive commitment of cash transfers to separate pension schemes. New clause 8 is therefore a significant improvement on clause 15 and would take us much nearer to the implementation of pension splitting, which has been long sought and should have been put in place by now.
  The Opposition have been practical and realistic. We have accepted that it is not possible to complete all of the changes that could be made. In particular, the inclusion of the state earnings-related pension scheme and, possibly, of guaranteed minimum pensions in pension splitting at this stage is a technical challenge that will require further work—although I am reluctant to accept the Government's lengthy timetable as a rigid limit on how long it should take. We have recognised the need to restrict rights to claim large cash transfers from unfunded
  552
  pension schemes. Our commitment to pension splitting is accompanied by a belief, and an intention, that it can be introduced at no net cost to public expenditure.
  New clause 8 would move us forward and bring new hope to many people, especially many women, who are facing divorce and, as a consequence, poverty and insecurity, in their retirement. The Government have, for the reasons that I have given, lost credibility on the matter, but they have the chance to recover some. To accept the new clause would be an important step. Perhaps more important—because even under the new clause, regulations will be needed to implement the measures that it sets out—the House needs a clear timetable from the Government showing when pension splitting will be introduced.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said that he favours a system of pension splitting whereby there would be no cost to public funds. How would he bring that about?
  Mr. Denham: Several concerns have been raised, although the figures have changed significantly over the past year. On the two major measures, the figures for 2020 produced by the Treasury suggest that any tax implications would be offset by savings on income support and the legal aid bill. We have recognised that, in the case of unfunded public sector schemes, it would not be possible to enable a divorce partner simply to take a cash lump sum from those schemes to transfer into an alternative pension. Although in the long term there would be no net cost from that, it could lead in the short term to a substantial outflow of funds from the unfunded schemes. In an ideal world, that limitation might not be desirable, but we regard it as necessary at this stage. We have taken some care to examine the matter and have tabled new clause 8 in the belief that pension splitting can be introduced at no net cost to public expenditure.
  A clear timetable from the Government is essential. It must not be the sort of the timetable that led women to believe that earmarking would be applied to their divorces if they entered actions in 1995 only to find that the rules were changed and that they had been denied the benefit of the Pensions Act 1995. Such a misleading timetable would not be acceptable. We must have a clear timetable for when the Government expect to bring forward the necessary measures to put pension splitting on the statute book.
  5.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has mentioned a number of matters. The Government accept the principle of pension splitting when dealing with financial provision on the termination of marriage. We are fully committed to it and to legislating to effect it as soon as practicable. There is no point of difference between the Government and the Opposition on that.
  Earmarking has been mentioned. The scheme for attaching orders for periodical payments and lump sums has been fully considered so that a regulatory framework can be provided. I am happy to say that the agreed policy will be subject to regulations to bring section 166 into force for petitions that are filed on or after 1 July 1996. That intention was made plain earlier this year and we shall deliver on it. An announcement on the agreed policy will be made within the next couple of days.

  553
  As a measure of good will, we agreed not to overturn clause 15, although the clause would not, as I think the hon. Member for Itchen agreed, work as intended. Instead, we agreed fully to explore the issues and to present appropriate legislation when we had done that. That is the proper approach. The Opposition amendments restate the principle, but they do not underpin it with a considered policy that deals with all applications in terms of pensions and taxation.
  The amendments are an attempt to deal with those wide-ranging, complex and sensitive issues by giving to the Lord Chancellor powers not only to effect pension splitting but to amend existing primary and secondary legislation when the majority of legislative change lies within pensions and tax law. The amendments would also, inadequately in the Government's view, extend pension splitting to Scotland. The issues have not been consulted upon or worked out. New clause 8 addresses that by leaving everything to be prescribed, but that approach has two serious flaws.
  The first flaw is the extent to which the powers can be used to address the issues in regulations. In effect, it would mean that Parliament would be denied the opportunity to make important decisions on principle and policy. For example, it would not be allowed to decide whether all the pension rights should be split or only those that had been acquired during the marriage; what rights a non-scheme member spouse should be given; the obligations of scheme managers; and to what extent their discretion would be fettered.
  Parliament would have no opportunity to amend or even to debate regulations that affect divorcing couples and public finances. There is no legal or constitutional rule prohibiting Parliament from legislating to provide wide powers, but Parliament is usually highly critical of any attempt to bypass its scrutiny of policy. As illustrated by the Bill, many of our debates consider policy issues and their implementation in great detail.
  There would be a need for a great deal of prescription: the regulations would have to contain a raft of policy and legislative change. Those changes could affect the fundamental rights of many people. For example, they would affect property rights, tax positions and even rights within the civil justice system. I should have thought that, at the very least, the debate in the other place and elsewhere has clearly illustrated that pension splitting raises fundamental issues in relation to the purpose, operation and tax treatment of pension schemes.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend says that he accepts the principle; that this is a complex issue that needs to be looked at carefully; and that therefore there must be proper legislation. He has also said that, in the spirit of good will, he will leave clause 15 in the Bill. That clause was agreed in the other place and has not been debated in the House. So that we shall know what to do later this evening, what is the impact of leaving it in the Bill?
  Mr. Heald: Clause 15 establishes in the Bill the principle of pension splitting without giving the courts the powers that are necessary to effect it.
  Mr. Marlow: What, then, is the point of leaving in the Bill a declaration that has no legal effect? What does it do?
  Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made it clear that the
  554
  Government's proposal was for a Green Paper to examine all the issues in detail so that we would be able, after proper consultation, to put in place the regulations to give effect to the principle that is outlined in clause 15. The Government's approach was to accept the principle and to have clause 15 in the Bill, but to go about the business of the consultations and preparations that are needed to make pension splitting a reality.
  Mr. Marlow: The Bill will receive a Third Reading and Royal Assent, and clause 15 will be in it. The Government will later present proposals, but in the meantime, cases could come before the courts. What will be the effect in court of clause 15 being in the Bill? If lawyers start debating the issue, putting it before the court or taking cases to court under clause 15, will that clause have any effect?
  Mr. Heald: Perhaps I did not make the matter clear. Clause 15 does not contain the means to enable the court to make an effective order for pension splitting. In its present form, the clause could not be implemented. No doubt that is the thinking behind new clause 8, which is an attempt to provide regulation-making powers that would give reality to pension splitting, although I have criticisms of that. Of itself, clause 15 would not be sufficient to effect that change.
  When somebody is about to have his property rights altered or taken away, he should expect Parliament to have conferred an appropriate power to do that. However, it is not clear that the powers in the new clause are appropriate for that. They are certainly not transparent. For example, it is open to challenge that there is a clear power to allow the court to make an order requiring the managers of a pension scheme or anyone else to take the necessary steps to effect a pension split. That lack of clarity should not be condoned. There are implications for employers, pension scheme managers, funds of more than £600 billion, other scheme members, actuaries, lawyers and others as well as for the individuals concerned and public finances.
  The powers within new clause 8 are arguably not transparent, and are inadequate. The second major flaw is that, although the regulation-making powers appear to be wide ranging, they may not be wide enough to deal adequately with all the legislative issues that arise. Under those powers, further primary legislation may be required. The potential scale of legislation that may need amendment does not seem to have been fully considered. I am glad that the hon. Member for Itchen has listened to that point.
  My noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the noble Lord Elton said in the other place that, even in February, a one-and-a-half-page list of statutes would need to be looked at. That list is likely to grow significantly as we consult because we do not yet have a clear idea of the full extent of the legislative amendment that will be needed after we have consulted. It is fair to say that, in pensions, consultations often provide useful information about defects in draft regulations and ways in which legislation can be better effected. That is one of the reasons for taking such trouble to consult people in the

  555
  industry and others at every stage on the pensions legislation regulations. That has been applauded, and I think that Opposition Members agree with it.
  Mr. Denham: If the Government have been so careful in their consultations, why have we not yet seen the regulations on pension splitting that are to come into force on 1 July?
  Mr. Heald: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. The earmarking proposals apply to petitions issued after 1 July 1996, but it was never intended to lay orders in relation to petitioners until April 1997. Adequate time is available for those petitions to be filed, and those involved in matrimonial law are fully aware of that.
  Opposition Members may argue that enough work has been done to determine policy and that they know what legislation is necessary. If so, the hon. Member for Itchen has not set out a scheme in detail. If one provides Henry VIII powers—as, in effect, the new clause does—the limits within which those powers are to be exercised are usually defined. The Government believe that the publication of a Green Paper in July, to explore the issues and to consult on how pension splitting might be sensibly achieved, is the proper way forward. It is not intended as a delaying tactic in any way, and it is necessary that groups with an interest in the matter have an opportunity to comment. It is sensible to introduce legislation and proposals for its implementation once that work is complete, and not before. Producing sound policy in a complex matter such as this takes time, as Opposition Members know. They should appreciate that a wide range of issues will be considered in the Green Paper.
  Mr. Rowe: Have the Government ventured any kind of judgment as to whether the proposition that pensions should be split between a divorcing husband and wife would increase or decrease the attractiveness of marriage?
  Mr. Heald: No one who has been involved in a divorce case—I speak as a lawyer who has represented individuals in such cases—would consider that it was a good thing financially to become divorced. To spread one or two incomes over two households where previously there was only one is not easy. It is not the Government's view that accepting the principle of pension splitting will give a reward either for marriage or for divorce. It is simply a provision that the courts have wanted for a considerable time, as those involved in family law would agree. The Government's concerns are to put the proposal into practical effect and to ensure that the necessary regulations and primary powers are provided.
  The Government confirm their commitment to the principle, and we are prepared to leave clause 15 in the Bill until such time as it can be amended or replaced by suitable implementing legislation. We should introduce legislation from a position of knowledge, not guesswork, and the most sensible route is to introduce appropriate legislation once the consultation process is complete. I reiterate the Government's commitment to do so. I ask the hon. Member for Itchen to consider how we should make proper law in such cases.
  556
  The Government do not object to the other Opposition amendments in the group.
  Mrs. Maddock: It is clearly the will of Parliament that pension splitting should be addressed in the Bill. I listened with interest to the Minister as he talked about a Green Paper. The matter has been discussed by a number of institutions for more than 25 years. In 1993, the Pensions Management Institute produced a very good report, which has been followed by report after report. Pension splitting takes place in other countries satisfactorily, and it is high time that we had fewer excuses and more action from the Government in bringing it about.
  Many groups have campaigned on the matter and have produced information in reports. The Fairshares group—a group of divorcees—has campaigned, as has the Pensions Management Institute, the National Association of Pension Funds, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Association of Pension Lawyers. There is plenty of evidence to assist the Government.
  5.45 pm
  My noble Friend Baroness Seear put it succinctly when she said that this is a matter of "justice, decency and honour", and that is right. During the debates on the Pensions Bill in 1995, we saw a little move along the road by the Government, but it was unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said that women who are getting on in life are most likely to benefit from the measure. A lady came to my surgery on Saturday and specifically asked me, not to help her—she knows that it is too late for her—but to speak in support of the proposal in the House of Commons. Many women who end up being traded in for a younger model have supported the gentleman in question for a number of years. They have contributed considerably to the pension, and it is only just and right that that is recognised when the marriage ends.
  I hope that there will be quick action from the Minister, although I suppose that we should be grateful that the Government recognise that the principle is needed in the Bill. Like other hon. Members, I want to see the regulations and the enactment of the Bill soon. Many matters in the Bill are for an individual hon. Member's conscience and will be dealt with by a free vote, but my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats would be unhappy about a Bill that did not include pension splitting.
  I hope that that will be supported, although I am disappointed that, once again, we are waiting for a Green Paper. The Government must get on with it, as the matter certainly needs to be dealt with.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I shall be brief, as we have a lot of work ahead of us. In answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), section 25 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 imposes a duty on courts to have regard to the value of a pension if that is ascertainable. From a practical point of view, I know that that is frequently a very difficult exercise. The law is very much in need of reform so that the parties know where they stand and the courts have a uniform approach to an asset which is, after one's home, often the largest asset in a normal family. The duty in section 25 of the 1973 Act is to have regard to a range of factors, one of which is the value of a pension scheme.

  557
  The Minister said that groups involved directly in the pensions world are unhappy or unable to comment favourably on the proposed change, but I do not accept that. The Pensions Act 1995 was a considerable step forward, and the Pensions Management Institute and the National Association of Pension Funds are in favour of pension splitting. Those organisations were commended in the other place for their hard work in trying to educate the Government on the matter. Other bodies, including the Institute of Actuaries and the Association of Pension Lawyers—both of which are well versed in the intricacies of pensions law—are in favour of a change.
  Mr. Marlow: I am sure that the whole House is in favour of equitable pension splitting. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that clause 15 as written is not justiciable. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer—as least he is implying that he is a lawyer. Is it wise to have within the Bill something that is not justiciable?
  Mr. Llwyd: It is an offence to imply that one is a lawyer if one is not—I am, in fact, a lawyer. Mind you, in many circumstances it can be an offence to admit that as well. We are dealing with a broad statement of principle, and that is why the new clause should find favour. Frankly, it would add flesh to the bones and would enable us to take the matter forward. I am sure that the Minister is sincere, but I respectfully remind him that discussions have been going on since at least 1968. It is a long time since then, during which a great number of people have, as it were, fallen by the wayside in divorce. I have received many letters from women who are unable to do anything about accessing a share of the husband's divorce pension allocation, to which I believe that they are entitled. The time lag does us no credit. I hope that we can introduce legislation very quickly.
  I make one final point, in an effort to assist the deliberations more than anything else. In the past 10 years, there has been a tendency towards clean break orders in matrimonial courts. It is a welcome change, because often the parties need not return for any variation and the settlement is made once and for all, as the words "clean break" imply. It is not possible to apply a thorough clean break principle to divorce law if one must leave to one side the second most important asset of that marriage—the pension.
  I urge the Minister and the Government to get a move on, because the interests of justice, and of fair play generally, demand it.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I strongly endorse what was said by Labour Members and by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). The Married Women's Association was formed more than 40 years ago by one of my constituents and is now chaired by her daughter. One of its concerns, all those years ago, was what would happen to the pension on divorce, as it was inevitably and invariably the woman who found herself without pension rights.
  Hon. Members have spoken of the contribution that a woman makes by maintaining home and family, precluding her from earning any occupational pension rights herself. Representations have been made to me by constituents who, while managing home and family, made a sizeable contribution in some instances to the family business and after divorce found themselves excluded from any pension rights.
  558
  The Minister's contribution appalled me. He seemed to say that he accepts in principle that pension splitting is right, but that it is so incredibly complex that the House may be unable to define the legislation to make an inequitable situation equitable. He spoke of property rights, and I received the impression that he regarded the property rights to a pension as being exclusively those of the male partner in this sense. We argue that, as far as a pension is concerned, there are equal property rights.
  The Government appear to have had no difficulty shaping and passing through the House legislation when they wished to change, for example, pension rights of employees of British Rail or people working in the bus industry. Surely it is not an impossibility for the House to bring its attention and intelligence to bear to change a growing inequity.
  Timetabling is enormously important. If women are to be fobbed off again with fine words from the Minister saying, "Yes, we accept that this is basically unjust, but we cannot give you any idea of when this unjust situation will be rectified," I must tell the Minister that I find that unacceptable, as I know do many of my female constituents, who have made specific and direct representations to me on this. I cannot believe that the Minister is not aware of the grave economic difficulties that an increasing number of women suffer as a result of this injustice, and I refuse to accept that it is beyond the will and wish of the House to introduce legislation so that that injustice can be eradicated comparatively soon.
  Mr. Boateng: The Minister's response is as grudging as it is mean-spirited. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes. Had it not been for Opposition Members, the Government would have done nothing about pension splitting when we considered the Pensions Bill. Had it not been for Members on the Labour Benches in another place, with cross-party support, we would not be addressing the issue of pension splitting now. That is the reality.
  The reality today is that the Government are still not prepared to commit themselves to the timetable that we want in relation to this matter.
  Mr. Heald: I have said that the aim and intention is that the Green Paper will be published in July, there will be three months' consultation and we would aim to have a White Paper early in the new year.
  Mr. Boateng: Early in the new year is not good enough. The Government have had plenty of time to consider the matter. We want a clear sign that they will do what is necessary in terms of regulation, that they will do what is necessary—if it is necessary—in terms of primary legislation, and that that process will commence at the beginning of the next Session. That is not an unreasonable timetable, but obviously the Minister is not prepared to make that commitment.
  We must make one thing crystal clear to the Government. No Family Law Bill will pass the House that does not have written on its face the regulations that are contained in new clause 8 and our amendment in relation to that matter. The Government will have no Bill unless they recognise the vital nature of the concerns that we have raised with them—the concerns of women who face an old age of poverty because the Government have failed to act.

  559
  If the Government will not act, we will. If we have to, we will divide the House on this issue and, if we have to, we will vote against the Bill on Third Reading unless and until this new clause and the amendments are carried and appear on the face of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9

  STATEMENT OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
  `.—(1) The parties to a marriage may, at the time of their marriage or at any time thereafter declare by deed that neither party will apply for a divorce order save in such circumstances as are provided for within the deed.
  (2) Regulations shall make provision for the parties to the deed to lodge the original of the deed at the Principal Registry of the Family Division.
  (3) A deed made under this section shall not affect the power of the court to make a separation order and any ancillary financial orders relevant thereto, in respect of the marriage to which the deed applies.
  (4) A deed made under this section shall not affect the power of the court to declare the marriage to which the deed applies void and to issue a decree of nullity in respect of that marriage.
  (5) A deed made under this section shall not affect the application of the provisions of Part IV of this Act, relating to family homes and domestic violence, to either party to the marriage to which the deed applies.
  (6) Regulations shall make provision for persons who have given notice of intention to marry to be notified of the right to execute a deed under the provisions of subsection (1) above, and of the effect of so doing.
  (7) Where the parties to the marriage have made a deed under the provisions of this section:

  (a) no court may make a divorce order in respect of the marriage to which that deed applies other than in any circumstances provided for within the deed;

  (b) no divorce or annulment obtained by either party in relation to the marriage in any jurisdiction outside of England and Wales shall be capable of recognition under Part II of this Act unless the grounds on which it was obtained comply substantially with the circumstances provided for within the deed.

  (8) Section 3 (3) and section 4(3) above shall not apply where a deed has been executed in accordance with this section.
  (9) A party seeking divorce under this section must additionally satisfy the requirements of Part II of this Act.—[Dame Jill Knight.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dame Jill Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'by' in line 7 and insert—
  `(1) Except where a deed made under section (Statement of conscientious objection) applies, the court may, by making an order (to be known as a divorce order) dissolve a marriage.
  (2) The court may,'.
  560
  No. 119, in clause 10, page 8, line 27, after `includes', insert
  '—

  (a) hardship attributable to the fact that the person concerned has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble; and

  (b)'.

  Dame Jill Knight: The impetus behind the new clause is to allow couples, if they wish, to make a firmer commitment to one another than the marriage ceremony will become when the Bill becomes law.
  I draw the attention of the House to the fact that any civil contract, such as purchase of a television set or an electric cooker, hire purchase of a car, buying a house on mortgage, agreement on employment or use of land or education or any other solemn contract between two persons, is framed to ensure that each party keeps his or her side of the bargain. In no contract of which I am aware, and in no contract that I could call to mind, can one party renege on the deal giving no reason whatsoever and against the wish of the other party. Is it so outrageous to permit couples to have as binding a marriage contract as the contract that they would make if they were buying a dining room table?
  I cannot help wondering how the marriage service will change after the Bill is passed, as change it surely must. We have reached a sea change in what is lawful in marriage. Members will recall words from the marriage ceremony, but for greater accuracy I have obtained a copy of it. I draw the attention of the House to two parts. Both husband and wife are required to make a vow,
  "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish … till death us do part … and thereto I give thee my troth."
  They make that promise in a most solemn place—usually in front of an altar, and in front of their friends and relatives. Many witnesses hear that solemn and binding promise. A little later in the service, the priest says:
  "so these persons may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made".
  We should not pretend that marriage is just a pretty ceremony, with the lady in a delightful dress, little tots carrying flowers, bridesmaids, and so on. It is an extremely solemn moment for most couples. But what will happen when the Bill is passed? Without any fault at all, one person can break the contract—and it will not matter whether the other person does not want it to be broken. Divorce has always been available—although never so prevalent as it is now—but there has always had to be a reason. Now, no reason has to be given at all. That is a worry to me and to hon. Members who support what I am saying.
  6 pm
  Some people have said to me that if we are to have a way of signalling that both parties accept the binding nature of a marriage service—some may just go for the breakable sort—we will have to have a two-tier marriage contract. That difference exists already: some people choose to be married in a register office and some people choose to be married in a church.
  Hon. Members who support the theory that couples should be allowed to make a binding promise do not think that divorce should not be allowed. For example, there

  561
  may be cruelty in a marriage, and the Catholic Church allows for the annulment of a marriage. New clause 9 accepts that people can be divorced if there is a real reason for the marriage to end. We are not trying to stop people altogether from getting divorced; we are trying to say that we cannot pretend that the present marriage service will not have to be changed. We are in an entirely different set of circumstances—we have never faced a situation where a solemn promise made in one of the most solemn places in our country can be broken on a whim, for no reason whatsoever.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether hon. Members will be permitted a free vote on this matter. Like many parts of this unhappy Bill, this is a question of conscience. Few Bills in this House have been so strongly linked to a Member's conscience and belief.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am trying to understand what new clause 9 will achieve. If this deed were made or declared by the parties to the marriage, would it require both of them to do it, rather than just one of them? If this deed were made, would adultery or desertion be grounds for divorce?
  Dame Jill Knight: That is not in the new clause. As I have said, those of us who are interested in giving a couple the right to make a firmer promise than they will be able to make recognise that there are reasons why a marriage sometimes, and unhappily, should end. We are not saying that in no circumstances can a marriage be ended; we are trying to make society recognise how vital marriage is for society. If we go on as we are at the moment—with the divorce rate rising and more children living in one-parent families—we shall all suffer. We are not saying that there should be no divorce; we are saying that two people who decide that they want to be married to each other should be able to make a firm commitment. The Church will have to decide whether to leave the words that I have just read out in the service because they will not mean a thing.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in relation to adultery and desertion. If a couple have a deed—as she proposes—which does not refer to adultery and desertion as grounds for divorce, but subsequently there is adultery or desertion, will that couple be entitled to a divorce?
  Dame Jill Knight: Of course they will. There are many reasons why divorce has to happen, including violence. I emphasise that we are not saying that there is no reason ever to divorce. The two reasons that hon. Members have mentioned—adultery and desertion—are good reasons why a marriage may become intolerable.
  Mr. Cohen: May I intervene further on that point?
  Dame Jill Knight: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members are interested in other provisions of the Bill.
  Dr. Bray: I am trying to understand what the hon. Lady is proposing. Does she propose that every couple will draft their own deed or select the items that will go into their deed? Or will there just be a standard deed?
  Dame Jill Knight: If the new clause becomes law, I am sure that there would be a standard agreement.
  562
  The important point is that both the man and the woman would have to agree to, and want to sign, the deed. I cannot see how the Church—my Church, the Church of England—can possibly allow the wording of the marriage service to remain as it is. It will mean nothing to say
  "till death us do part"
  and to make a solemn promise before God when for the first time ever it can be broken for no reason at all, and possibly against the will of the other partner. For those reasons, I suggest to the House that it is not unreasonable to allow people who want to make a solemn promise to do so.
  Mr. Alton: I support the cross-party amendment, which stands in my name and in the names of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Bootle (Mr. Benton). The amendment raises some interesting issues that the House is right to spend a little time considering. I thank the hon. Lady for putting her arguments so cogently.
  The hon. Members who voted against the Second Reading of the Bill are grateful for some of the improvements that were made in Committee. We recognise that the Minister and his predecessor have done a lot to try to address the issues that were raised on Second Reading. It is important for Ministers to understand and to realise that the conviction that led to opposition on Second Reading may, in some cases, lead to opposition on Third Reading unless something is done to deal with the question of conscientious objection. The House, too, must realise that there is no question of the arrangement's being binding on anyone who disavows it. The legislation, in its Third Reading form, would apply to people throughout the country, unless they chose to opt out—by means of this provision—when they married. Allowance is made for conscientious objection.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) asked, very properly, about the nature of the deed that would be drawn up. I understand that, according to the drafting of the new clause, the deed would be in accordance with the teaching of the Church of which theperson concerned was a member. Clearly, however, if that person was not a member of a Church, there would be an opportunity for husband and wife to draw up a deed that could be lodged with the registrar at the time of their marriage. The new clause allows for personal responsibility: it allows for a personal affirmation of what the couple intend their marriage to be at the time of that marriage.
  Catholics and evangelicals, for instance, would interpret what is meant in regard to adultery differently, as has already been pointed out; but that could be recognised in the framing of the deed, and it would not be binding on anyone who did not wish to have it. If someone wanted to lodge the deed with the registrar at the time of his marriage, however, it would complement and add to the legislation. It would take nothing from anyone who had no religious belief, or did not wish to be bound by it.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I appreciate the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and many others to try to improve this appalling Bill.

  563
  I shall support the new clause, but I still think that it would be very much better to throw out the whole Bill lock, stock and barrel.
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady has given her view of the Bill in a characteristic way. She and I were in the same Lobby on Second Reading. I should feel much happier about the Bill if it allowed the right of conscientious objection, but I recognise that genuine attempts have been made to improve it.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston mentioned "two-tier marriages". I agree with her. That phrase has been thrown out by various hon. Members who have said, "If we pass the new clause, it will create two-tier marriages." There are so many diverse forms of relationship in this country today that it is absurd to suggest that the one thing that will not be allowed is a covenant between a husband and wife who opt out and say that they want to be bound by the sacrament of marriage for the rest of their lives. That is what will happen, however, if the new clause is not accepted.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: It may be possible to make this trivial point later, but if the parties continue to agree to the vow that they have made the whole issue will become academic. A more serious point concerns ecclesiastical annulments. I understand that, in some Churches, it is possible to go along and say, "Although I openly made a commitment to lifelong marriage, I did not know what I was doing when I made that vow. May I establish that the marriage never actually took place?"—although, according to a secular society, it clearly did. Would the new clause make it possible to go along to the ecclesiastical authorities and say, "Not only was I wrong in believing that I was capable of making a marriage vow; I was wrong in signing the deed"?
  Mr. Alton: The new clause makes full provision for annulment, in the sense that if it could be demonstrated that one or other partner was not convinced of what he or she was doing at the time, and if that could be proved to the ecclesiastical authorities, it would be possible—in line with the teachings of the Church concerned—for the marriage to be dissolved as it could be now, through annulment. That is the nature of such a deed.
  It must be said that, in relative terms, that procedure is rarely invoked. We are witnessing the dissolution of marriage and family life as an institution. The hon. Gentleman and I share the view that, when marriage breakdowns are fast approaching the American level—nearly 50 per cent. of marriages now end in divorce—drastic action is needed to reiterate the commitment to marriage and family life. I think that hon. Members increasingly agree that we need a Bill that is about marriage and family, not simply about making divorce easier.
  Incidentally, the marriages of our parents' generation hit the same rocks that ours hit from time to time. In those days, however, the normal procedure was to try to sort out the problems and stay together. Nowadays, a range of things happen that accelerate the destruction of marriage, with disastrous consequences. As one who has represented an inner-city area for 25 years as a councillor or Member of Parliament, I have observed that my area
  564
  contains marriage dissolution on the same scale as any other area. Indeed, on the sink estates, where life is often very difficult for all sorts of reasons related to economic poverty, one of the worst problems has nothing to do with that: it is related to the human ecology of the breakdown of social institutions, not least the absence of fathers and the breakdown of marriages.
  6.15 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: The hon. Gentleman has identified the root of the problem. Perhaps in his parents' generation—certainly in mine—there was a greater commitment to start with, but there was also a greater commitment to the tough times as well as the good times. In inner cities, there were tough times in our parents' day, but the initial commitment is not the same now. As soon as something goes a little wrong, people opt for a divorce because that is the easiest way out. We should try to create a firmer base on which to build.
  Mr. Alton: I entirely agree. I think that the hon. Lady would also agree with me—given her experience of working with broken families and children who become the casualties of those families—that we too often trot out the ridiculous statement that divorce is being arranged for the good of the children, and that they should not be caught up in such circumstances. If children are asked what they think, however—The Daily Telegraph, for instance, has asked them in surveys—the majority repeatedly say that they would have preferred their parents to stay together, rather than witness the breakdown of the family. Such breakdowns often have calamitous social consequences.
  We must all do more. The phrase "preparation for marriage" has been used again and again in the debate; I cannot think of anything that would prepare people better for marriage than a discussion about whether or not to lodge a deed of this kind. People opting into such a covenant would have to have that discussion. They would sit down with their intended and say, "Which shall we opt for—the conscience clause that means that we will stay together and regard our marriage vows as really being for life, or the marriage settlement that will allow us to divorce easily and quickly?" That would concentrate people's minds in regard to precisely what they were entering into. It would be the fastest possible learning curve. When a person's intended replied, "I would rather opt for the easier alternative, on the basis that we should be able to divorce more quickly," at least that person would know how committed his or her partner was to the relationship.
  This a practical, commonsense idea which is in keeping with what Members of Parliament constantly tell us on everything from bio-ethical issues to questions such as Sunday trading: that we must have more and more choice. Let me look at the other side of the coin, for once. If people want choice, let us provide this choice, and allow them to opt out. If it will not affect anyone who does not want it, where is the harm? If it is part of living in a pluralist society—if I may use that rather hackneyed phrase—allowing greater individual choice and permitting people to opt out of legislation, where is the harm? I believe that it could lead to many good consequences. I am happy to support the hon. Member for Edgbaston, and hope that the Government will accept the new clause.
  Mr. Rowe: I could not have more sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston

  565
  (Dame J. Knight) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in their attempt to strengthen the institution of marriage. I must say, however, that if a wedding in church means anything—I accept that some families still regard a church wedding as a social photo opportunity, although they are few and far between—it means a young couple seriously entering into what they hope will be a lifelong marriage, bolstered by the Church's historical vows for that purpose and strengthened, they hope, by the many people who have come to take part in the ceremony. One hopes that they will also be prepared for marriage, and all Church denominations are taking increasingly seriously their responsibility to prepare couples for marriage. I fail to see, therefore, how the registration of an additional deed would strengthen their marriage.
  A young couple making their vows to each other in the presence of the God in whom they believe cannot make a more solemn undertaking. If, unhappily, the marriage goes wrong and they decide to divorce, they experience huge anxiety as they try to salve their consciences.
  Mr. Alton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that might be so if both partners freely agree to end their relationship, but in the circumstances that we are debating one or other partner will be divorced against his or her will? How will that leave them if they conscientiously object to the concept of divorce? Some people conscientiously believe that marriage is for life and that marital breakdown excludes the possibility of remarriage. The new clause seeks to cover merely that point and neither the hon. Gentleman nor I should impute what we want on others; let them decide for themselves.
  Mr. Rowe: I have no qualms whatever about young couples signing such an agreement, but it is extraordinary to include such a provision in a Bill. We must remember that we are debating an institution to which a growing number of young people do not subscribe. Many young people who decide to live together enter into such a solemn undertaking and sign agreements. Some of them even register the agreements with lawyers or others. The majority of people who enter into any form of marriage do so with the intention of making it last.
  Dame Jill Knight: I did not follow the line that my hon. Friend took when he seemed to suggest that what we are seeking already exists. If people can already make an extra commitment, what is wrong with allowing them to continue to do so?
  Mr. Rowe: I am not clear how the Bill, as drafted, would prevent them from doing so. That is my difficulty. There is no reason why they should not sign such a document.
  Mr. Leigh: Under English law, the courts will rule that statute must take precedence over private covenants or deeds. Therefore, without the new clause, a deed made by a couple at the time of their marriage is not only unenforceable but uniquely unenforceable, and the courts will deliberately overturn it. That is why the new clause must be passed.
  Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation because I was not aware of that, but to ask
  566
  courts, 20 years later, to enforce such agreements will lead to the great difficulties that have dogged the issue of divorce through the centuries. I am not, therefore, very happy about the new clause.
  There is the serious risk of the House giving the impression that marriage should be made as difficult to sustain as possible—that penalties and difficulties should be laid in the way of those who want to marry and to try to make their marriage work—whereas it should be a joyful and sustaining partnership in which the state's interest is manifest. If the new clause is agreed, all that will happen is what is happening with increasing speed—more couples will refuse to take the risk of getting married to avoid the obstacle that the House is in danger of laying before them.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I have some difficulty in framing my response to the new clause because I have enormous respect for the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight, and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I wish to speak along the broad lines of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
  I well understand the background that motivates the new clause: the decline of marriage as an institution, the casualties—especially children, who are often the innocent victims—and the wish as far as possible to buttress the institution of marriage. I am not sure, however, that this instrument will have any effect.
  The new clause has been sold by the hon. Member for Edgbaston as allowing couples, if they wish, to make a firmer commitment at the time of marriage. She and I, at different times, went through a church marriage. We made our solemn vows and they are binding on us. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, there can be nothing more solemn than a couple's joint declaration in a church before God.
  I do not know what more the hon. Member for Edgbaston wants. If, in addition to the church declaration before God, any couple wish to make a covenant between themselves, they are entitled to do so. The real question is whether that covenant, declaration or whatever should be underpinned by statute or by the state. I doubt whether such an underpinning would have any real effect.
  It implies some lack of trust if one partner, having gone through the church ceremony of marriage and having made a most solemn undertaking, insists on some further measure to prove undying commitment. One knows from personal experience that those who are ready to make the most grand declarations and to enter into the most serious covenants may not be those who are most serious about marriage.
  My first unhappiness about the new clause is that it implies a lack of trust among people who enter into marriage and my second is that it would have no practical effect. Yes, I am as unhappy as the hon. Member for Edgbaston about the decline in respect for marriage and all the other matters that have been mentioned, but how will the problems described by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill—feckless fathers and the neglect of children—be affected one jot if the new clause is passed?
  It would not tackle social ills. If partners want to enter such an agreement, so be it. The hon. Lady said that it was a matter of conscience. Conscience is for individuals, and we are devising—however inadequately—ways in

  567
  which the state can deal with the institution of marriage and with marriages that do not last. Although I respect the motives behind the new clause, it would not work.
  Mr. Leigh: I rise to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and to speak to my amendment No. 119. My hon. Friend and I support the verdict of the House, which wants no-fault divorces. We are not seeking to reverse the vote in favour of them but is there any reason, in a free society, for not allowing people to state at the time of marriage their conscientious belief in the Christian concept of marriage? Such a deed would be drawn up according to the teachings of the various Christian Churches. I am not familiar with the teachings of other religions but no doubt they could do the same.
  To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) it would certainly be possible, under the teachings of the evangelical Churches, for adultery to be a ground for divorce and there is a provision for annulment under the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. We are fundamentally talking about freedom of choice.
  6.30 pm
  We are not trying to put fault back into the Bill. There is no question of including words such as "adultery", "desertion" or "conduct". The contract would be a matter of free choice but solemnly entered into—and it would not create two classes of marriage. There are already many different sorts of marriage ceremonies. No vows are made in the register office but solemn vows are exchanged in church.
  As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), the problem with any solemn vows made in church at present is that the courts view them as uniquely unenforceable.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is adultery a ground for annulment? If so, what would be the effect of the commitment in the new clause?
  Mr. Leigh: I must be careful not to speak on behalf of the Holy Father or to enter into protracted ecclesiastical discussion with my hon. Friend as to what are or are not grounds for divorce under the teachings of Christian Churches. The Catholic Church allows annulment and even permits divorce. It holds that if one is divorced and wants to remain a practising member of the Catholic Church, one cannot remarry. There is little use delving deeper into theological matters—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) explained them well.
  Amendment No. 119 is separate from my hon. Friend's new clause. which I hope the House will be minded to accept. If it does, the House can also accept my amendment. If the House does not adopt new clause 9, my amendment would still stand alone. Some hon. Members may feel unable to support my hon. Friend's new clause but I hope that they will support my amendment.
  Under present divorce law, if one partner seeks a divorce on the ground of five years' separation, the innocent party who does not want a divorce is allowed to
  568
  tell the court that a divorce would cause him or her great general or financial hardship. Then the court might delay the divorce or, in a few cases, might stop it. The test is high. It is estimated by legal commentators that only one divorce has been prevented by the grave hardship bar in 25 years and that the financial hardship test has been successful in only half a dozen cases. Actions on the ground of five years' separation account for only 5 per cent. of divorces.
  The Bill will allow individuals to cite hardship in all divorces, and the word "grave" is replaced by "substantial". The test could still be high. A new corpus of law will grow over the years and the courts will take their own view of "substantial", but there will still be a high hurdle to jump.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Am I correct in thinking that courts consider hardship, in relation to divorce after five years' separation, only in terms of financial hardship?
  Mr. Leigh: Yes. Half a dozen cases related to financial hardship, and a court accepted general hardship on only one occasion in 25 years. Many of the Bill's opponents do not consider that the Lord Chancellor's concession of extending the hardship bar to all divorces amounts to much—it is hardly worth the candle. Even replacing the word "grave" with "substantial" would still present a high hurdle.
  Having discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister, we have tried over the past couple of weeks to devise a way of allowing people to register their conscientious objection to divorce. I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Minister but if he has problem with the deed concept, perhaps there is another way. We want protection for people who are divorced against their will and who adhere to the concept of lifelong marriage. We alighted on the hardship bar, which already exists in clause 10.
  My modest amendment would provide for the courts to consider hardship
  "attributable to the fact that the person concerned has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble".
  My amendment would not create two classes of marriage or require couples to sign deeds. It would merely provide that if a person holds the view that marriage is for life and does not want to be divorced, he or she could apply to the court to delay or prevent the divorce. Judging by the past 25 years, I suspect that no divorce would be prevented. There could be delay.
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My hon. Friend's amendment meets one of the concerns felt by many hon. Members. If the person who applied for delay or prevention was—to use the familiar jargon—the party guilty of unreasonable conduct or even of adultery, would such an application not be allowed under my hon. Friend's amendment?
  Mr. Leigh: My amendment would apply only to the person who was resisting divorce. I suppose that it is possible to conceive of rare circumstances in which the party resisting divorce was the one guilty of intolerable behaviour or adultery but says, "I have deeply held religious views and, despite my adultery, I do not want a divorce." That case would be impossible to argue in court,

  569
  so it would not arise. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because it is important to consider how the amendments might be interpreted by the courts.
  The only people who would take recourse to the conscience clause under the hardship bar in clause 10 would be those who are innocent of any of the traditional grounds for divorce and want to register their objection to divorce. I offer the example of a middle-aged lady who has spent all her life building up a home and who suddenly discovers that she is being divorced against her will. She could tell the court, "I need more time to put my affairs in order." At present, she would have to meet the substantial hardship test in clause 10. The problem is that the courts, over the years, have interpreted hardship as that arising from the divorce process. They say that, when people complain of hardship, they are really complaining of the marriage breakdown. The court is not concerned about that and so it has been extraordinarily difficult for anyone to overcome the test. That is why it has been used only half a dozen times in 25 years.
  If the House accepts my amendment, it will be much easier for people to go to court and to say, "I am being divorced against my will. I have deeply held religious views. Please listen to me and give me a bit more time," or, in extreme cases, "Prevent the divorce," which, I suspect, the courts will never accept. Hitherto, the practice has been for the courts, in any event, to allow divorce after five years, even if a party is innocent and wishes to stop the marriage. In that sense, the amendment is modest and I hope that, on that basis, the House will feel able to accept it.
  Mr. Cohen: I oppose new clause 9. It is a dog's dinner of a new clause, and its consequences will be viciously reactionary. This country would end up with as many multiple versions of divorce law as multiple versions of the deeds. Presumably its supporters have in mind a standard deed, but they have not had the confidence to show it to hon. Members. That is an insult to us.
  Mr. Alton: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the clause's purpose. If someone were a member of a particular denomination, it is likely that he or she would draw up a deed that was in accordance with the teachings of their denomination, but people of no faith or other faiths might nevertheless still want to record their dissent in some way. The hon. Gentleman is right, therefore, to say that there could be different interpretations and formulations of the deed, depending on the conscience of the person concerned. That would inevitably be the case, precisely because this is a conscience clause. That is its strength, not a weakness.
  Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that, under this new clause, we would have as many divorce laws as possible deeds.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am tempted to go further than that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) claimed that there would be different interpretations, so we would have not just different divorce laws, but different interpretations of the same words, which is peculiar.
  Mr. Cohen: That again is a point well made.
  Under the new clause, any sort of deed could be made by a couple when they get married. Some of those deeds will try to stop divorce under any circumstances, which is not right. In an intervention, I made the point about adultery, desertion and cruelty. That point is not in the new clause. I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight): where is it in the new clause? We may have various forms of deed, but it may not be in the deed that the two parties to the marriage sign, which is a serious flaw.
  I remind the House what is in the new clause. Subsection (7) states:
  "(a) no court may make a divorce order in respect of the marriage to which that deed applies other than in any circumstances provided for within the deed;
  (b) no divorce or annulment … shall be capable of recognition … unless the grounds on which it is obtained comply substantially with the circumstances provided for within the deed."
  So the deed would overrule everything, and, as I have said, we do not know what will be in the deed. There will be many different deeds, interpreted in many different ways.
  I support the notion and the idea that national law should take precedence over private deeds, even if they have religious backing. In many sectors, the acceptance of decent standards should be the norm. A person should not be trapped for ever in a spiteful, violent or desperately unhappy marriage. That should be a nationwide standard. No deed should be able to wipe that out.
  I give just one example. People make mistakes when they get married. The person they have married may change from being loving to inflicting cruelty. In those circumstances, making a marriage for life or signing a deed for marriage for life may be viewed as a mistake, although I am not sure it is. Therefore, people in that position should be safeguarded and have the opportunity to get out of that desperately unhappy marriage.
  The new clause is fundamentalist claptrap. It will be used by fundamentalists of all religions, and it could inflict great pain on partners. If passed, it could cause enormous heartbreak and misery, so I oppose it.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: To regard the new clause or the amendment as fundamentalist claptrap is strong language, but it is not justified by the arguments that have been advanced, which should be tackled on their merits.
  I am not a lawyer or an expert in the different ways in which a marriage can be ended or can be said never to have existed in the first place, some years after people thought that they were involved in a perfectly valid marriage. I know of one couple who married with the intention of making a lifelong union. After some years and some children, they got divorced. Later, one of the parties to the marriage received a letter saying that the Church had decided that the marriage had not taken place in the first place, because one of the parties to the marriage had managed to convince the Church authorities that they had not been capable of making the decision to be married in the first place.
  I pay tribute to the Catholic Church's role, from the Holy Father through to the ordinary member of that Church, but, frankly, that example shows how people can change their minds about being capable of making the

  571
  decision to get married in the first place. We should therefore accept that they are likely to be capable of changing their minds about the marriage vow they made in church and about the deed they might have signed in contemplation of the new clause.
  Four or five hon. Members who have spoken in the debate are among those who voted or who acted as Tellers against the Bill's Second Reading, so we must understand that the proposals in the new clause or the amendment are almost certainly designed to improve the Bill, but that the hon. Members proposing the new clause and amendment wish that the Bill would not go through.
  If the Bill did not go through, 75 per cent. of divorces would be quickie divorces on the ground of fault. People say that the idea of no fault is introduced by the Bill, but that is not right. The Bill says that the fault ground cannot be used in future. At present, it is possible to get divorced without fault. The two-year and five-year separations are examples.
  We should consider the new clause and the amendment on their merits. The amendment has been supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on the ground that it will help to delay the divorce process. It will not end that process. I may have misheard him, or he may have misspoken, but the point was made that it would make divorce more difficult. It means either that people who may later want to be divorced will be caught and will be unable to be divorced because they have signed up to a deed, or a different form of marriage from the ordinary commitment that the marriage will go on until death, or it does not mean that.
  The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) proposes an alternative, and takes a different view on hardship. It is difficult to start to bring the hardship argument in. In either case, I should be interested to know whether the traditional reasons or justifications for a legal or an ecclesiastical end to a marriage would apply either in the hardship test that my hon. Friend proposes or in the new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) has tabled.
  It is worth consulting the views of people who have a greater ecclesiastical standing than me—although, over my years here, some of my colleagues have been more forward in mentioning their Church connections than I have. I do not want anyone to believe that those of us who are relatively quiet about our work in the Church have any less strong views than anyone else about the importance of marriage, or about trying to make the marriage process easier, and the process of divorce less frequent.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend asked me a question and I shall try to answer it. The whole essence of my amendment is, that if someone goes to the court to ask for a hardship bar, he will not argue that his divorce should be based on fault or desertion—that is irrelevant. The hardship bar already exists.
  All that that person will do is say, "Can I have some more time"—the court may well reject his request—"because I have a deeply held religious view about marriage, and I believe that it is only fair that I be given more time before the divorce takes place?" That person
  572
  will not go into the nature of the divorce; there will be no argument about adultery, desertion or anything else. I assure my hon. Friend that I am not trying to get anything like that into the Bill.
  Mr. Bottomley: I accept that. Some of the issues relating to delay now come under clause 7, which we will consider during our discussions on later amendments.
  I have deep sympathy with people who believe that their marriage could have continued, but, because one partner to the marriage decided that it could not, the marriage came to an end. Perhaps a longer delay would have made that more acceptable. I cannot judge that. However, having watched people who have been through that process, my sympathies go in a number of directions, because a number of issues matter.
  I want to bring to the attention of the House what has been said by a number of ecclesiastical authorities. The first is:
  "The Bill has been strengthened during its difficult passage through Parliament to date in at least three key areas: there is now a longer waiting period in some circumstances"—
  in a way, that meets some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle—
  "which more clearly signals the seriousness of marriage; a greater emphasis on reconciliation, offering a better prospect of saving savable marriages; and a statutory provision for marriage support services."
  That was said by His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster in a letter to The Times on 28 May.
  It is worth noting a letter to the Prime Minister from the Family Law Bill Coalition, which said that the Bill
  "offers the best chance for a generation of scrapping a system which is widely misused and frequently harmful to the interests of children adults and families as a whole, and of achieving reforms which have a broad basis of support. This approach has been tried in other jurisdictions and is long overdue here. It would be a lost opportunity if the Bill were to be abandoned or rejected now."
  That letter includes among its signatories Christine Eames, worldwide president, Mothers Union; James Richards, the director of the Catholic Children's Society; Rabbi Dr. Julian Jacobs, adviser to the Chief Rabbi on inter-faith matters; and Geoffrey Blumenfeld, the director of the Jewish Marriage Council. I shall not give all the names from the Anglican Church.
  I have shown how a number of Church authorities are not arguing the option of a two-tier marriage. There is the marriage ceremony, which a number of us have been through—whether civil or religious—where we say that it is our intention that the marriage should last until death. The option is being put before the House today of a separate commitment, which people could opt into, to strike out a number of reasons for the marriage ending if either or both parties want a divorce.
  Mr. Alton: I do not quarrel with the quotations that the hon. Gentleman has cited. However, does he accept that none of them addresses the new clause, because it had not been tabled when those letters were written?
  Mr. Bottomley: I accept that. The question that I earlier put to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members was whether any of the reasons why people could go to the ecclesiastical authorities and say, "Please tell me in

  573
  arrears that the commitment I made was one that I was not capable of making," would be caught either by the amendment or by the new clause.
  Until one of those hon. Members who voted against Second Reading but support either the new clause or the amendment can give me the answer to that question, people will still be able to change their minds, either about what they want to do for the rest of their lives, if they believe their marriage has come to an end—which is sad—or that they want in arrears to go back to the ecclesiastical authorities and say, "Can you please be convinced that I was not capable of making a commitment in the first place, either to the deed or to the marriage?"
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) earlier made the point about annulment and what is done in accordance with a person's denomination or Church. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. If, in the covenant at the time of drawing up the deed, someone writes in the proviso that he will be able to avail himself of annulment procedures, that is not a retrospective action—that person is saying in advance that he may seek, through the ecclesiastical authority of his Church, to annul the marriage if it does not succeed.
  For someone from the Catholic tradition, that would undoubtedly mean that that person would disavow the right to be married again. That would be a decision entered into freely and fairly at the time of the marriage. That is why it is a matter of conscience—and one that should not trouble the hon. Gentleman too much, because it is something that will be decided by the two people getting married.
  Mr. Bottomley: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, I do not think that he can be right. Is it possible for me to say at the time of my marriage in, let us say, the Roman Catholic Church, that the marriage is going to be for life, but then later on to go to the ecclesiastical authorities and try to convince them that I was not capable of making that commitment at the time, as I did not understand the nature of marriage or there was some other bar?
  Mr. Alton: There may be a reason.
  Mr. Bottomley: There may be a reason. If the hon. Gentleman confirms that it is possible to make a commitment and then later say that I was not capable of making that commitment, would the same thing apply to the deed that is the subject of the new clause?
  Mr. Alton: Yes.
  Mr. Bottomley: If so, what happens to those who have not made that commitment in the Roman Catholic Church, but, perhaps, in a register office? They would not be able to go to an ecclesiastical authority some years later and ask it to judge their state of mind some years earlier at the time they made the commitment. It shows that the new clause—not the amendment, which approaches the issues in a different way—is not helpful in trying to introduce a two-tier marriage.
  What is worse, the new clause basically says to people that, when they are considering marriage, whether civil or religious, they should go through a list of reasons that are
  574
  traditionally used as justifications for ending a marriage, and knock them out in advance. It is rather like saying, "Do you intend your marriage to be short-term?" I do not think that people know in advance how they will feel later.
  Even if we could manage to halve the number of divorces from 160,000 a year to 80,000, which would be highly desirable, we should do it by convincing people that they want their marriages to continue, rather than saying that, when they believe they have come to an end, they are not in a position to remarry.
  I want to cite one or two further quotations because they are important for those who follow our debates.
  "It would be quite wrong if Catholic MPs were to be swayed in their view of the Lord Chancellor's proposals by incorrect information about the Catholic bishops' view … We can point out to legislators the bishops' positive response to the proposals made in the White Paper."
  That was said by Monseigneur Kieran Conry of the Catholic Media Office on 20 October 1995. Again, that was before the new clause was tabled, but it gives the Church's view on trying to move forward to a happier way of allowing people to apply for divorce if they so choose.
  The last quotation I want to share with the House—there could be more—is:
  "should Christians, and Catholics in particular, shun all attempts to reform the present divorce laws on the basis that divorce goes against the explicit statement of Christ: 'What God has joined together, let no man put asunder'."
  That was a reference to Matthew 19, verse 6. The quotation continues:
  "I think not, because any attempt to lessen the harm done by divorce should be supported. That does not entail approving divorce but rather tolerating it as a lesser evil if it is the only way of ensuring the rights of the parties and the care and protection of children."
  That was said by the Right Rev. Peter Smith, the Roman Catholic Bishop of East Anglia, in a letter to The Times on 5 November 1995.
  All those quotations are in the context of a Church—although I am not of the same denomination, I regard myself as being in the same Church—where people make a commitment that marriage will go on until death ends it. The only occasion when some of the provisions in the Bill come into effect is when people find that their circumstances or their minds have changed. It is on those grounds that I believe that the House should not accept the new clause.
  On slightly different grounds, the House should not accept the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. We should accept the advice of the leaders of our Churches, and get on with trying to take away some of the unnecessary misery caused by the current state of divorce law.
  7 pm
  Dr. Bray: I have a good deal of sympathy with the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). However, I think that there is a real problem in calling on the apparatus of the state—the courts—to enforce a declaration made privately, or, as she has acknowledged, very privately.
  The approach of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has fewer difficulties about it. There are precedents for the idea of conscientious

  575
  objection as a recourse; the phrase, of course, comes from conscientious objection to military service, for which there is a well-developed apparatus of tribunals to judge whether the complaint is genuine, although there is not an enormous apparatus of appeal through the courts. Presumably such an apparatus could be introduced into a context like this one, although it requires some widening out. The hon. Gentleman's amendment is an interesting suggestion for consideration in the wider context of the law of marriage, rather than as a recourse to deal with some of the Bill's problems.
  I am not prepared to go into the Lobby to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, but I think that it has real merit for future consideration.
  Mr. Patten: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). It strikes me as political correctness gone mad to seek to deny people, man or woman—in a society in which they have the freedom to do almost anything else they like—the freedom to put in their marriage contract that which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has proposed, or the provisions that are necessary for the hardship bar to be brought into play, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
  Uniquely in my time in the House, this is the first occasion on which the Government have not stepped forward to support freedom of choice. Uniquely in my experience in the House, this Bill—for the first time—introduces the concept that there should be no fault and no responsibility in English law, in either the criminal code or the civil code. Although the Bill is important, today we are debating principles that go far beyond its provisions. We are saying that, in future—in this law as perhaps in later laws—we may well strip fault and responsibility out of laws when people are brought for judgment in the civil or criminal courts.
  Those principles are why I found myself unable to support the Bill in the debate on Second Reading, and they are why I may find myself, uniquely—I use that word again—for me, alone in trying to resist the Bill, perhaps in a Teller-free zone.
  The principles contained in the Bill deny freedom of choice, and strip away personal responsibility and fault.
  Mr. Llwyd rose—
  Mr. Patten: No; I am coming to the end of my speech.
  We have heard some frightening words. I do not want to terrify my hon. Friend the Minister too much, because he knows that he has my strong personal support, but we have heard many terrifying words today from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) about how, unless he gets this, that and the other, he will lead his troops into the Lobby against the Bill. I suspect that that is a political bottle-free series of threats.
  It is absolutely right for hon. Members—these amendments have been supported by hon. Members of all political parties—to register their opposition to a landmark change in the way in which we do business and regard criminal and civil law.
  576
  I hope that, between now and the close of play today, my hon. Friend the Minister can persuade me; if not, I shall vote against the Bill, if Tellers can be found.
  Mr. Boateng: I am rather saddened by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), not least because on many issues—I thought also on the issues of the importance of marriage and the importance to society of establishing stable family relationships—it was possible for hon. Members from both sides of the House to make common cause.
  I well understand what lies behind this new clause, the amendment, and the concerns of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I had the opportunity to observe at close hand the commitment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle on this issue in Committee.
  The approach of Opposition Members to the new clause and to the amendment is shaped by a desire for the Bill and for the House's deliberations to arrive at a goal and a place that do not undermine the institution of marriage, and that reflect the circumstances in which marriages are brought to an end.
  In relation to new clause 9, Opposition Members believe that the creation of what would be—de facto and de jure—a two-tier marriage system is fundamentally corrosive of the institution of marriage. It would put the parties to a marriage in an absolutely impossible position, not least those parties who choose—many still so choose—to make their vows to each other within the context of a Christian or other religious ceremony.
  It is quite wrong that couples who make that choice should find themselves faced with a law produced in this place that requires them to consider entering into this type of covenant or deed. That would not promote good marriages or create a good start to marriage.
  For those reasons, Opposition Members—although it has found a ready echo among Conservative Members—have always put the emphasis on the importance of the House, at some stage, examining the issue of marriage preparation, and to do so in the most practical way. In view of the Bill's short title, clearly it was not possible to examine the issue during the course of our deliberations on this Bill, but we hope to do so at an early stage.
  There are lessons to be learned about such preparation from work being done by various denominations and religious bodies. The work is important, practical and supportive of the institution of marriage, and it is succeeding in keeping people together when strains and stresses in the marriage are manifested.
  For that reason, today we shall not join in the Lobby those who put their name to new clause 9.
  As for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, I am bound to say that my experience of family law tells me that it will not in practice make any difference at all to what happens in court or to people's conduct. In those circumstances, I will not be voting for it. The view taken by other Opposition Members is a matter for them, and we shall have a free vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Streeter: We have heard yet another interesting and stimulating debate. Once again, I believe that the House is at its best when there are free votes.

  577
  I am fully aware of the concerns of many hon. Members, and of many of those in another place about people who have deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is indissoluble. I share that view. The new clause and the amendments can be separated into two groups, which seek to meet this concern in very different ways. I shall deal briefly with each of them in turn.
  I deal first with new clause 9 and amendment No. 10. By and large, we have had an interesting and constructive debate on new clause 9, although I did not agree with some of the language used by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I am afraid that the Government cannot accept new clause 9 or amendment No. 10, even though I personally have enormous sympathy with the motives of those who tabled them. However, I have grave reservations about their working in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) will be reassured to know that this is a matter of conscience, and will certainly be a matter for a free vote on Conservative Benches.
  I believe that the marriage contract is already a contract made between one man and one woman for life. The amendment is saying that, in future, only some marriages would be regarded as being for life. Others would be made indissoluble until a particular circumstance occurred. It also implies that, where there was no deed, a couple would regard their marriage as a contract from which they might opt out at any time, and shrug off their responsibilities and walk away.
  I can think of no more terrifying statement for the House to make than that the marriage contract made between a husband and wife is not to be regarded by them as being for life when they make it. This is the basis of our current marriage law, and would be seriously undermined by the amendment. People who believe in lifelong marriage have no need for such a deed. Several hon. Members have pointed out that people can already decide that they will not divorce, even if their relationship has broken down.
  When I made my marriage vows in accordance with the 1662 Church service, I made them before God, and I meant them. I meant them then, and I mean them now. If I break those vows, I answer to a higher authority—on this occasion, the House will be pleased to hear that I do not mean the Chief Whip. I need say no more than that.
  Were the provision included in the Bill, would not at least one half of a couple come under enormous pressure to sign such a deed, because not to do so would imply that that person did not take his or her marriage seriously or did not love their intended partner enough? Would it not be cruel to put young people under that sort of pressure? There might subsequently be disputes about whether the agreement was entered into voluntarily and in full knowledge of the implications. How will it support the institution of marriage to have couples litigating over the extent to which they have agreed to commit themselves to each other?
  I agree with the notion that young couples need maximum preparation before marriage, but let us tackle that matter in response to the ideas produced by the working party. If pre-marriage preparation is the idea of the moment, let us embrace it fully.
  My biggest concern is that those who do not sign such a deed might come to be regarded by society as having an inferior relationship, a second-class marriage. Couples
  578
  might come to believe that their marriage was somehow inferior and not worth sustaining. They could simply shrug their shoulders and walk away, saying, "After all, we have only a second-class marriage." That is not the message that we want the House to send. Let us not have first and second-class marriages, but strive to make all marriages first-class.
  Hon. Members made a number of interesting points, and I shall deal with them quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston asked what it would mean for marriage vows if the Bill is passed tonight. I can tell her that marriage vows will mean exactly the same. Today, 45 per cent. of all divorces come under the heading of "unreasonable behaviour". Many such claims are exaggerated or fabricated. The current law encourages exaggeration, conflict and deception.
  We are told that we have a two-tier marriage system because marriages can take place in a church or a register office, but under the civil law, all marriages are treated exactly the same for all purposes.
  I have already mentioned that we shall be allowing a free vote on this matter.
  I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), and usually support much of what he says, but I believe that he is misguided in this instance. He talked about the speeding up of the divorce process. The very point of the Bill is to slow it down, to introduce a period of reflection and consideration, so that couples genuinely think about whether they are doing the right thing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) intervened to say that we should throw out the Bill lock, stock and barrel. By doing so, she would be throwing out the three-month cooling-off period, the period of reflection and consideration, and all the provisions for marriage counselling, which she supports.
  Is it not a tragedy that those who would be attracted by the proposed deed would almost certainly be those who are capable of and more likely to enter into a strong and committed marriage in any event? Those outside it would be in difficulty, or have second-class marriages. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made a telling point, asking whether it did not denote mistrust if one needed an extra deed to sign to show to what extent one was committed to one's partner.
  7.15 pm
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) referred to freedom of choice, but is it right for the House to vote for something that we believe to be harmful to the institution of marriage, which is the very bedrock of our society?
  For all the reasons I have outlined, I cannot recommend that the amendment be supported.
  Amendment No. 119—
  Mrs. Maddock: Will the Minister state clearly how he sees his party voting on the issue? Will there be a free vote on amendment No. 119? There have been rumours that it will not be a free vote, but, if ever there was a matter of conscience, this is it.
  Mr. Streeter: Obviously, I am not coming across as I thought I was. I have already said that there is to be a free vote on the first amendment and now on this amendment. The hon. Lady should not listen to rumours.

  579
  I deal now with amendment No. 119, which concerns an amendment to the hardship bar. Under current legislation, and under the terms of clause 10 as drafted, the court, when considering an application for an order preventing divorce, can already take into account hardship other than purely financial hardship.
  However, the amendment clarifies the fact that the definition of hardship in the Bill includes hardship attributable to the fact that a person has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble. Bearing in mind the importance of this issue and the fact that it clearly raises issues of conscience, it is appropriate that the amendment is subject to a free vote. On this issue, the Government are neutral.
  Personally, however, I should like to support the amendment, and shall do so. There are people with deeply held religious convictions who married in good faith, believing that
  "till death us do part"
  meant precisely that. The amendment does not, however, create two tiers of marriage, which I believe risks undermining rather than strengthening marriage.
  In my view, it is right that "hardship" should include hardship attributable to the fact that a person has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble, and that such a person should be able to apply to the court under the hardship provision. It will then be for the court to decide. It will be a stiff test. Although this is a free vote, I shall be voting in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
  Dame Jill Knight: Bearing it in mind that we have a long way to go, and having listened to what has been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Minister, who supported amendment No. 119, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 10

  SEPARATE REPRESENTATION OF CHILDREN AND THEIR INTERESTS
  —(1) The court may, in the exercise of its powers under section (Welfare of Children), appoint a guardian ad litem for a child if—

  (a) it appears to the court on the evidence before it, that it may be appropriate for an order to be made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989; or

  (b) there are existing proceedings in any court in England and Wales under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 in relation to any child of the family in question.

  (2) The guardian ad litem shall—

  (a) be appointed in accordance with rules of court;

  (b) be under a duty to safeguard the interests of the child in the manner prescribed by such rules; and

  (c) be appointed from a panel established under section 41(7) of the Children Act 1989.'.—[Mr. Llwydd]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 14—Provision for separate representation for children (No. 3)—
  580
  —(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations provide for the separate representation of children in proceedings in England and Wales which relate to any matter in respect of which a question has arisen, or may arise, under—

  (a) Part II;

  (b) Part IV;

  (c) the 1973 Act; or

  (d) the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.

  (2) The regulations may provide for such representation only in specified circumstances.'.
  Amendment No. 106, in clause 24, page 16, line 8, leave out 'and' and insert—
  '(6B) Where there are one or more children of the family, the code must also require the mediator to have arrangements designed to ensure that the parties are encouraged to consider:

  (a) the welfare, wishes and feelings of each child; and

  (b) whether and to what extent each child should be given the opportunity to express his or her wishes and feelings in the mediation.

  (6C) A contract entered into by the Board for the provision of mediation under this Part must also include.'.
  Mr. Llwyd: Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not fair to the hon. Member who has the Floor if there is a constant buzz of conversation.
  Mr. Llwyd: New clause 10 seeks to give the court the power to provide for the separate representation of children and their interests in circumstances when it would appear to the court, on the evidence before it, that the interests of a child may be in conflict with those of either or both parents—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but it is clear that my earlier words were either not heard or not heeded. I should like silence, other than from the hon. Member who has the Floor.
  Mr. Llwyd: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try again.
  New clause 10 seeks to give the court the power to provide for the separate representation of children and their interests in circumstances when it would be appear to the court, on the evidence before it, that the interests of a child may be in conflict with those of either or both parents and that such a conflict presents a potential risk to the welfare of the child.
  It is clear that in public law there are considerable benefits of separate representation. Under the Bill as drafted, clause 9 addresses the responsibility of the court to satisfy itself as to the arrangements for children under section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The new clause would provide a bridge between the statement of arrangements for the children and the ability to appoint a guardian to represent their interests. It would cover many circumstances that are not at present covered by section 37 of the Children Act 1989, which allows for the appointment of a guardian only when the court is considering making a public law care or supervision order.

  581
  A considerable body of professional opinion—including judges, solicitors, family court welfare officers, guardians and child care social workers—fully supports the view that the lack of availability of a guardian ad litem in proceedings under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 represents a considerable void in the law relating to children who are involved in private law proceedings.
  The Children Act advisory committee recommended the extension of the role of the guardian to cover proceedings under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. Indeed, judges have tried to appoint guardians when it is technically incorrect to do so, and many recent examples are available. There is also ample evidence that increasing numbers of children—particularly teenagers—need independent representation, although it is not appropriate to pursue the possibility of a care or supervision order for them. Many require help in protecting their financial, educational and emotional interests.
  The new clause would facilitate agreements by diverting proceedings away from the court. It would give the court an independent view of the child's circumstances on which to base decisions about his or her welfare. It would extend the number of specified proceedings in which a guardian ad litem may be appointed, and it would provide a safety net for a relatively small but nevertheless important and vulnerable group of children.
  The new clause would constitute a logical extension of the philosophy and principles laid down in the Children Act and would be entirely consistent with the requirements of article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which the Government are a signatory. During the passage of the Children Act in January 1989, the Government gave a commitment that the review of the arrangements for separate representation of children would be part of the Lord Chancellor's rolling programme of reform of family jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking that the arrangements for panels of guardians ad litem and reporting officers would be reviewed in the light of experience, and the debate made it clear that it would be possible to review arrangements for the independent representation of children in all family proceedings.
  Of course, my proposal would have a cost implication, but I am sure that it would be relatively modest and not too far reaching. It would introduce a vital provision for vulnerable children and young people who would not otherwise be properly represented, as it would give the court power to make such an order and it would provide for separate representation.
  Although section 37 of the Children Act is a potential bridge between private and public law proceedings, it allows for the appointment of a guardian only if it appears to the court that it may be necessary for a care or supervision order to be made in respect of the child. Under the new clause, the court would have the power to do so without that proviso and it is entirely appropriate that it should be extended in that important way.
  Experience since the implementation of the Children Act has shown that there are many circumstances in which courts have considered it necessary to appoint guardians in private law proceedings, but have found themselves hamstrung and unable to do so. Judges have gone as far as to try to appoint guardians when it was technically inappropriate.
  582
  Recent research by the Children's Society on the separate representation of children in private law proceedings found that the majority of respondents, including judges, felt that there was a conflict of interest between the child and his or her parents. So it is quite obvious that there is a void to be filled.
  I fully support the amendment grouped with the new clause, and I should be happy if either was accepted. I commend the new clause to the House.
  Mr. Boateng: New clause 10 is a worthwhile amendment, which certainly follows on from our debates in Committee. The impact of divorce on children obviously gives rise to considerable concern. Experience shows clearly that the child's interest is best served when there is an opportunity to focus on his or her needs and for an interventionist role to be played, to ensure that that interest is secured. The new clause seeks to build on the guardian ad litem system and as such has much to commend it.
  The resource implications are also worthy of consideration. One issue that the Government need to examine, both in relation to new clause 10 and generally in terms of the way in which resources are raised and applied, is whether there is scope in the system of court fees and payments for the raising of revenue to be applied specifically to that purpose. So the resource implications are modest and there is no reason why they cannot be met from the existing budget and through the capacity of the courts to meet such expenditure.
  Experience has shown that the use of guardian ad litem in proceedings where children have an interest, by identifying the issues and seeking to ascertain where intervention by the various agencies can be most usefully applied, contributes to the harnessing and saving of resources.
  So on balance, the new clause has a great deal to commend it. We look forward to the Minister's response. If it is not possible to take the matter forward in respect of the Bill, I hope that we shall be able to return to it in other contexts and generally—building on the other amendments and new clauses set down for discussion this evening—to make sure that the special needs and requirements of children are met and respected.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Streeter: I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for his tireless efforts on behalf of children's organisations. Throughout the Bill's stages, he has spoken thoughtfully and argued persuasively on this vital area, which I know concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. He has contributed to some significant changes in the Bill—all of which strengthen it—in order to assist the innocent victims of divorce: children.
  I should also like to pay tribute to the children's organisations, which have conducted a worthy campaign for the interests of children to be taken into account in the Bill. While we may not always have been able to agree the details of changes, there has been nothing between us on the principles behind them.
  The Government believe that the voice of the child should be heard in proceedings regarding his or her welfare. There are already a number of ways in which that is provided for. The voice of the child can be heard

  583
  through the report of a welfare officer under the Children Act 1989 and through the offices of the official solicitor in private law proceedings in the High and county court, and, under section 10(8) of the Children Act 1989, a child may bring his or her own application, be represented and apply for legal aid for such representation.
  Expanding the guardian ad litem service in the way proposed by the hon. Gentleman's new clause, however, would duplicate the work of the family court welfare service, which provides welfare reports to the court in private law proceedings and which may be asked to ascertain and represent to the court the views of the child. Expanding the guardian ad litem service in that way would also require additional resources, as well as duplicating existing ones.
  New clause 14, tabled by the official Opposition, which proposes a rule-making power to allow for change, is preferable to new clause 10, because the latter applies only to the court's consideration of the arrangements for the children, and would thus not extend to matters such as domestic violence, separation or divorce proceedings. Nor does it allow for any control of the procedure. For example, it does not express a specific intention on the type of cases in which such an appointment would be appropriate, and would allow for the appointment of both a guardian ad litem and a court welfare officer, who may be performing a similar function.
  New clause 10 enables a court to appoint a guardian ad litem if it decides in the course of exercising its power under section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that it may need to exercise its powers under the Children Act or if there are already proceedings under the Children Act pending in relation to any child of the family. However, it provides for the guardian to be appointed by the court only in exercise of its powers under that new clause—which puts section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act in the Bill—and not in exercise of its powers under the Children Act. The court already has the ability to request a welfare report. New clause 10 does not specify whether that or the appointment of a guardian is to be preferred, and there might be duplication if a court welfare officer has already been appointed to report in the pending proceedings.
  The Government would also wish to consult the children's organisations and those who currently represent the interests of children in court proceedings, in devising an effective system. That approach would be consistent with new clause 14.
  Amendment No. 106 ties in with a number of amendments made to clause 24, which will be considered later. It proposes that the code of practice required for a contract with the Legal Aid Board, which is introduced by later amendments, should stipulate that mediators have in place arrangements designed to ensure that the parties are encouraged to consider whether their children should have an opportunity to speak up during mediation to express their own wishes and feelings. The Government are happy to support the amendment.
  Mr. Llwyd: In view of that assurance and the very thoughtful and precise way in which the Minister
  584
  responded, and as the Government prefer new clause 14, I shall not be boorish and seek to divide the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 12

  WELFARE OF CHILDREN
  `.—(1) In any proceedings for a divorce order or a separation order, the court shall consider—

  (a) whether there are any children of the family to whom this section applies; and

  (b) where there are any such children, whether (in the light of the arrangements which have been, or are proposed to be, made for their upbringing and welfare) it should exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989 with respect to any of them.

  (2) Where, in any case to which this section applies, it appears to the court that—

  (a) the circumstances of the case require it, or are likely to require it, to exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989 with respect to any such child,

  (b) it is not in a position to exercise the power or (as the case may be) those powers without giving further consideration to the case, and

  (c) there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable in the interests of the child that the court should give a direction under this section,

  it may direct that the divorce order or separation order is not to be made until the court orders otherwise.
  (3) In deciding whether the circumstances are as mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the court shall treat the welfare of the child as paramount.
  (4) In making that decision, the court shall also have particular regard, on the evidence before it, to—

  (a) the wishes and feelings of the child considered in the light of his age and understanding and the circumstances in which those wishes were expressed;

  (b) the conduct of the parties in relation to the upbringing of the child;

  (c) the general principle that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the welfare of the child will be best served by—

  (i) his having regular contact with those who have parental responsibility for him and with other members of his family; and

  (ii) the maintenance of as good a continuing relationship with his parents as is possible; and

  (d) any risk to the child attributable to—

  (i) where the person with whom the child will reside is living or proposes to live;

  (ii) any person with whom that person is living or with whom he proposes to live; or

  (iii) any other arrangements for his care and upbringing.

  (5) This section applies to—

  (a) any child of the family who has not reached the age of sixteen at the date when the court considers the case in accordance with the requirements of this section; and

  (b) any child of the family who has reached that age at that date and in relation to whom the court directs that this section shall apply.'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 22, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, at end insert

  585
  `once the requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act have been satisfied.'.
  Amendment (a) to the amendment, leave out
  `41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  `(Welfare of children)'.
  Amendment No. 12, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, leave out from 'section' to 'must' in line 34 and insert
  `(Welfare of children)'.
  Government amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
  Amendment No. 13, in schedule 1, page 42, line 6, leave out
  `41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  `(Welfare of children)'.
  Amendment No. 14, in page 42, line 21, leave out
  `41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  `(Welfare of children)'.
  Amendment No. 15, in page 42, line 39, leave out
  `41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  `(Welfare of children)'.
  Government amendment No. 63, in page 42, line 42, at end insert
  `The fourth exemption—
  'The fourth exemption
  3A. The circumstances referred to in section 9(7)(d) are that—

  (a) the requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act have been satisfied;

  (b) an occupation order or a non-molestation order is in force in favour of the applicant or a child of the family, made against the other party;

  (c) the applicant has, during the period for reflection and consideration, taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to try to reach agreement about the parties' financial arrangements;

  (d) the applicant has not been able to reach agreement with the other party about those arrangements and is unlikely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future; and

  (e) a delay in making the order applied for under section 3—

  (i) would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family; or

  (ii) would be seriously prejudicial to the applicant.'.

  Amendment (a) to the amendment, in sub-paragraph (a), leave out
  `41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  '(Welfare of children)'.
  Amendment No. 16, in schedule 8, page 72, leave out lines 27 to 46.
  Amendment No. 17, in schedule 10, page 86, column 3, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert—
  'In section 41, in subsection (1) the words "divorce or" and "or a decree of judicial separation" and in subsection (2) the words "divorce or" and "or that the decree of judicial separation is not to be granted.".'.
  Mr. Llwyd: The new clause sets out the principle that parents who are divorcing should have regard to the interests and views of their children. It enshrines in the
  586
  Bill a right for children in such circumstances to be consulted about important arrangements that their parents seek to make for their future, which is of vital interest and great importance to children. The views and opinions that children hold should be taken into account when important decisions are made about their lives.
  The new clause brings England and Wales into line with the situation pertaining in Scotland under section 6 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995: the so-called Scottish duty. It is right to consider the interests of children and their views at a very early stage. Indeed, if parents fail to agree arrangements for children and the issue goes to court, the court must consider the children's ascertainable views. It is extremely important that the voice of the child is heard.
  The provisions of the new clause were the subject of lengthy discussion in Committee. In effect, the present wording of the Bill draws together several important concepts, which were highlighted and discussed in Committee. We have all heard of the so-called amicable divorce. If such a thing exists, it is a description of the conduct of the divorcing parties towards each other. I do not believe that an amicable divorce exists in the minds of children.
  Every year, tens of thousands of children and young persons go through the terrible trauma of divorce—frequently even blaming themselves for the father or mother's inability to make a go of it and stay together. It is therefore vital that children's voices are heard loudly—not in a peripheral manner or as an afterthought, but central to the process. New clause 12 is of such importance because it accords children and young people the right to be heard.
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. Does he agree that, on many occasions, parents have very little idea of the children's views—partly because they have been frightened to ask and partly because the children are frightened to say? One of the important elements in what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve is that those views, once ascertained, should be relayed back to the parents. I do not know how the system would work, but it is important that at a round table or whatever, the children's views should be made available, not only to the court but to the parents.
  Mr. Llwyd: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he looks at the new clause's wording, he will see that that important aspect is covered. There will be circumstances in which a child feels unable to express a view because he or she does not want to be seen to be siding with one parent or the other. Indeed, a child may be afraid to express a view. Under the new clause, a child would be asked to express a view and would be able to do so if he or she wanted. The new clause also includes references to age, experience and so on, because clearly very young children might not be able to express a view adequately. That is a step forward and I accept the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful intervention.
  Sir Jim Lester: I support what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, especially in respect of talking to children about what they want. There seems to be a presumption in other legislation that the maternal case should always take priority. Many of us know from practical experience that it is better for children involved

  587
  in divorce to have good contact with both parents, and with grandparents, uncles, aunts and the wider family. It is a tragedy that so many fathers lose contact with their children, possibly until they become old enough to want to seek out their fathers. That is one of the sad aspects of divorce and it is certainly harmful, especially to children under 16.
  Mr. Llwyd: I agree and I shall discuss that in a moment. New clause 12 accords children and young people rights to be heard on important issues such as schooling, job prospects, where they will reside, with whom they will reside and so on. That provision is qualified in respect of age, experience and intelligence. It will protect children's well-being during and even before family break-up, especially in respect of their relationship with both parents, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned.
  Some 40 per cent. of children involved in family break-up lose touch with one parent altogether, which may involve 150,000 children a year. That is one of the most disastrous but routine consequences of divorce and family break-up. A relationship with both parents is a basic right for children. To lose a parent is to lose part of oneself.
  The adversarial structure of the courts provides little or no incentive for parents to facilitate the child's relationship with the other parent. Notwithstanding the difficulty of obtaining information on judgments and the reasons for them in private proceedings under the Children Act 1989, it seems that the aim of the Act, which was to give both parents responsibility for the child, is still not generally put into practice by the courts; nor is it fully understood by the public. The public still think that making arrangements for children means deciding which of the parents will "own" the child. Hon. Members have often referred to one parent having custody—a notion that was supposed to have been abolished by the Children Act.
  The latest edition of the "Procedural Handbook" to the Children Act, produced by Harris and Scanlan in 1991, states:
  "It is generally accepted that it is in the child's interest to maintain his relationship with both parents and this will not be promoted by an order which may be a formality but which nevertheless appears to favour one parent over the other. Anything which will tend to assist the parties to keep separate the issues of being a spouse in conflict and being parents will better enable a child's relationship with his parents to flourish."
  The evidence overwhelmingly points to a lack of concern by the public and the courts about children's loss of parents. Residence orders are often understood as custody and may be in favour of only one parent. The other parent may be given a contact order to visit, or be visited by, the child at weekends, for example. That is not sufficient to exercise meaningful parental responsibility. The courts are often reluctant to enforce that minimal contact.
  The new clause would encourage the courts and parents to take the preservation of the child's relationship with both parents much more seriously, by requiring it to be addressed explicitly, rather than implicitly, as seems to be the case at present. Subsection (4)(c)(ii) would ensure the maintenance of the child's relationship with each of its parents. That would encourage both parents and courts to
  588
  give priority to preserving and enhancing that all-important relationship. The evidence strongly suggests that a continuing relationship with both parents is beneficial to the child, its self-esteem and future well-being.
  Continuing relationships with both parents and frequent regular contact, as provided for in subsection (4)(c)(i), should, of itself, limit the sense of loss and damage to children after break-ups. Much else could follow—a more secure child who will achieve more, and who will be less likely to get into trouble and more likely to benefit from greater financial security. We must remember that it is the parents who are getting divorced, not the children.
  Subsection (4)(a) adds an extra qualification in respect of the child's wishes and feelings, that they should be considered
  "in the light of … the circumstances in which those wishes were expressed".
  There are well-known instances where unreliable confessions have been given by adults under pressure. When so much hangs on their wishes and feelings, children may come under severe pressure and may gain the impression that they must choose between two parents whom they love. About 25 per cent. of children may be under an injunction to denounce one parent. The additional qualification will allow welfare officers, mediators and the courts to take into account the known views of the parents in relation to their children's contact with the other parent, and the likelihood that they may be in a position to impose those views on the child, when considering how to interpret the child's wishes.
  7.45 pm
  I have argued consistently in Committee about every limb of this important new clause. It has the full support of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, to which I am grateful for its assistance, and the Children's Charities Consortium, which has been supportive. Finally, I thank Dr. Andrew Broadbent for his assistance.
  I commend this all-important new clause to the House. Without it, the Bill will be deficient. This is a Family Law Bill, which means that it must cover both parents and children. If we do not cater for the children, who are often the victims of divorce, we fail in our duty. I urgently commend new clause 12.
  Mr. Boateng: New clauses 12 and 14, with amendment No. 106, are an important package of improvement to the Bill. The Government's response to date gives one cause to celebrate because when we examined the substance of new clause 12 and new clause 14—which the Minister said during the debate on new clause 10 that he will accept—in Committee, the Government's response to them and to amendment No. 106, which deals with mediation, was less than satisfactory.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made a considerable contribution in Committee to protecting and furthering the interests of children. I and my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey

  589
  and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and my hon. Friend from Nottingham, Sherwood—
  Mr. Peter Luff: Just Sherwood.
  Mr. Boateng: That is in Nottinghamshire, is it not?
  Mr. Paddy Tipping indicated assent.
  Mr. Boateng: Quite so. I have not forgotten my Robin Hood and all that flows from that.
  In Committee, hon. Members returned repeatedly to the interests of children. We recognised, as the Government have now recognised, the central role of children in the Bill. By the turn of the century 3.7 million children will have experienced at least one parental divorce. The impact on a child of its parents divorcing is considerable. The valuable research that has been carried out in this area highlights the need for effective multi-agency intervention to counter the negative impact of divorce on children. Perhaps in the past too little attention has been paid to supporting children whose parents have separated. All too often it is a neglected family justice matter and a neglected mental health issue. It is good to know that in the House there is at last developing a consensus on the need for intervention and the need for a legislative framework in which that can take place.
  The Morton commission, a royal commission on marriage and divorce, concluded that it was right to accept that the breakdown of family relationships could often lead to emotional disturbance in children and could sometimes lead to anti-social behaviour. It concluded that it was essential that after a divorce everything possible should be done to mitigate the effects upon the children of the disruption to family life. It is only now, many years after the deliberations of that commission, that the House is turning its attention to how that might best be achieved.
  The White Paper recognised that there was an issue but seemed uncertain, as does the unamended Bill, about how it might best be addressed. I well remember the response of the then Minister when this issue was raised in Committee. There was a willingness to listen but, as was often the case in Government responses at that time, the willingness to listen was not followed by a willingness to act. On the contrary—at that time, for reasons that are not entirely clear but which have become clearer as the hours, minutes and days of this busy week have passed, the Government were strangely unwilling to act to meet the concerns that were expressed in Committee.
  There has been, albeit at a late stage, a recognition of the importance of the package that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and I have constructed, with the active assistance of the Children's Charities Consortium. I, too, should like to associate my party with the words of appreciation from all parts of the House of that body. It has striven with great zeal and diligence to further the interests of children. That is no wonder, because as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children study "Children Speak" stated in 1994, all too often what emerges from a study of the divorce system is a feeling by the child that, "Nobody listens to me." At least now, as a result of the House's consideration of the Bill, somebody will be obliged to
  590
  listen. If there was nothing else—mercifully, much else has been gained from the process—the House could draw a certain degree of satisfaction from that in itself.
  The Opposition feel that this issue needs to be kept under constant review. The Government have accepted that an advisory body should be established to advise the Lord Chancellor on these matters. The Opposition welcome the fact that the Government have taken up an idea that we put forward on Second Reading and have established such an advisory body.
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman says that this issue needs to be kept under constant review. What exactly does he mean? The arrangements that are made at the beginning of a divorce are often made in the shadow of the most extraordinary bitterness and hostility between the parents, and in those circumstances the court flounders. Later, however, when passions have cooled and other arrangements have been made by the parents, it is absolutely indispensable that the voice of the child should be heard again. Is that what the hon. Gentleman means when he speaks about matters being under constant review?
  Mr. Boateng: I am happy to address that point. The constant review of which I spoke ought to be carried out to see exactly how the clauses and the regulations that are made under them work in practice in the interests of the child. One of the values of the advisory body that was established under the Children Act 1989 has been the way in which it has been able to examine the legislation in practice and to suggest practical ideas on how it might be improved and how the Government might, where necessary, legislate in future to improve and develop good practice in the light of experience. That is what I meant, and the advisory body ought to be given an important role in that area. We are establishing a welcome framework for regulations and we need to make sure that the content of the regulations is right and apt and that there is a subsequent process of review and monitoring when they are put into effect. I know that in Committee the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had a particular interest in the role that should be played in relation to children. I take his point entirely.
  An important matter that we are not currently debating—I must take care not to stray out of order—is dealt with by amendment No. 106, which helps to assist in the development of how the interests of children should best be catered for within the context of mediation, an issue that considerably exercised the Committee. Much work remains to be done in developing mediation in this area.
  Mediation has an enormously important role to play and it has enormous potential, and I want to give credit to the work that has been done. There is a need to build on that work to see how the interests of the child can best be brought to the fore and kept in the frame during the mediation process. Credit should be given to the important work done by National Family Mediation, with support from the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, in looking at the rapid development in thinking on the involvement of children in mediation. It looked at the issue of training, so that mediators are better equipped to deal appropriately with the interests of children during mediation. The matter requires attention, resources and a commitment from the Government.

  591
  The amendments are to be welcomed as part of the package that I outlined earlier, but it is important to state that they are only a beginning. There is still a long way to go before we can be satisfied that everything is being done that ought to be done for children who are the victims of parental separation. It must no longer be a neglected family justice issue, but one that is central to our concerns in this House and outside.
  8 pm
  Mr. Streeter: I am pleased to respond to the debate, and to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for his sterling efforts in tabling an amendment that the Government are pleased to accept. I agree that there is no more important task than ensuring that children's interests are protected as fully as humanly possible. The debate was slightly ruined by the rather unfortunate personal attack on my immediate predecessor as Parliamentary Secretary by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has been tireless over the years in championing children's causes, and we should pay tribute to him.
  Mr. Boateng: I would hate it to go on the record that I had made a "personal attack" on the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). It was not a personal attack—it was a political attack. There could not have been a more obdurate Minister in relation to the matter. Had he been prepared earlier to take a more conciliatory approach towards the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), we would not have reached the present difficulties. It was not a personal attack, but a political attack—and a well deserved one.
  Mr. Streeter: I am delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's apology.
  The amendments make clear in the Bill the links between divorce procedures and procedures under the Children Act 1989. New clause 12 also extends the list of factors currently in section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that a court should take into account when deciding whether to exercise its powers under the Children Act. These now include: requirements to regard children's welfare as paramount; that the court should have regard to the wishes and feelings of the child concerned; the principle that, in addition to the child's welfare being best served by having regular contact with those with parental responsibility, there should also be regular contact with other members of the family; and the requirement for the court to have particular regard to any risk to the child that may be caused by the actual or proposed arrangements for the child's future.
  I understand that the amendments have the full support of the children's organisations. They clarify the court's position and that of children in the divorce process. They provide for even greater protection of children's interests—and children are, of course, the innocent victims of divorce. I am pleased to support these worthwhile amendments.
  The Government tabled amendment No. 22 simply to clarify that the requirements of section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—the duty of the court to
  592
  consider whether there are children of the family and, if there are, the arrangements to be made for them—must have been satisfied before a separation order can be converted into a divorce order under clause 4. The amendment ensures that any children born after a separation order has been made are taken into account by the court when considering the application for a divorce order under clause 4.
  Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 63 introduce into schedule 1 a further exemption to the requirement of clause 9 that financial arrangements must be decided upon before a divorce or separation order can be granted. It will apply where there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force and in favour of the applicant for ancillary relief, or a child of the family, against the respondent. For this exemption to apply, the requirements of section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 must have been satisfied, the applicant must have tried to reach agreement relating to the parties' financial affairs but been unable to do so and be unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future, and it must be the case that delay would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child or seriously prejudicial to the applicant.
  The Government believe that it would be wrong for a divorce to be denied on the ground that financial arrangements had not been settled when domestic violence or other harmful conduct by the respondent is, or has been, present in the family, provided that the applicant has made every effort to comply with the requirements as to the parties' financial arrangements for the future. The applicant for ancillary relief should not have to wait until the molestation causes ill health, disability or injury before he or she can apply for an exemption, as would be the case without the amendments, which I am happy to support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 14

  PROVISION FOR SEPARATE REPRESENTATION FOR CHILDREN (No. 3)
  `.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations provide for the separate representation of children in proceedings in England and Wales which relate to any matter in respect of which a question has arisen, or may arise, under—

  (a) Part II

  (b) Part IV;

  (c) the 1973 Act; or

  (d) the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.

  (2) The regulations may provide for such representation only in specified circumstances.'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15

  PROVISION FOR THIRD PARTIES TO ACT ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (No. 3)
  '.—(1) Rules of court may provide for a prescribed person, or any person in a prescribed category, ("a representative") to act on behalf of another in relation to proceedings to which Part IV applies.
  (2) Rules made under this section may, in particular, authorise a representative to apply for an occupation order or for a non-molestation order for which the person on whose behalf the representative is acting could have applied.
  (3) Rules made under this section may prescribe—

  (a) conditions to be satisfied before a representative may make an application to the court on behalf of another; and

  (b) considerations to be taken into account by the court in determining whether, and if so how, to exercise any of its powers under Part IV when a representative is acting on behalf of another.

  (4) Any rules made under this section may be made so as to have effect for a specified period and may make consequential or transitional provision with respect to the expiry of the specified period.
  (5) Any such rules may be replaced by further rules made under this section.'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 59.
  Mr. Boateng: We have now reached that part the Bill that seeks to address specifically an issue that is of considerable concern and reflects a growing phenomenon—that of domestic violence. One in four crimes of violence reported to the police is the result of a woman being assaulted in her home by the man with whom she lives. A woman is four times as likely to be the victim of violence in the home as of mugging, and yet research suggests that only 2 per cent. of attacks on women in the home are reported to the police.
  Within the context of those horrific statistics, upwards of 750,000 children are caught in the crossfire of domestic violence. That is the scale of the problem that we are required, as a House, to address. Zero tolerance of domestic violence must become the norm.
  I am pleased to say that, throughout the country, examples are multiplying of local authorities developing, in conjunction with a broad cross-section of agencies in the voluntary and statutory sectors, effective policies designed to combat this especially pernicious form of violence—in very many cases, as a result of initiatives taken by Labour-controlled councils. I am glad to say, however, that they are increasingly supported by the cross-party alliance.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), who was outstanding among her colleagues in Committee for being the only one of their number prepared to support the precursor of the amendment that we are discussing. That is a matter of record, and it is one that the House and the country should note, because the time has come for us to be prepared, as a House, to take strong measures in support of existing multi-agency initiatives and to extend police and other agency powers in that regard.
  594
  That is what new clause 15 seeks to do. It seeks to build on a recommendation of the Law Commission, following its consideration of domestic violence, and to build on the work of the Home Affairs Select Committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) served with such distinction—to create, on a pilot basis, an opportunity for local strategies to develop geared towards combating domestic violence.
  The new clause will enable a third party—usually, but not necessarily, a police service—to take legal action on the part of the victim of domestic violence. The need is obvious, because all too often the victim of domestic violence feels peculiarly vulnerable and therefore unable, because of the oppression she faces daily, to take action herself. It is a radical proposal—a departure from the existing processes and procedures of the court.
  Mr. Marlow: I know that the police are very wary of getting involved in domestic disputes. Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence from the police that they would be happy to have this power?
  Mr. Boateng: Certainly. Interestingly, when the Home Affairs Select Committee took evidence on that subject, support was expressed, not least, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear, by the Police Federation, the representative of the men and women working on the ground, which said that it would welcome such a power.
  The Association of Chief Police Officers properly mentioned resource implications. We have sought to tackle the resources issue as follows. It is our proposal, contained in this amendment, that several pilot schemes should be conducted by the Lord Chancellor at the instigation of his Department. Such schemes would be conducted in areas where there was already good practice, where there was a multi-agency approach involving the local social services, the local police and the refuge movement, and build on the co-operation that is already developing along those lines in many places.
  8.15 pm
  Obviously, the local authority, the police authority, chief police officers and chief officers of social services would consider their role and take resource implications into account before making an application to the Lord Chancellor for exercise of authority given to the Lord Chancellor under new clause 15. Similarly, the Lord Chancellor would satisfy himself that the resources were in place alongside the policy in order to make the new clause an effective vehicle for bearing down on those who persist in using violence as a means of terrorising and oppressing their partners.
  I pay tribute to those working in this area. I am grateful for the advice and briefing given by the Northampton Domestic Violence Forum, which, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) may know, is working in this area. It has developed an inter-agency strategy group for domestic violence in Northamptonshire. It is designed to provide a variety of co-ordinated responses, including encouraging women to seek advice and support, providing information and advice to victims of domestic violence and protecting women in their homes, as well as providing emergency and longer-term accommodation for victims, recognizing

  595
  the special needs that exist by virtue of disability or cultural or religious distinctions and recognising the importance of working to change the behaviour of violent men.
  It was suggested sometimes in Committee that to talk about domestic violence was to be anti-men. Nothing can be further from the truth. To talk about domestic violence and the need to combat violence in the home is to recognise that some men have a real problem about violence against women and need to be set right. They need to understand that, if they persist in beating up on the people with whom they live, they will be subject to the full rigours of the law, that the people they live with are entitled to the full protection of the law and that they need to get help for the problems that they have in that regard.
  One of the attractive things about the work being done in Northamptonshire is that it is not only about protection of the woman, vital although that work is and although it must be given top priority; it also recognises that men have a job of work to do in looking at themselves and changing their own conduct so that they do not repeat it with other women in future after the woman they happen to be violent to at the moment has been protected.
  Sir Michael Neubert: If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to make clear that he is not anti-men in the context of violence, will he acknowledge that there are cases where men are the subject of assault and violence by women? One such case has come to my attention in my constituency.
  Mr. Boateng: There may well be such cases, but they pale into insignificance when compared with the number of men who beat up women and who get away with it. The hon. Gentleman must excuse me if I do not get in high dudgeon about the number of men who are beaten up by women, because it is a remarkably small number.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real concern is that nine out of 10 domestic violence incidents involve violence of men against women? Every week two women are murdered by their husbands. Is it not that concern that should be dominant in our minds?
  Mr. Boateng: I endorse wholeheartedly what my hon. Friend has said. I have worked in family law for about 20 years and I began my career by working for a woman called Erin Pizzey, who ran one of the first refuges in west London. It astounds me that it is only when women are beginning to make some considerable gains in this area—in terms of winning public recognition of the fact that this is something that needs to be addressed and that it is important that we take concerted action to bear down on these violent men—that instances of men who have been beaten up by women are brought to the attention of hon. Members. It is rather interesting. The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) must understand that Labour Members would be a little more receptive to his point if it were not made in the context in which it is made—years of shameful neglect by the House of the issue of domestic violence against women.
  Sir Michael Neubert: Should not the hon. Gentleman recognise that we are here to oppose, condemn and
  596
  deplore the act of violence by whomsoever commits it? In labouring the point—with which none of us disagrees—he is making the same mistake as those who talk about terrorists as being exclusively men when, as we know, regrettably, a few are women.
  Mr. Boateng: With the utmost of respect, I prefaced my remarks with references to zero tolerance of domestic violence, from whatever source. It was the hon. Gentleman who raised the issue of the number of attacks by women on men. I shall move on, so long as he is prepared, likewise, not to labour this point.
  The important work that is being done by the Northampton Domestic Violence Forum involves the police; it involves social services; it involves the magistrates courts, whose powers in this area are extended by the Bill; and it involves the local housing departments. If we are to develop an effective multi-agency strategy, it is necessary for us to harness the resources that are made available to homeless families. The Northampton experience is just one example of good practice that is occurring throughout the country.
  I am glad to say that this new clause enjoys the support of the Women's Aid Federation of England, which says that it will contribute to an improved package of care and help from all relevant agencies. It welcomes the capacity of the Lord Chancellor to initiate pilot schemes that maximise the effectiveness of police action and the safety of victims. I thank the federation for the valuable work that it has done in protecting women, day in and day out, from domestic violence and in shaping the Bill. In that spirit, I commend the new clause to the House.
  Mr. Streeter: I am delighted to support the amendment enthusiastically. Domestic violence has no place in our society. Domestic violence is primarily an issue where men inflict violence on women—although I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). Too many men in our society feel that it is their right physically to intimidate or to beat their women. Tonight, we must send a clear signal that this is not acceptable and that it will not be tolerated. Domestic violence is not a right-wing or a left-wing issue; it is not a Conservative or a Labour issue—it is an issue of concern for all hon. Members who serve in the House.
  In Committee, the Government resisted calls to give powers to the police and to other authorised persons to act on behalf of the victims of domestic violence. Now that Labour Members have thought again about the wording of their amendment, we are happy to accept it.
  I pay tribute to the Women's Aid Federation in Bristol, which I had the privilege of visiting less than two weeks ago. The time that I spent with the federation in discussing this important issue has helped to shape our decision tonight. This does not mean that the concerns expressed by the Government in Committee no longer hold true. The Government have no wish to oppose any measure that would prove an effective weapon in the armoury of those battling against domestic violence.
  Our concern arises from the disagreement that exists among those who have considered the question of enabling the police to seek civil remedies on behalf of others as to whether this would prove a useful weapon in the fight against domestic violence. The proposal to grant police powers to seek civil remedies on behalf of those

  597
  suffering domestic violence has its origin in the Law Commission report of 1992. However, the Home Affairs Select Committee's inquiry into domestic violence in 1993 rejected the proposal, as did the House of Lords Special Public Bill Committee on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill.
  There was, and remains, concern that the police have neither the resources nor the expertise to take on this role. Interest groups were also divided on this issue, some fearing the further disempowerment of women already trapped in situations over which they have little control. In light of these considerations, it was decided not to include such a provision in the Bill. Whatever the pros and cons of the third party approach to attacking domestic violence, it is clear that we are not yet in a position where it is wise to embark immediately on this course. However, the Government readily accept that knowledge and experience in this area is growing all the time. For example, police domestic violence units are now much more developed and expert in the field than they once were.
  Mr. Marlow: While I accept everything that has been said and agree that we ought to do what we can to deal with the problem of domestic violence, I am concerned about third parties being involved. It is one thing for the police and for social services to be involved, but is there a possibility that politically correct pressure groups could home in on a victim and use her to make their political points before a court? Is my hon. Friend confident that the amendment could not be used in such a way?
  Mr. Streeter: I have no time for political correctness for its own sake. My hon. Friend will be delighted that the Lord Chancellor will shape these rules, with wide consultation—I am sure that he will find that reassuring.
  I pay tribute to the efforts of the police in developing domestic violence units. All hon. Members will admit that there is still some way to go in this regard. The Government remain of the view that there may need to be a good deal more thought, discussion and research before any rules are made under the new clause. My hon. Friend's concerns will be listened to carefully.
  The Government also accept that the proposers of the amendment appear, at last, to have recognised that the amendment does not prescribe that the police shall act as the representatives, and that others may more appropriately be able to do it in consultation with the police. It makes provision for the piloting of any rules made. It may well be that a measure of agreement will emerge among those concerned with the prevention of domestic violence as to the need for the provision of third party action in the way envisaged by the new clause. In addition, suitable pilot schemes may be devised. It therefore does not seem sensible to have to wait for a further legislative opportunity to provide such a rule-making power.
  Government amendment No. 59 simply makes a technical change to clause 60. It makes it clear that the provisions of the clause do not apply to rules of court made under the Act that the Bill will become,
  "or any power to make rules of court, for the purposes of this Act."
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

  THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PARTS II AND III
  Amendment made: No. 18, in page 1, line 12, leave out `to save it' and insert
  `, whether by marriage counselling or otherwise, to save the marriage'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 1, line 22, after 'end', insert
  `; and
  (d) that any risk to one of the parties to a marriage, and to any children, of violence from the other party should, so far as reasonably practicable, be removed or diminished.'.
  A similar amendment was moved in Committee. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all persons exercising any function under parts II and III of the Bill are obliged to take into account, as one of the guiding principles of the legislation, the need to remove or diminish the risk to which it refers.
  A number of my hon. Friends who are present now were present when, for the first time, the Committee dealt with the issue of violence. If memory serves me well, we spent more than half a day debating that issue, and the Government took us to task repeatedly for raising it. We were told that it was unnecessary and inappropriate, and had no practical meaning or significance. We were asked for examples of its significance. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—she is not present now, but she made an important contribution then, and has spoken on related issues today—and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) spoke to the amendment, as did I. Each and every one of us gave examples, drawing on the experience of organisations in our constituencies. We sought to develop the argument in favour of a principled stand against domestic violence in connection with parts II and III of the Bill, but on each occasion our arguments were rejected.
  We were asked what relevance the amendment had to information meetings. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston)—who is currently working with a Select Committee outside the House—recounted how she had appeared in court on behalf of a victim of domestic violence. Not only was the perpetrator present in court; he renewed his threats, and his attack on the victim, within the precincts of the court.
  Such information sessions represent an innovation. No one quite knows how they will work out in practice. We asked time and again what sort of premises would be used for the purposes of information sessions. We thought—and the Minister specifically declined to rule it out—that the Government might want to use cubicles in social security offices for one-to-one sessions, that being their concession to the need for privacy. Such an idea is ironic in itself: anyone who has ever visited a social security office knows that scant privacy is provided by the cubicles. The experience is very public, and all too often it is humiliating and degrading.
  In such circumstances, with direct free public access to the buildings, there is a real danger that domestic violence might occur. Those whom the legislation makes

  599
  responsible for arranging information sessions must take into account any risk to one of the parties, or the children, from the other party, and such risks
  "should, so far as reasonably practicable, be removed or diminished."
  I have given one example, but many others can be drawn from the courtroom and, indeed, the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  This important amendment sets out our principled opposition to domestic violence, as a House and a society, and our determination—
  "so far as reasonably practicable"
  to remove the risk of domestic violence from the parties and the children.
  Mr. Streeter: The provision of protection from domestic violence has always been at the heart of the Bill. Indeed, the Government's determination to do something about it is evidenced by the speed with which the provisions of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill of 1995 were largely reintroduced as part IV of this Bill.
  In Committee—as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) rightly said—the Government rejected the idea of putting this duty into the general principles clause: we felt that domestic violence was catered for adequately in part IV, and indeed it is well catered for. But I am pleased to report that, following my conversations with the various interest groups that are expressing their concerns about domestic violence, we will happily go the extra mile and include a reference to the need to remove or diminish the risk of domestic violence, so far as reasonably practicable, during the divorce process. The Government accept that the potential for domestic violence will be present for some at a number of points in the divorce and separation process, and that it is right for those exercising functions in connection with the process to take that into consideration.
  I gained some personal knowledge of the devastation to family life that the presence of violence in the home can bring through church-based counselling in the inner city of Plymouth in the early 1980s. In those days I was able to see life in the raw, and through that experience I developed a deep-seated loathing for what we now call domestic violence. I personally am pleased to support the amendment, and the Government are committed to doing what they can in the Bill to support effective measures to provide protection from domestic violence for all who need it.
  Mr. Boateng: The Minister's commitment is well known and undoubted. I appreciate the spirit and tone of his acceptance of the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

  CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ORDERS ARE MADE
  Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 30, after '(6)' insert 'or (13)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23.
  Mr. Streeter: At present, under clause 4, if a court is considering an application for a divorce order and a
  600
  separation order, it will proceed as if it were considering only the divorce application, except in certain circumstances.
  Amendment No. 19 extends those circumstances to include a situation where the period for reflection and consideration in the case of the divorce order has been extended by six months. Under the terms of the amendment, a court would be able to proceed with the separation order in those circumstances. That would also permit a financial provision or property adjustment order to take effect where it could not otherwise do so because there were no exceptional circumstances and it would not have been just and reasonable for it to take effect earlier.
  Amendment Nos. 20, 21 and 23 bring the time periods of clause 4 in line with clause 7, which was amended in Committee to provide for a six-month extension to the period for reflection and consideration, in certain circumstances. It ensures that parties cannot circumvent the six-month extension by obtaining a separation order after 12 months and immediately applying to convert it into a divorce order.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

  CONVERSION OF SEPARATION ORDER INTO DIVORCE ORDER
  Amendments made: No. 20, in page 2, line 35, after `while' insert
  '—
  (a)'
  No. 21, in page 2, line 36, at end insert '; or
  (b) subsection (3A) applies.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 22, in page 2, line 42, at end insert
  `once the requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act have been satisfied.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Amendment made to the proposed amendment: (a), leave out
  '41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  '(Welfare of childreni)'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 23, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
  '(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), this subsection applies if—

  (a) there is a child of the family who is under the age of sixteen when the application under this section is made; or

  (b) the application under this section is made by one party and the other party applies to the court, before the end of such period as may be prescribed by rules of court, for time for further reflection.

  (3B) Subsection (3A)—

  (a) does not apply if, at the time when the application under this section is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, made against the other party;

  (b) does not apply if the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family;

  601

  (c) ceases to apply—

  (i) at the end of the period of six months beginning with the end of the period of reflection and consideration by reference to which the separation order was made; or

  (ii) if earlier, on there ceasing to be any children of the family to whom subsection (3A)(a) applied.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 5

  MARITAL BREAKDOWN
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 3, line 4, leave out from 'statement' to 'has' in line 9.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'more than one year' and insert
  `one year ("the specified period")'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 105, in page 3, line 27, after 'year' insert
  `(or such further period as shall, having regard to the presumption that the divorce process should ordinarily be concluded within a total period of two and a half years, appear to the court in all the circumstances to be just)'.
  Government amendments Nos. 26 to 28, 48 to 51 and 53.
  Mr. Streeter: I cannot move the amendments formally because it is important to explain their purpose.
  Under the Bill as drafted, parties are able to suspend the passing of the period for reflection and consideration by notifying the court that they wish to attempt reconciliation. The amendments provide that the passing of the lapse period following the period for reflection and consideration can also be suspended for the same reason. They will therefore encourage attempts at reconciliation right up until the time of an application for a divorce order.
  On amendment No. 105, the statement does not simply lapse at the end of the period for reflection and consideration so as to give extra time to parties for whom the period for reflection and consideration may not have proved long enough to reach decisions about future arrangements, so that they do not have to recommence the divorce process. It is important, however, that there is a set time at which the statement lapses. Allowing proceedings to drag on, with all the inevitable uncertainty, can be very harmful to children, as well as potentially to the parties.
  It is also important that people are aware that there is only finite time available to them for making their arrangements. Allowing people to believe that they can apply for an extension to the lapse period if they prevaricate may encourage some people to do just that. That may be the case particularly where negotiations are acrimonious, in the sense that it may be used as a bargaining chip.
  Amendment No. 105 would allow the court to extend the lapse period where it appears to the court that to do so would be just in all the circumstances. Under the terms of the amendment, the court would be expected to have regard to the presumption that the divorce process should ordinarily be concluded within two and a half years. It seems to be an attempt to provide parties who have not
  602
  applied for an extension to the period for reflection and consideration with the same overall time limit for the divorce process as those who are granted an extension to the period.
  The six-month extension to the period for reflection and consideration has a specific purpose. It is intended to provide additional time for parties to reconsider the step that they are taking to divorce where one party does not consent, or where they have children under 16. It is not simply an extra six months to enable parties to reach decisions on their future arrangements and it should not therefore be equated with adding on extra time to the lapse period.
  The Government intend to make the following provision under rules of court: where the lapse period is likely to apply and ancillary relief proceedings are still pending, parties will make an application for a divorce or separation order. The court will have power to adjourn the application. It is intended that rules of court will provide the circumstances when the court will adjourn the application. It is intended that those circumstances will be where ancillary relief proceedings have not been concluded for reasons that are beyond the control of the applicant or the other party.
  Government amendment No. 48 simply rectifies an omission in the Bill as drafted. Under clause 10(4), after cancellation of an order preventing divorce, a divorce order can be made only if a fresh application is made under clause 3. There is, however, the possibility of an application for a divorce order being made under clause 4(3)—hence the need for the amendment.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Llwyd: I do not propose to speak to amendment No. 105 as it was discussed at length in Committee. The hour is late and there is much work to get through, so I shall not address the issue at this point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 26, in page 3, line 30, after `the' insert 'specified'.
  No. 27, in page 3, line 30, at end insert—
  '(4A) Subsection (4B) applies if, before the end of the specified period, the parties jointly give notice to the court that they are attempting reconciliation but require additional time.
  (4B) The specified period—

  (a) stops running on the day on which the notice is received by the court; but

  (b) resumes running on the day on which either of the parties gives notice to the court that the attempted reconciliation has been unsuccessful.

  (4C) If the specified period is interrupted by a continuous period of more than 18 months, any application by either of the parties for a divorce order or for a separation order must be by reference to a new statement received by the court at any time after the end of the 18 months.'.
  No. 28, in page 3, leave out line 32 and insert 'the specified period'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 7

  PERIOD FOR REFLECTION AND CONSIDERATION
  Sir Jim Lester: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 26, leave out 'one year' and insert 'nine months'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 29.

  603
  Amendment No. 103, in page 5, line 21, leave out subsection (11).
  Government amendments Nos. 30 to 35.
  Amendment No. 8, in page 5 line 34, at end insert—
  `(14) The Lord Chancellor may make rules prescribing the circumstances in which the court may order the abridgement of the period for reflection and consideration.'.
  Sir Jim Lester: I am delighted to move the amendment. It is perhaps the shortest amendment on the amendment paper, but that does not reflect its importance. It is the only way in which we can keep faith with all those who have worked to produce the Bill over 10 years, with all the consultation and procedures, and with the way in which hon. Members voted during the Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
  The amendment deals with the period of reflection and consideration, which was thoroughly debated in Committee on the Floor of the House. I speak against the background to the drafting of the legislation, over a long time, of 75 per cent. of divorces going through in seven months, of 20 per cent. going through by agreement within two years and of 5 per cent. going through within five years.
  My experience is that, when confronted with a variety of choices on a free vote, hon. Members make a clear and understandable decision. When the House voted on the two-year period, it decisively rejected it. I was a Teller for the other two votes, and as such was able to see how hon. Members voted in the Lobby. In expressing their feelings that there should be a difference between marriages where there is agreement on ending it and those where one of the parties disagrees, hon. Members voted for an additional six months. Despite that, the measure was carried by only four votes. None the less, it was a free vote and those who sought to make more of it, particularly the newspapers, did the House a great disservice. A free vote is a free vote: there is no such thing as a Conservative vote, a Labour vote or a Cabinet Ministers' vote. In a free vote, there is only one vote—that of the individual casting it. The earlier debate was genuine and the House decided on that differentiation.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and other Committee members made the argument, which I accept, that if one is to try to save a marriage, the right time is the beginning of the process, not the end. My hon. Friend succeeded in persuading the Committee that after the information session, three months should be allowed—some people call it a cooling-off or waiting period—for the couple to absorb the information that they have been given and to make arrangements for counselling, with a view to reconciliation. Again, the Government have introduced a forward-looking new clause on the value of counselling. The emphasis was wholly changed by offering an early opportunity to couples who could achieve reconciliation.
  All that happened in the knowledge that most marriages do not suddenly come to an end, but instead die over a considerable period. The act of seeking information to obtain a divorce is not an instant decision. People do not wake up in the morning and say, "Good gracious me. I think I will go and get divorced." In the majority of cases,
  604
  that action comes at the end of a protracted and difficult time. We took the view that if there was the hope of saving any marriages through reconciliation, it was worth taking the chance.
  The effect of the three-month extension, which was not known to hon. Members in Committee on the Floor of the House, was to extend the 12-month period agreed by the House to 15 months and the 18-month allowance to 22 months. National Family Mediation made it clear that, after the information meeting, couples will have three months to consider. After two weeks, the other party will be notified—then follows the statement and the period for reflection and consideration, which is currently 12 months and 18 months. Securing the divorce order takes one month, which makes 22 and a half months. The NFM pointed out that such delay will do nothing to benefit mediation or reconciliation. In many cases, it could make matters infinitely more difficult because it appears to be a case of marking time.
  Mr. Tipping: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on the effect of a 22-month delay, which in many cases cannot be good for the welfare of the children involved or helpful in planning for their future.
  Sir Jim Lester: I accept that point, which was made by many organisations that deal with children and divorce. I make no bones about being opposed to the original extension. I was happy with 12 months, and was a Teller in the Division to try to maintain that period. However, I am also a democrat and totally accept the will of the House. It voted for 12 months and 18 months. I only emphasise that the House did not know at that stage that it was intended to extend the period, with all the consequential problems to which reference has been made.
  My amendment will maintain the original overall period that the House found acceptable when the matter was debated in Committee on the Floor of the House. More important, the original time allowed continues to receive the support of many hon. Members who opposed the extension.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend is really saying that we should not bother with a Committee stage because we will just shove the whole lot back afterwards.
  Sir Jim Lester: I regard this legislation as critically important. I do not know how many times my hon. Friend has taken part in a debate on the Floor of the House involving a free vote on particular information. When a Bill is altered in Committee, it is surely right to think again.
  The original documents, Green Papers and endless consultations that contributed to the Bill took 10 years. They all supported the 12-month period, but most of the people involved have accepted the will of the House to provide an extension to 18 months in certain cases. If my amendment is not accepted, the two-year period that the House emphatically refused to endorse will get in through the back door. We must keep faith with court welfare officers, mediators, conciliators and the legal profession, who know much more about the effect of time spent on processing divorces than many hon. Members.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend, who played a distinguished role in Committee, mentioned a

  605
  variety of experts. Does my hon. Friend think that those experts have, over the past generation, given the House wise advice on divorce law trends and the steady liberalisation that has occurred over the past 30 years?
  Sir Jim Lester: Those experts, who are deeply concerned about existing divorce law, have fully participated in the discussions augmented by the Government to secure approval for the Bill. The experts accepted the Lord Chancellor's original proposal that 12 months was adequate but, following the vote on the Floor of the House, they accepted the six-month extension. They did not have a chance to be consulted or to consider the extension to 15 and to 22 and a half months.
  I understand that my amendment is the subject of a free vote for Conservative Members. The guide to this evening's voting produced by the Whips Office makes it clear that there is a free vote, but it refers to an amendment that
  "seeks to reduce the 18/12-month period to 15/9 months by incorporating the three-month waiting period."
  Any hon. Member who has not followed the Bill or served on the Committee might not appreciate that those are three extra months added in Committee. It is neither my intention nor that of the amendment to reduce the original period for reconciliation for which the House voted. My intention is to maintain that period and to keep faith with the House in the way that it voted when it had all the information available.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: I support the amendment, but shall try to speak only briefly because I am conscious that we still have much work to do tonight. I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester—[Interruption.]
  Sir Jim Lester: My name is Lester, but I come from Nottingham.
  Ms Hodge: I apologise.
  During the passage of the Bill, we improved it by introducing conciliation as a final attempt to save marriages. There is broad consensus on that. The other aspects that introduce mediation are welcome, but one unintended consequence of the new move to have conciliation is that we have prolonged the period during which people would have to be together to take the process of divorce through. One of the consequences is that there will be more litigation. The period is too long and runs counter to the purpose of the original legislation: to reduce litigation in those difficult circumstances and to use mechanisms such as mediation and conciliation.
  I respect the democratic will of the House to go for 18 months, but one of the reasons why I support the amendment is that, if we leave the Bill with the additional, unintended three months—with 21 months between a decision to go for divorce and the final divorce—it will be worse for children and for families. The Bill's whole purpose is to improve matters for children and families during the difficult circumstances when a partnership breaks up. Some people will view the Bill as preserving marriage at any price and the cost will be too high for both the children and the family.
  I draw hon. Members' attention to the Children Act 1989. Section 1(2) says something that is of importance in our deliberations tonight on this free vote:
  606
  "In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child."
  We accepted that during the passage of the Act, which, again, had the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is important to act swiftly in determining children's future, yet, if we do not accept the amendment, we shall delay outcomes for children.
  Twenty-one months is a lifetime for a child. Hon. Members' own children see the six weeks of a summer holiday and the year from one birthday to the next as a very long time. We are saying to children that we wish to add another three months to the disturbance and horrors that they go through when their parents' marriage is breaking down.
  9 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: It is only fair and right to say that there is much disagreement with that view from people who were, as I was, a child of parents who divorced. It was my dearest hope that my parents would not divorce. Every week that they stayed together, I was happy that we were still together and still a family. From my bitter experience, it was not the case that I wanted the whole thing over then and there, perhaps not seeing my father, or whatever arrangements might have been made. It is not automatically the case that all children want the marriage to end.
  Ms Hodge: With the greatest respect, let me say that the hon. Lady is misunderstanding me. Of course every child wants his parents to remain together, but if the marriage has broken down and divorce will ensue, on the whole, for most children—although perhaps not for the hon. Lady at that time—it is better that the marriage be brought more swiftly to an end so that they can deal with certainty. In the longer run, dealing with the uncertainty of not knowing whether parents will stay together can be more traumatic and more damaging for children than having to deal with the certainty of knowing, sadly, that the marriage has broken down. Of course it is true that a happy household, with two parents living happily together, is what we all want for all our children. Sadly, that is not always what children have.
  Will the hon. Lady reflect that, when their parents split up, many children feel enormous guilt? They feel in some way that they are responsible, although of course they are not. We should not allow that feeling to ensue for a longer period. An additional three months in a child's life is a long period. It would do lasting damage to many children. The first reason why I support the amendment is that I genuinely believe that, where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, it is in children's interests that there is certainty and that children then learn to live with the certainty of their parents splitting up.
  Tonight, we have talked a lot about the victims of domestic violence. I am delighted that the Government have accepted our amendments to protect women who have been subject to domestic violence, but such violence is an issue here as well. Many women who go to a refuge will not pursue an injunction to prevent their husbands from re-entering their lives or abusing them again, but will start pursuing the route to divorce. They should not have to wait 21 months to achieve the certainty of divorce. It is a tough decision for a woman to make when she

  607
  is feeling weak, trampled upon and vulnerable. To make women wait the additional three months is a disbenefit for those vulnerable women who are victims of domestic violence.
  When the men who are the perpetrators of violence in the marriage suddenly realise that their wives will go for a divorce and that, this time, a bunch of flowers will not resolve the issue, they frequently become even more violent and perpetrate greater abuse—
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I do not dispute the fact that men are violent in marriage—30 years of professional practice has taught me that—but my hon. Friend should accept that there is growing evidence that a number of women are violent in marriage. The problem is that if the couple are kept together for too long, the violence is transmitted to the children.
  Ms Hodge: I accept that; indeed, I made that clear earlier when my hon. Friend was not present. Some women are violent towards their husbands, but the reality is that nine out of 10 incidents of domestic violence involve men abusing their wives. Every week two women are murdered by their husbands. One in four murders in Britain is committed by a man against a woman. The enormity of the problem is clear.
  Mr. Brazier: I really cannot let that remark go unchallenged. The highest incidence of domestic violence is against children and, as study after study has shown, the most common is violence by the new male partner of the natural mother.
  Ms Hodge: As we said in Committee, the issue of child abuse is extremely grave. Indeed, the House discussed it earlier this afternoon. However, it does not help the problem of child abuse to lock women into relationships where they are abused by their husbands and their children witness that and, quite possibly, are being abused themselves. Men who abuse their wives are equally likely to abuse their children. On the ground of domestic violence, it is imperative that we support the amendment to try to contain, in the way originally intended, the length of time it takes a wife who has been subjected to domestic violence to achieve a divorce.
  I want to give three or four other examples to show why extending the waiting period by three months could be detrimental to our original intent. A couple may have been living apart for a long time but have not pursued divorce for whatever reason. One of the partners then becomes terminally ill and wishes to make a will and settle his or her property in a way that ensures that it does not go to the estranged husband or wife. If we yet again extend the time that it takes to achieve a divorce, we shall make it difficult for people in their final days in this world to ensure that their wills suit their intent.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Those are interesting arguments, but they are arguments for further and further abridgment. Where would my hon. Friend stop?
  Ms Hodge: I have to admit that I would not have amended the Bill in the first place. Like others who have
  608
  spoken, I accept the democratic will that there should be an 18-month period between starting divorce proceedings and achieving divorce. I am supporting this amendment to ensure that that period is not extended to 21 months, adding a further three months to the period from when people first want a divorce to when they can finally obtain one.
  I shall give one final instance of when things could go wrong. Many people who divorce go on to form successful second marriages—second marriages are not always unsuccessful relationships—and those couples may have more children. If they must wait 21 months to secure a divorce, we may unwittingly end up with couples having one or two illegitimate children who are born during the process of securing a divorce.
  Once a marriage has irretrievably broken down, it is in no one's interests—it is certainly not in children's interests—to prolong the waiting period, simply to hang on to the marriage. I support this amendment because it is in the interests of children and families to do so. In considering the Bill, I put their interests above all others. I hope that other hon. Members will do the same.
  Mr. Michael Alison: I do not often find that my mental processes depart very significantly from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), but today I feel that he has slightly misinterpreted the significance of what the Standing Committee did in introducing this special, additional three-month period.
  I take my position from the advice given to us in the very helpful letter from the former Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who has now gone to the Welsh Office. In his letter of 22 May, he made it very plain:
  "Acceptance of these amendments"—
  that was the three-month extension, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred in his amendment—
  "was a response to the general concern which has been voiced on all sides of the House about allowing time for parties to contemplate the possibility of reconciliation before the divorce process itself is started and encouraging the use of marriage support services as a means of preventing irretrievable marriage breakdown."
  In other words, the period added on is not to be thought of as an extension of the divorce proceedings, because it is not. It is a preliminary, to see whether divorce proceedings should be started at all.
  To use an analogy from the world of racing, it is not as if we were turning an 18-furlong race into a 21-furlong race. On the contrary, it is a matter of deciding whether a horse that is due to run in the 18-furlong race should be entered for the race at all, or whether it should scratch before it comes under starter's orders.
  Essentially, we are introducing this period of marriage guidance counselling to prevent the horse from coming under starter's orders. That is where the best interests of children—who are so much the concern of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), and whose concern for children we so much appreciated in her speech—are served. The horse bearing the child may be scratched before the race begins, and that is exactly what we are trying to secure.
  Mr. Bermingham rose—
  Mr. Alison: I am sorry, but I shall not give way to interventions; I do not want to hold up the House for long.

  609
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe is misinterpreting the significance of the three-month period. The three months are not an extension of divorce proceedings, but an attempt—through the use of professional counsellors, on a one-to-one basis—to examine with a couple, singly or together, whether they really want to go forward with the proceedings. It is not a part of the mediation process, which is a part of the divorce proceedings; it is to discover whether proceedings should be started at all.
  I very much hope that the distinction will be borne in mind and that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that we are not trying to slip in an extension to the divorce proceedings. We are trying to ascertain whether it might be possible to scratch some of the parties running in this horrific race.
  For the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot support the amendment.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I take a different view from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and support my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), who proposed that the reflection period should not be added on to the 12 or 18 months. I have to tell the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) that this does not apply only to marriages where children are involved—it applies whether or not there are children involved. I agree with Lord Habgood that we should not have different laws for marriage, depending on whether or not children are involved. We should ensure that children's interests are fully taken into account before parents can separate and be free to marry again.
  I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 103. In Committee of the whole House, we debated whether there should be an extension of six or 12 months on top of the 12 months set out in the Bill by the Lord Chancellor. In reviewing the debates on what is now subsection (11) of clause 7, I found very few references to children. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said:
  "Children want their parents to stay together. We would wholly reject any amendment that would reduce the waiting time to less than 12 months."—[Official Report, 24 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 505.]
  There was no significant debate on whether what is now subsection (11), in association with subsection (13), has it right.
  Reference has been made to the Children Act 1989. It is worth recalling the success of that Act, which has contributed to a dramatic reduction in the number of children taken into care. Those of us who believe that children should be with their parents wherever possible will regard that fact as a significant success, and one that shows that it ought to be possible by law to remove incentives for families to break up unnecessarily. People who criticise the Act cannot have studied its impact. One of the principles of the 1989 Act is that uncertainty should not remain in children's lives. I agree.
  Clause 7(13) states:
  "If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order."
  There are two sets of circumstances in which subsection (13) comes into play. The first, which I think was the main point that we considered in Committee of
  610
  the whole House, is when one of the parties involved in an application for a divorce applies to the court within the prescribed period for time for further reflection. That was the House's decision, and I think that we should accept it. When it goes back to another place, I think that it should also be accepted there. It is a way of getting agreement that most of us would go for.
  The second is where the children come in. Amendment No. 103 would omit subsection (11), which states:
  "Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (13) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received via the court."
  Subsection (12) states:
  "Subsection (13) does not apply if'—
  I leave out paragraph (a) as it is not relevant to my argument—
  "(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of the divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family."
  I think that we should reverse that, and say that there should be a six-month extension if the court is satisfied that it would be beneficial to the welfare of a child.
  That argument did not take place in Committee of the whole House, but I do not think that, after 9 pm, after a fairly full day on Report, it is right to think that, in two or three minutes, probably under pressure from the business managers even though there might be a free vote, we can rehearse all the arguments.
  I simply ask that we put this idea to the other place when it considers the amendment we have made and ask whether it might reverse the impact of subsection (12)(b) combined with subsection (11) and make it an option for either party to a marriage to apply for the extra six months if it would be beneficial for any child involved. We should not assume that, whatever the circumstances, it would be in the child's interests to add on six months.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that part of the Bill does not allow adequate consideration for the rights and welfare of children. Let me say for the record that I agree with him entirely.
  Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For those who have not read our Committee proceedings, I recommend the contributions by the hon. Gentleman, who brought his expertise to the way in which the law works in the interests of children.
  We can improve on the changes that were made by the House. Although I did not support the addition of six months, I am perfectly willing to accept it, as I have no strong views on the matter. However, we should not automatically assume that, because of the presence of a child under 16, an extra six months on the time in which a divorce can be granted would necessarily be in the interests of that child.
  If the House of Lords takes the opportunity to decide whether that presumption should be reversed, when the Bill returns to the House, we should consider that decision with open minds and not look on it as one of the battles

  611
  over whether divorce law should be reformed. We should put the interests of the child first and make the change accordingly.
  Mrs. Maddock: I entirely agree with the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Broadstone in moving the amendment.
  Sir Jim Lester: Broxtowe.
  Mrs. Maddock: I should have stuck to Nottingham, as I probably would have been right.
  Joking apart, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) is absolutely right. Hon. Members are concerned about what will happen to children. Whatever we support in the Bill, we all agree that the welfare of children and families is paramount. However, we disagree as to the best way of legislating with that in mind.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe was absolutely right to say that it is wrong to draw out divorce proceedings. I take a different point of view from that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). My parents divorced, and I could not wait to get away from the endless arguments. It depends on the family how quickly the children may want their parents' marriage to end.
  The evidence from a wide range of bodies, and all the research carried out when the Bill originally went to the House of Lords, shows that, on balance, it is better for children if the process is not drawn out. That applies particularly to young children, as 22 months is a long time in the life of a one-year-old.
  I made the same point when we discussed the Housing Bill. We are bad at tying up all the different legislation that applies to children. As two hon. Members have already pointed out, what we are doing tonight may not be consistent with the Children Act. The same applies to other legislation. I support the amendment. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to vote on it again. It is in the interests of children and of co-ordinating our legislation.
  Mr. Bill Michie: I shall be brief, as we debated the matter at considerable length in Committee.
  The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) likened the measure to a horse race, and said that we should find out whether the horse is fit enough before the race starts. Frankly, that is not a good analogy.
  The problem was raised in Committee more than once. Most couples who divorce do not make a sudden decision after a Saturday night tiff. They have often spent a long time trying to resolve their problems before they find out that it is impossible. When they reach the stage of conciliation and decide to separate for the benefit of the children and for their own peace of mind, legislation should assist that process. It should not encourage them to divorce, but should provide the facilities—through conciliation or whatever—to do so in the shortest possible time. I am absolutely convinced from my own experience—never mind that of my family and my constituents—that, the longer the process continues, the worse it is for the children.
  612
  I echo the point that has just been made. In a child's life, 21 months is a long time. The process is agony, and does not help the child at all. I have had discussions with the Solicitors Family Law Association in Sheffield, which is absolutely certain that, despite the fact that an 18-month period has been accepted, a 12-month period would be right. Any extra time would not solve any problems but would place greater burdens and pressures, especially on children.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the criminal courts, for example, the delay of the trial of a 13 or 14-year-old by 21 months would almost certainly be ruled an abuse of process? The criminal courts recognise that speed is essential in cases involving children.
  Mr. Michie: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. He knows the law a darned sight better than I do. I am not a lawyer, and therefore speak with much more freedom, if not emotion, on the subject.
  I know that the Sheffield Solicitors Family Law Association works very hard to try to ensure that couples and their children genuinely go through a process of conciliation and thoroughly understand the implications involved. I respect it for that. It would find its task more and more difficult if the period was extended. It says:
  "The 12 month period originally proposed struck the right balance between supporting the institution of marriage, giving couples time to consider their decision to divorce, and allowing them to plan their future lives.
  21 months is too long a period for the couple and their children to be left in limbo. The effect of the extended period would be that people would issue proceedings as early as possible to start the clock ticking, thereby threatening any prospects of reconciliation."
  I totally agree with the logic of that argument. I hope that the amendment will be supported.
  Mr. Rowe: For once in my life, I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby racecourse (Mr. Alison). The whole purpose of the change in Committee was to ensure that the first three months of the process after the information session was an opportunity for the couple to consider, in the light of the information that they had received, whether they were taking a step that they really wanted to take. If that process was effective, there is no doubt whatever that, over the following six to nine months, progress would be made, and, by the end of the nine months, they would decide that they did not want to go ahead with their proceedings.
  If progress had not been made, and the situation was either static or deteriorating, the idea of lengthening the period still further seems absolutely fatal to the chances of further amicable relations after a divorce, and would be absolutely horrendous for the children. While the process is dynamic, there is everything to be said for giving every form of encouragement and support. Once the dynamism has gone, the idea of lengthening the process purely in order to have it on the statute book for some almost sadistic reason seems misguided.
  Mr. Bermingham: I do not intend to speak for long, since I have already made most of the points that I want to make. I declare an interest as a practising lawyer, although rarely in the matrimonial field these days. From

  613
  experience, it seems that, the longer the warring parties are kept together, the greater the problems for children. Indeed, from countless children's reports before juvenile courts and so on, it is apparent that, where children have, as it were, been the subject of a battleground, their period of intense distress, upset and anxiety has been during that battle.
  I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. I voted for the 12-month period, but we were beaten on that. I hope that those in another place will bring some common sense to bear. If we were to make the children suffer for any prolonged period, we would not be serving their interests.
  The Bill should have been about children. Regrettably, it is not. It is very badly drafted; it is an appalling mess. If it proceeds any further, I hope that those in another place can do something to improve it, because it needs much improvement. Surely the child's interest is first, and surely the child's disturbed period should be kept to a minimum. I therefore urge the House to support the amendment.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) correctly outlined what the House decided on the last occasion: that the period for waiting and reflection should normally be 18 months, unless there is consent and there are no children. We in no way seek to extend that period. The time for waiting and reflection will still be 18 months after the statement of marital breakdown.
  However, after the House made that decision, a series of amendments were tabled in Committee, not least by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and me. He thought that there should be encouragement to marriage counselling at the information meeting, and a period of at least 28 days after that encouragement before a statement should be filed. I took the view that there should be a longer period of three months. The Government accepted the proposed three-month period, but that period runs after the information meeting and before the statement of marital breakdown.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, information meetings will often result in divorce not being proceeded with. They may be held many months before divorce proceedings are taken. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), stated:
  "It has been suggested in some quarters—and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Brent, South—that the introduction of a three-month cooling-off period would necessarily lengthen the process to 21 months. However, parties engaged in the process of divorce tend to have taken their first legal advice 12 months or so before initiating the process, so there is no direct correlation between the time at which they first seek advice and the time at which it is decided to start the process of divorce."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 May 1996: c. 156.]
  9.30 pm
  The problem with the amendment is that it will shorten the times for waiting and reflection from 18 months and 12 months, as they are at present, to 15 months and nine months. It could have a bad effect in forcing couples to tie up their affairs more quickly than they would otherwise want.
  Lord Ackner, who is a leading practitioner in family matters, has explained that, in his experience, if there are contested proceedings on ancillary matters, it can take up
  614
  to 18 months to sort them out. The amendment could put undue pressure on the parties. On those grounds, and because we accept the verdict of the House that the time for waiting and reflection should be 18 months—no more and no less—I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
  Mr. Boateng: We visited this issue at some length in Committee with a view to ensuring that there was a dedicated space during which it was possible for the parties to concentrate on reconciliation. We have considerably improved the Bill in that respect. We have created the opportunity, for those parties who seek it, to find pathways from the information session to one-on-one counselling, with the specific objective of saving marriages that can be saved. I am satisfied that, in so doing, we have fulfilled our responsibility, which was shared by all hon. Members on Second Reading, to strengthen the Bill on reconciliation for saving marriages that can be saved.
  We took another decision on the Floor of the House on the length of the period for reflection and consideration. The House had the options of 12, 18 and 24 months. Like the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), I took the view that 12 months was right. The majority of Labour Members, on a free vote, took a similar view. However, the House came to a different view and chose 18 months. I respect that. This is not the time to revisit the matter or to seek to go behind that decision. However, we must reflect on the implications of the three months that have been added specifically for the reconciliation exercise that we have created.
  I take the view, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) knows it, that three months is too long. I was concerned about the 28-day option in the light of the House's decision to go for 18 months. I would have preferred 12 months and then 28 days, or two months for the specific reconciliation period. However, the House took a particular view, and it would be quite wrong for us to create, in effect, a period of 21 months on the basis that that somehow underwrote our commitment to marriage.
  It would be wrong to think that, by creating an additional hurdle, albeit a time hurdle, we would be bolstering marriage. We would not be doing that, because the reality of human relations and the process as we know it, whether we are lawyers who practise in the field, have been through it ourselves or have friends who have, is that there is only a narrow window of opportunity by which to save a marriage, and that it occurs at the very beginning.
  That is why we emphasise this matter, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle for his role in that. At that stage there is a chance to save the marriage, but beyond that time, the sooner it is brought to an end, consistent with the need to put in place proper, just arrangements for children and finances, the better. Extending that period, which in effect we would be doing if the amendment were passed, does not serve any purpose at all.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Broxtowe for moving the amendment. It is a free vote, and hon. Members will do as their conscience dictates. I shall vote for the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the

  615
  Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) on moving the amendment. I agree with its logic. It will be decided on a free vote, but it was important for my hon. Friend and for the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Barking (Ms Hodge) to remind the House of the substance of the debate when this matter was discussed in Committee of the whole House.
  I did not serve on the Standing Committee, but I can see the logic of it adding a specific cooling-off period of three months between the information meeting and the act of filing the statement for divorce. But surely the intention was that that should be a concurrent and not a consecutive period.
  I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that I understand from the then Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), that there was no intention that this should be a consecutive period. If there was a misunderstanding, I apologise on behalf of the Government. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor for his sterling work in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Leigh: I cannot let this pass. If it was not the intention of the Minister, why on earth did he not make that clear at the time? I have read from the Official Report the passage in which the Minister supported my amendment and slapped down the arguments of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). That passage is in column 156 of Hansard, Standing Committee E. The Minister had a chance to reject my amendment, but he accepted it.
  Perhaps the Government changed their mind. I know not why, but they are entitled to do that or to try to get the Bill through Parliament, which is another matter. They should at least accept that, in Standing Committee, they accepted my amendment in its entirety.
  Mr. Freeman: A technical explanation may be that the Committee of the whole House debated clause 7 here and not in Standing Committee. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who intervened on that subject during this brief debate, that we could not make the consequential amendment, for technical reasons, because the Committee was not empowered to do so. Only the whole House on Report can address the issue.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) for quoting the column reference of the Standing Committee debate. It is made absolutely plain that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that we would have to revisit the question of whether the period is 12, 18 or 24 months, or whether it is 15 months for reflection and consideration. It was flagged up in Committee by the hon. Gentleman that we would be coming back to the issue on Report. He said:
  "I look forward enormously to the debate on Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 May 1996; c. 156.]
  616
  It is open to the House on Report to decide whether it is matter of adding in the period for reflection, but not necessarily adding it on.
  Mr. Freeman: It is important that the House reaches a conclusion on the merits of the case.
  Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend has been very kind, but he is telling us something that I am finding it difficult to be convinced by. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), the previous Parliamentary Secretary, wrote to all colleagues on 22 May, sating that amendments were accepted in Committee to provide that a statement of marital breakdown could not be made until at least three months had passed from the time when the party making the statement had attended the information meeting. By no means can that be construed as concurrent to the beginning of the divorce proceedings.
  My hon. Friend went on to state that acceptance of the amendments would allow time for parties to contemplate the possibility of reconciliation before the divorce process itself started. I do not see how one can have the doctrine of concurrency when so clearly defined is the proposition that the process of reconciliation should be consecutive.
  Mr. Freeman: I will not be able to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends who oppose the amendment. It is important that the House addresses the issue on its merits, which are clear, in my judgment. The House considered carefully whether there should be a total period of 12 months for reflection and consideration, with an additional cooling-off period of three months between the information meeting and the filing of a statement of marital breakdown, during which time guidance, reconciliation and mediation might become available.
  The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe would allow a further nine months for reflection and consideration. This is a free vote, and I shall personally support the amendment.
  I briefly wish to refer to amendment No. 103. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) wishes to press the matter to a vote, but it is important briefly to address his argument.
  My hon. Friend argues that the House did not have the opportunity of separating the two issues in the debate—the automatic extension of six months if one party objected, and the separate test if there were children under the age of 16. He said that he wanted to remove the second test, leaving only the automatic extension of six months if either party objected. I am bound to say that the House did have an opportunity to consider the issue, and voted for the amendment—on a free vote—by 200 to 196. The amendment was inserted into the Bill, and my hon. Friend is now seeking to amend it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) spoke for many when she said that the period of 18 months where children are involved is important. Her arguments were that many children want parents to stay together, but they want the parents to understand their obligations. Parents should be asked to make that extra effort. If I may encapsulate her arguments, they were that many children want parents to stay together, that children want parents to understand the obligations that they have taken on, and that parents should be asked to make that extra effort.

  617
  I appreciate that there are arguments on the other side. I have cited the support of the marriage and children's organisations for the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, and we have already passed new clause 12, which provides alleviation in certain circumstances—a new clause to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke.
  In all the circumstances, although it is a free vote, I take the liberty of saying that, if that amendment is pressed, I will not support it.
  9.45 pm
  Sir Jim Lester: I need to say two things. First, to protect my hon. Friend the then Minister regarding what happened in Committee, I raised this question with him immediately, and he made it clear in his speech replying to the debate that it would be perfectly acceptable to return to this matter on Report. Any idea that he was committed to this being an addition rather than a part is wrong, and obviously it is up to him, on a free vote, to express what he feels.
  Secondly, I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) misunderstands. I supported the changes proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) because I understood that it was important to have the three months at the beginning; but he may underestimate the purpose of the Bill, which has a period for reflection and consideration that was never available before. Throughout the period of the proceedings, people are able to reflect and consider. Help is available, and they can withdraw their divorce proceedings at any time during the entire period.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 154.

  Division No. 146]

  [9.46 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Butler, Peter

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Caborn, Richard

  Alexander, Richard

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Ashton, Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Battle, John

  Chidgey, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Churchill, Mr

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clapham, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Boateng, Paul

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Coffey, Ann

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

  Cohen, Harry

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Connarty, Michael

  Burden, Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  618

  Corbett, Robin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Couchman, James

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cox, Tom

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

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Denham, John

  Ingram, Adam

  Devlin, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Dewar, Donald

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jamieson, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Janner, Greville

  Eastham, Ken

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Etherington, Bill

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Jowell, Tessa

  Fisher, Mark

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Flynn, Paul

  Keen, Alan

  Forman, Nigel

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Forth, Eric

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

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Khabra, Piara S

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fraser, John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Knox, Sir David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Galloway, George

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Lewis, Terry

  Garrett, John

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Loyden, Eddie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Luff, Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Gordon, Mildred

  McAllion, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McCartney, Ian

  Graham, Thomas

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKelvey, William

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Hain, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  MacShane, Denis

  Hanson, David

  Madden, Max

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Maddock, Diana

  Harvey, Nick

  Mahon, Alice

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Marek, Dr John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Marland, Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hendry, Charles

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Maxton, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Meale, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Michael, Alun

  Hoey, Kate

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Milburn, Alan

  619

  Miller, Andrew

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

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spring, Richard

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Murphy, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Stevenson, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stott, Roger

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Norris, Steve

  Straw, Jack

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Streeter, Gary

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pawsey, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Thomason, Roy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pike, Peter L

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Trickett, Jon

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dennis

  Purchase, Ken

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Walley, Joan

  Radice, Giles

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wells, Bowen

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Whitney, Ray

  Rendel, David

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wood, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Worthington, Tony

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Short, Clare

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Peter Bottomley and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  NOES

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Butcher, John

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clappison, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Congdon, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bates, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dixon, Don

  Booth, Hartley

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Duncan, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Dunn, Bob

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  620

  Evennett, David

  Page, Richard

  Faber, David

  Paice, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gale, Roger

  Pendry, Tom

  Gallie, Phil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Gill, Christopher

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hardy, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Horam, John

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Jessel, Toby

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sproat, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stephen, Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan

  Knapman, Roger

  Sumberg, David

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

  Sweeney, Walter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Leigh, Edward

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Lidington, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lord, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Viggers, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walden, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Wallace, James

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ward, John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Merchant, Piers

  Watts, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Wilkinson, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Willetts, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Wilshire, David

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Mr. Michael Alison and Mr. David Alton.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Family Law Bill [Lords] may he proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 5, line 2, leave out `give joint' and insert 'jointly give'.
  No. 30, in page 5, line 22, leave out
  `any child of the family'
  and insert
  `a child of the family who is'.
  No. 31, in page 5, line 23, leave out
  `statement is received by the court'
  and insert 'application is made'.
  No. 32, in page 5, line 27, leave out from 'family' to `or' in line 28.
  No. 33, in page 5, line 28, leave out `; or' and insert
  `made against the other party; or'.
  No. 34, in page 5, line 33, leave out 'without invalidating the' and insert
  '—

  (a) only in relation to the application for a divorce order in respect of which the application under subsection (10) was made; and

  (b) without invalidating that'.

  No. 35, in page 5, line 34, at end insert—
  '(14) A period for reflection and consideration which is extended under subsection (13) and which has not otherwise come to an end, comes to an end on there ceasing to be any children of the family to whom subsection (11) applied.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 8

  ATTENDANCE AT INFORMATION MEETINGS
  Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 6, line 6, leave out
  `the party or parties attending with relevant information'
  and insert
  `, in accordance with prescribed provisions, relevant information to the party or parties attending'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 41 to 44.
  Mr. Streeter: Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 were tabled in response to hon. Members' concerns. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), agreed in Committee that he would further consider the inclusion of references to support for victims of domestic violence, to the availability of legal representation and to the provisions of the legal aid scheme in the list of matters on which information would be provided at information meetings held under clause 8.
  It has always been the Government's intention that information about legal aid, legal services and protection from violence should be made available at information meetings, but concern was expressed that the list in primary legislation should not become over-detailed.
  In proposing the amendments, however, the Government are seeking to address the strong concern felt by Opposition Members, by many Conservative Members and by people with experience in the field, who believe that the need to provide information about support for domestic violence and about the availability and workings of the legal aid scheme should be emphasised on the face of the Bill.
  622
  I have met representatives of the Women's Aid Federation, and I understand that they strongly support an amendment to provide information on what protection is available against violence and on how to obtain support and assistance. I believe that the amendments will improve the provisions of clause 8.
  As has been emphasised on many occasions, the Government intend to pilot the workings of the information meetings. The list in primary legislation of the information that must be provided is not exhaustive and the Lord Chancellor has the power to add other provisions in regulations. It will be necessary to establish through the pilot exactly what information should be made available, the nature of its presentation, the content of any written information that should be given to parties and the necessary provisions to ensure that information giving is of the highest standard.
  Amendments Nos. 36 and 41 ensure that the Lord Chancellor can set and maintain standards in relation to the quality of information and information giving. The information meeting is an important introduction to the divorce process. It may provide the assistance that couples need to re-evaluate their relationship and to take steps to save their marriage. Consequently, it is vital that the information meetings and information givers meet an approved standard.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: This is my first opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his promotion to the Front Bench. In Committee, he served with great distinction as a member of the Whips Office, so he will recall that I proposed a number of amendments relating to information meetings. We are pleased that the Government, at this extremely late stage, have come round to our way of thinking and are fleshing out the purpose of information meetings.
  Such meetings are a radical departure in family law and must be treated carefully. As much information as possible about the pilot projects should be given to the House so that it can make a proper evaluation, because it is charged with the heavy duty of passing the legislation. Couples will often be required to attend information meetings when they are in difficult situations, so they may find the experience traumatic. In Committee, we proposed that meetings should be held in a location compatible with the dignity of marriage. Although such a provision is not part of the Government amendments, I hope that the Minister will reflect the spirit of my comments and make sure that pilot project meetings take place in suitable surroundings.
  Understanding is also important, which means, in a multi-ethnic, multi-culture Britain, the provision of information in ethnic minority languages. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
  It is important that information meetings are conducted in such a way that those attending them feel safe, enjoy privacy and are respected. We welcome the fact that information about access to legal aid will be provided. We welcome also the Government's climbdown. Having been a Whip myself, I know that it made sense for the Minister to hold that office, because he had the opportunity to hear the Opposition's recommendations in Committee. As soon as he became a Minister, he decided to implement them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 6, line 12, leave out 'is'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 38 to 40.
  Mr. Streeter: The amendments make minor drafting changes to tidy up clause 8 and assist in giving effect to amendments Nos. 36 and 41 to 44.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 38, in page 6, line 13, at beginning insert 'is'.
  No. 39, in page 6, line 15, leave out 'a person who'.
  No. 40, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'and'.
  No. 41, in page 6, line 24, at end insert—
  '(d) for information of a prescribed kind to be given only with the approval of the Lord Chancellor or only by a person or by persons approved by him; and
  (e) for information to be given, in prescribed circumstances, only with the approval of the Lord Chancellor or only by a person or by persons approved by him.'.
  No. 42, in page 6, line 34, at end insert—
  `() protection available against violence, and how to obtain support and assistance;'.
  No. 43, in page 6, line 36, at end insert 'and representation'.
  No. 44, in page 6, line 36, at end insert—
  `() the principles of legal aid and where the parties can get advice about obtaining legal aid;'.
  No. 104, in page 6, line 40, at end insert—
  `() A meeting with a marriage counsellor arranged under this section—

  (a) must be held in accordance with prescribed provisions; and

  (b) must be with a person qualified and appointed in accordance with prescribed provisions.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 9

  ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE
  Amendment made: No. 12, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'section' to 'must' in line 34 and insert
  `(Welfare of children)'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]
  Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 7, line 34, at end insert—
  '(5A) Where the court considers that there is a child of the family under the age of nineteen years, a certificate must be produced to the court, in a form to be prescribed, stating that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the relevant information he requires under the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 has been provided by the parties.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 99, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—
  '(8) If the court is satisfied, on an application made by one of the parties after the end of the period for reflection and consideration, that the circumstances of the case are those set out in paragraph 3A of Schedule 1, it may make a divorce order or a separation order even though the requirements of subsection (5A) above have not been satisfied.'.`(c) that subsection (3A) below applies.'.
  624
  No. 101, in clause 10, page 8, line 20, after `dissolved', insert
  `or
  '(c) that subsection (3A) below applies'.
  No. 102, in page 8, line 20, at end insert—
  '(3A) This subsection applies where an applicant or either of the applicants for the cancellation of an order preventing divorce has failed to comply with the requirements of section 9(5A).'.
  No. 100, in schedule 1, page 42, line 42, at end insert—
  `Exemption from child support requirements—
  3A. The circumstances referred to in section 9(8) are that—

  (a) the applicant has, during the period for reflection and consideration, taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to comply with the requirements of the Child Support Act 1991 as applied by section 9(5A);

  (b) the other party has deliberately delayed in complying with the requirements of the 1991 Act as applied by section 9(5A) or has otherwise been obstructive or has failed to communicate with the applicant or the relevant authorities.'.

  Mr. Field: This is also the first occasion when I have spoken to the Minister across the Dispatch Box, so I welcome him to his new post and congratulate him. It is not the first time that I have spoken since the hon. Gentleman has been on the Treasury Bench, because as a Whip, he occasionally growled approval or disapproval at my comments. I hope tonight that his bite will be a lot worse than his bark—[Interruption.] If hon. Members think about it, it is that way round, given what I am going to say.
  I do not intend to press the amendments to a vote. I hope to persuade the Minister, by the force of the argument, that he should concede the amendments that we wish to make. When members of the Committee decided to table the amendments, we wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Security to ask what he thought of them, as they clearly affect one aspect of his Department's work: the Child Support Agency. I expect to receive his letter in tomorrow's post. That suggests that he does not want me to be able to use anything in his letter to support my argument.
  In this major reform of the divorce laws, the words "Child Support Agency" are absent. Members of the Committee thought it worth tabling the amendments so that those words, which dared not speak their name in Committee, could at least be debated and suggestions made.
  I shall briefly tell the House what the amendments mean. Amendment No. 98 literally brings into call the CSA. It says that, before proceedings for divorce can be completed, the court should be satisfied that all the information that the CSA would require is available to the court and therefore to the CSA.
  Amendment No. 99 does three things. It accepts that the principle of the Bill is that the clock for divorce ceases to tick away unless the mediation process has gone through. We are suggesting that, similarly, the clock should be stopped if the information wanted by the CSA is not available. We then suggest that, if that information is available, the clock should start ticking again. Amendment No. 100 proposes that, because there could be some instances when one of the parties deliberately withholds information to obstruct the spirit and the letter

  625
  of the Bill, shortly to become an Act, the court will have discretion to set child support requirements to one side. That is the kernel of our amendments.
  I know that we tabled the amendments late in the proceedings, but unless they are on the record when the Bill returns to the other place, there will be no chance for the other place or for the Government further to consider them. After this short debate, after the Government have had more time to take representations and to consider outside views, and after we have had a staged debate in the other place, the Government may still decide that it is not advisable to press ahead with the amendments, should they be part of the record. In those circumstances, I expect the Minister to say that those of us who have tabled the amendments expect the Government to suggest that the amendments will be defeated, but unless we pass the amendments tonight and unless they are on the record, the possibility of strengthening the position of children and of ensuring the payment of maintenance to them will be lost.
  It is in that spirit that the amendments have been tabled. We do not believe with certainty that we have drafted them in a way that could not be improved, but we are anxious that that aspect be opened up. It can be considered further only if the Government give way tonight, so that a final decision can be taken in another place.
  I have said how openly I would support the Government even if, in the other place, they thought that we should not proceed with the amendments, but it is worth our debating them tonight. I hope that the Government will give way and support and improve them in the Lords, but I wait with interest to hear what the junior Minister says and to learn in tomorrow's post what the Secretary of State says.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Bermingham: I support these amendments for the one simple reason that there cannot be a Member of this House who does not have a postbag full of complaints about the Child Support Agency, about the arbitrary way it performs, about the lack of information disclosed and about the ridiculous way that it treats Members of Parliament, lawyers and the people from whom it seeks to obtain money.
  When the CSA was set up, no one objected to the principle of support for the child of a liaison or a marriage or that that support should be both justifiable and reasonable. What none of us expected was the monolithic bureaucracy that we got. It will be a long time before the House examines the depth of the damage that the CSA has caused to families throughout the land. I could continue for some considerable time—but I will not—citing example after example from my constituency of marriages that have broken up and where the children who are being supported through the CSA are in a better financial position than the children of the second marriage, and where the wife of the second marriage has to go to work and utilise all her earnings and part of her husband's to meet the demands of the CSA—which, when it is shown to be wrong at tribunals, takes months to rectify mistakes—[Interruption.] When we are talking about people's lives and when children's interests are at risk, I sometimes wonder why it is so necessary for hon. Members to discuss the racing at Sandown or Ascot or other matters.
  There will come a time when the CSA formula will need to be examined. Indeed, it needs to be reviewed. These amendments could be considered in the other place
  626
  as a means to examine the settlements—[Interruption.] Has the Minister finished? [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) will listen for a moment. If she had listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had to say, she would understand that the proposal is that a divorce should not be completed until such time as the financial settlement is completed and that that financial settlement should be based on the CSA formula. That suggestion makes a good deal of sense. It will enable us, at some stage, to examine how the CSA formula is compiled and whether, in the context of divorce, it is fair.
  My hon. Friend said that he will not press the amendment to a vote. What he is trying to ensure is that if the calculation of maintenance is to be based on the CSA formula, we should look again at the formula, because it has been proved to cause great hardship throughout the land. That is the point behind the probing amendments—
  Mr. David Faber: They are not.
  Mr. Bermingham: They are probing amendments. The hon. Gentleman should note that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is nodding, so I am right.
  We are saying that the way in which maintenance is calculated is wide open to abuse and, even more important, is causing grave hardship for the children of first, second and third relationships. That is why I support the amendments.
  Mr. Streeter: I listened carefully to the arguments deployed by the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), but I am afraid that I shall disappoint them. The Government have some sympathy with the motives underlying the amendments, but cannot accept them. It is clearly right that parents should make proper provision for the maintenance of their children. Clause 9 already provides that parties must decide their rights and liabilities in relation to the maintenance of children. The amendments are unnecessary, and the arguments that I shall deploy will persuade the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who is a very fair-minded man, of that fact.
  The Child Support Agency already has the necessary powers to require information to be provided, and it has strong enforcement powers. The Child Support Act 1991 requires absent parents to provide the required information to ensure that a proper maintenance assessment is carried out when the parent with care—usually the mother—is in receipt of a relevant benefit. That requirement exists whether or not the parents are divorced. When there is an absent parent and the parent with care is in receipt of an appropriate benefit, the CSA will normally have become involved long before we reach the stage at which the amendments would bite.
  Who are the people on whom the amendments would bite? The CSA seeks to make and enforce maintenance orders whether or not parents are married. We suspect that most of those about whom the agency is currently unable to gain full information—as to who was at some time married and who is not already divorced—have simply gone to ground. The amendments will not help in catching them.

  627
  Ninety per cent. of absent parents are fathers, but currently about 70 per cent. of petitioners for divorce are women. The amendments include an exemption such that a divorce or separation order may not be refused if the applicant has made every effort to comply with the CSA's requirements but has been unable to do so because of non-co-operation of the other party. Therefore, under these provisions, absent fathers who are not co-operating with the CSA are given no greater incentive to co-operate than they are now.
  Only absent fathers who do not co-operate with the CSA and who wish to apply for a divorce will be caught by the provisions. But they will not be able to do so in secrecy, because a statement of marital breakdown will have to include an address for contact. The respondent can whip that off to the CSA, and existing provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 can be brought into play.
  In short, the Government consider that only a handful of absent parents will be caught by the amendments—but at what cost? I shall deal with that shortly.
  The amendments are inconsistent with the Child Support Act 1991. They relate to all divorcing or separating parents with a child under 19. Currently, the CSA usually becomes involved only when the parent with care of the child has applied for an income-related benefit, and it is concerned only with children of 16 or older in full-time education.
  The amendments will, therefore, place an added burden on many people who, in the normal course of events, would not have to go anywhere near the CSA. Parents who were able and willing to reach their own agreement on child maintenance will have to apply to the agency for a certificate in every case, perhaps involving correspondence, telephone calls or an interview, which will create delay and inconvenience. That is unlikely to prove popular.
  The amendments would also have significant implications for the CSA. In 1994, there were about 88,000 divorces of couples with children under 16. That means that similar numbers of certificates might have to be produced each year by the CSA. The CSA has estimated that up to 50,000 certificates would have to be issued relating to the children of people in marriages who currently would not be considered by the CSA at all. The CSA decided only recently to limit the scope of its operations, to concentrate on its core activity of basic child support work. The proposed certification process would prove a distraction for the CSA from that core work, and it would be unlikely to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South.
  The amendments are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. As I said, we expect the impact on non-compliance to be minimal. However, the agency estimates the cost of administering the proposed certification system at roughly £7 million per annum. If we are to spend £7 million, I could suggest more pressing priorities.
  Mr. Bermingham: The Minister makes my point. There will be two groups of people: those who are in work and who agree the figures on maintenance for the wife and children between themselves, or through their lawyers; and those who are not in work, with one party—the wife, for example—in receipt of income-related
  628
  benefit, when the CSA will certify the amount to be paid for the wife and children. The tragedy is that experience has already shown that, in monetary value, the orders made by the CSA far outweigh the orders made between consenting parties. So we have two levels of maintenance, one of which is grossly unfair to a working partner—male or female.
  Mr. Streeter: I am not persuaded by the force of the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given that one in four children will have parents who divorce, is the Minister seriously saying that in future policy there should be no interface between the new divorce law reform and the operation of child maintenance?
  Mr. Streeter: For the reasons that I have given, yes.
  To summarise, I sympathise with the thought behind the amendment, but the Government do not accept that it is an appropriate or cost-effective way to go about realising it. I listened with sympathy to the case made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. I recognise that he has requested that we leave something in the Bill, for it to be considered further in another place. There is no hon. Member whose request I would rather accommodate, but I regret that, on this occasion, I am unable to do so.
  Mr. Frank Field: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 45, in page 7, line 40, leave out 'or'.
  No. 46, in page 7, line 41, at end insert—
  ', Or
  (d) those set out in paragraph 4 of that Schedule,'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—
  '(8) If the parties' arrangements for the future include a division of pension assets under section 25B of the 1973 Act or section 10 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, any declaration under subsection (2) must be a statutory declaration.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Amendment made to the proposed amendment: (a), after 'assets', insert 'or rights'.—[Mrs. Roche.]
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10

  HARDSHIP: ORDERS PREVENTING DIVORCE
  Amendment made: No. 48, in page 8, line 22, leave out from 'if' to 'after' in line 23 and insert
  `an application is made under section 3 or 4(3)'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 119, in page 8, line 27, after `includes', insert
  '—

  (a) hardship attributable to the fact that the person concerned has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble; and

  (b)'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 260.

  Division No. 147]

  [10.26 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Amess, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Lidington, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Lord, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Luff, Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Malone, Gerald

  Bates, Michael

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Merchant, Piers

  Booth, Hartley

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Paice, James

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Clappison, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Congdon, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Riddick, Graham

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Day, Stephen

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Dixon, Don

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Duncan, Alan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Dunn, Bob

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Sproat, Iain

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Stephen, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Faber, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Sweeney, Walter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Trend, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Gallie, Phil

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Viggers, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Walden, George

  Gorst, Sir John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Watts, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Hawksley, Warren

  Wilshire, David

  Horam, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Wood, Timothy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame EIaine

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Mr. Michael Alison and Mr. David Alton.

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

  630

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Fraser, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Allen, Graham

  Galbraith, Sam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Galloway, George

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gapes, Mike

  Ashton, Joe

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Battle, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bayley, Hugh

  Godsiff, Roger

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Berry, Roger

  Graham, Thomas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gunnell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Hanson, David

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Burden, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Butcher, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Butler, Peter

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butterfill, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Byers, Stephen

  Hendry, Charles

  Callaghan, Jim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hodge, Margaret

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Chidgey, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clapham, Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Cox, Tom

  Jack, Michael

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jamieson, David

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dewar, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eastham, Ken

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Etherington, Bill

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lewis, Terry

  Fisher, Mark

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Forth, Eric

  McCartney, Ian

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McFall, John

  631

  MacKay, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McKelvey, William

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McLeish, Henry

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheerman, Barry

  Madden, Max

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Maddock, Diana

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mahon, Alice

  Short, Clare

  Mandelson, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

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

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburm)

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Spellar, John

  Maxton, John

  Spring, Richard

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Michael, Alun

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Milburn, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Straw, Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sykes, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Touhig, Don

  Norris, Steve

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Olner, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Turner, Dennis

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Walley, Joan

  Pendry, Tom

  Ward, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pike, Peter L

  Whittingdale, John

  Pope, Greg

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilkinson, John

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wilson, Brian

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Wolfson, Mark

  Randall, Stuart

  Worthington, Tony

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rendel, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. Peter Bottomley and Ms Janet Anderson.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 15
  DIVISION OF PENSION ASSETS
  Amendment made: No. 109, in page 11, leave out lines 1 to 18.—[Mr. Boateng.]
Clause 18

  TIME WHEN PROCEEDINGS FOR DIVORCE OR SEPARATION BEGIN
  Amendments made: No. 49, in page 12, line 40, after `4' insert '(3)'.
  No. 50, in page 13, line 3, after second 'the' insert specified'.
  No. 51, in page 13, line 8, after '4' insert '(3)'.—[Mr. Conway.]

Clause 20

  FUNDING FOR MARRIAGE SUPPORT SERVICES
  Amendment made: No. 52, in page 13, line 22, at end insert—
  '(3) In exercising his power to make grants in connection with the provision of marriage support services, the Lord Chancellor is to have regard, in particular, to the desirability of services of that kind being available when they are first needed.'.—[Mr. Conway.]

Clause 21

  INTERPRETATION OF PART II ETC.
  Amendment made: No. 53, in page 13, line 30, at end insert—
  ' "non-molestation order" has the meaning given by section 39(1);
  "occupation order" has the meaning given by section 36;'.—[Mr. Conway.]

Clause 24

  PROVISION AND AVAILABILITY OF MEDIATION
  Mrs. Roche: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 15, line 39, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 43 and insert—
  '(6) Any contract entered into by the Board for the provision of mediation under this Part must require the mediator to comply with a code of practice.
  (6A) The code must require.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 111, in page 16, line 1, at end insert—
  `() that parties participate in mediation only if willing and not influenced by fear of violence or other harm;
  () that cases where either party may be influenced by fear of violence or other harm are identified as soon as possible;'.
  No. 112, in page 16, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 6.
  Government amendment No. 54.
  No. 4, in clause 26, page 18, line 14, after `prescribed.', insert—
  '(3G) Notwithstanding subsection (3F) above, for the purposes of determining whether to grant representation for the purpose of any proceedings, taking proceedings is to be considered, to the extent that the proceedings relate to family matters, as more appropriate than recourse to mediation where harm or ill-treatment is an issue between the parties except where—

  (a) a mediator has certified that each party has separately stated a wish to have recourse to mediation; and

  (b) the mediator has certified that he has taken all reasonable steps to satisfy himself that each such statement has been made voluntarily.'.

  Mrs. Roche: Members of the Standing Committee will remember that we spent much time discussing mediation. Those discussions were helpful because several hon. Members had considerable experience of mediation schemes, either from a national perspective or from their role as constituency Members. Mediation is an important part of the Bill.

  633
  The Opposition were concerned about the suitability of mediation in cases of domestic violence. The amendments seek to ensure that mediation does not take place where violence to the parties or their children is involved, and that it is voluntary. They would ensure that the parties are informed at information meetings that mediation is not suitable in such cases so that the picture is clear from the start.
  In Committee, it was felt that we did not want a two-tier system where some people would be able to get legal advice because they could afford it or were eligible for it, while people who did not fall in into either of those categories might feel that the only thing that they could use was mediation, which might not be suitable in all circumstances. The amendments would ensure that mediators screen all potential clients to establish whether violence is an issue between the parties, that that is kept under review throughout mediation and that mediation is safely terminated if it becomes apparent that violence is an issue.
  The issue concerns those who are involved professionally with mediation. Research by mediation agencies shows that it is both unsafe and inappropriate in most cases in which there is a history of abuse. Sadly, as has been said, in far too many marriages there are incidents of abuse, in most cases—not exclusively, but in most cases—involving abuse of the wife. A background of violence and threats can significantly affect the victim's ability to contribute effectively or to negotiate a fair settlement. Experience with the Children Act 1989 shows that many women feel pressured into agreeing to joint meetings, or even mediation, with their abusers because they fear losing their children if they do not. Research shows that that has happened in numerous cases, even though joint meetings are not compulsory.
  It must be made clear to the parties in divorce that mediation is unlikely to be the best method of resolving arrangements fairly and safely when there is violence. It must also be made clear to mediators that they have a duty to investigate the possibility of harm to, or ill-treatment of, a party to ensure that parties are not inappropriately referred to mediation and denied access to legal aid or representation.
  Some women escaping violence may choose third-party mediation, but the amendments seek to ensure that there is a clear choice and that people know what the situation is. As the Minister knows, that was extensively canvassed in Committee. It is one of the most important issues dealt with by the Bill. The Opposition believe that the amendments are crucial to ensure that there is a level playing field for the victims of violence, both women and children. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Streeter: When I rise to speak and my wife is present, she always says to me, "Keep it short," but that is as nothing compared with what the Whips have been saying to me over the past few minutes.
  Amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 112 amend clause 24 and provide a number of important safeguards and a strengthening of the provisions in relation to the provision of publicly funded mediation. In particular, they stress the voluntary nature of mediation—that where parties are influenced by fear of violence or harm, the mediator should be in a position to identify this at an early stage and mediation should not continue.
  634
  These are in addition to the requirements that mediators must have arrangements in place to ensure that the possibility of reconciliation is kept alive throughout mediation and to keep the parties informed about the availability of independent legal advice. They provide that the Legal Aid Board's contracts with mediators will require mediators to be working under, and complying with, a code of practice setting out the requirements that I have described.
  Additionally, the code will require arrangements to be in place that are designed to encourage the parties to consider the welfare, wishes and feelings of each child and to what extent each child should be allowed to express their wishes in the mediation. I understand that the major mediation organisations already have in place such codes of practice, and it must be right to ensure that standards of excellence are maintained. The amendments are important and worth while and the Government are pleased to support them.
  Amendment No. 54, which is a Government amendment, and amendment No. 4, are both concerned with clause 26, the presumption in favour of mediation. I ask the House to support the Government's amendment, which addresses the same issues as amendment No. 4, but provides a neater solution. Amendment No. 54 provides for the removal of the presumption in favour of mediation, which had aroused concern among many hon. Members in all parts of the House. However, amendment No. 4 retains the presumption in favour of mediation. It was made clear by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that this was not desirable. Furthermore, it adds a new presumption in favour of representation in cases where harm or ill-treatment are an issue. This sets up a potentially confusing conflict for the board, the mediator and the client when suitability for mediation is being considered.
  The requirement to attend the meeting will not apply if there are proceedings under part IV of the legislation—that is to say, applications for remedies in cases of molestation and violence, section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 emergency applications for freezing of assets where there are assets about to be removed from the jurisdiction, and public law Children Act 1989 cases.
  The amendments will provide the necessary protection for vulnerable parties and those for whom mediation is not suitable while safeguarding public funds from the expense of unnecessary litigation. They demonstrate the Government's commitment to the development of mediation in family matters and I commend them to the House.
  Government amendment No. 54 deals with the concerns raised in Committee and provides that there will be no presumption in favour of either mediation or representation. This seems to be a more effective and simpler way of achieving the even-handed approach for which amendment No. 4 appears to strive. We therefore reject amendment No. 4 and support the other amendments.
  Mrs. Roche: I welcome the Minister's remarks and his support for our amendments, apart from amendment No. 4. We shall not press amendment No. 4, but will support Government amendment No. 54.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 111, in page 16, line 1, at end insert—
  .() that parties participate in mediation only if willing and not influenced by fear of violence or other harm;
  () that cases where either party may be influenced by fear of violence or other harm are identified as soon as possible;'.
  No. 112, in page 16, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 6.
  No. 106, in page 16, line 8, leave out `and' and insert—
  '(6B) Where there are one or more children of the family, the code must also require the mediator to have arrangements designed to ensure that the parties are encouraged to consider:

  (a) the welfare, wishes and feelings of each child; and

  (b) whether and to what extent each child should be given the opportunity to express his or her wishes and feelings in the mediation.

  (6C) A contract entered into by the Board for the provision of mediation under this Part must also include.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 26

  MEDIATION AND CIVIL LEGAL AID
  Amendment made: No. 54, in page 18, leave out lines 7 to 14 and insert—
  ' "(3F) A person shall not be granted representation for the purposes of proceedings relating to family matters, unless he has attended a meeting with a mediator—

  (a) to determine—

  (i) whether mediation appears suitable to the dispute and the parties and all the circumstances, and

  (ii) in particular, whether mediation could take place without either party being influenced by fear of violence or other harm; and

  (b) if mediation does appear suitable, to help the person applying for representation to decide whether instead to apply for mediation.

  (3G) Subsection (3F) does not apply—

  (a) in relation to proceedings under—

  (i) Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996;

  (ii) section 37 of the Matrimonial 'Causes Act 1973;

  (iii) Part IV or V of the Children Act 1989;

  (b) in relation to proceedings of any other description that may be prescribed; or

  (c) in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

  (3H) So far as proceedings relate to family matters, the Board, in determining under subsection (3)(a) whether, in relation to the proceedings, it is reasonable that a person should be granted representation under this Part—

  (a) must have regard to whether and to what extent recourse to mediation would be a suitable alternative to taking the proceedings; and

  (b) must for that purpose have regard to the outcome of the meeting held under subsection (3F) and to any assessment made for the purposes of section 13B(3)."'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 32

  ONE FORMER SPOUSE WITH NO EXISTING RIGHT TO OCCUPY
  Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in page 23, leave out lines 17 to 25 and insert—
  '(1) This section applies if—
  636

  (a) one cohabitant, former cohabitant, or former spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of a beneficial estate or interest or contract, or by virtue of any enactment giving him the right to remain in occupation;

  (b) the cohabitant, former cohabitant or former spouse is not so entitled; and

  (c) the dwelling house—

  (i) in the case of the cohabitants or former cohabitants, is the home in which they live together as husband and wife or a home in which they at any time so lived together or intended so to live together, or

  (ii) in the case of a former spouse, was at any time their matrimonial home or was at any time intended by them to be their matrimonial home.

  (2) The cohabitant, former cohabitant or former spouse not so entitled may apply to the court for an order under this section against the other cohabitant, former cohabitant or former spouse ("the respondent").'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 116, in clause 33, page 25, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 27.
  Government amendment No. 55.
  No. 117, in clause 34, page 27, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert—
  '(1) This section applies if—

  (a) one spouse, former spouse, cohabitant or former cohabitant and the other spouse, former spouse, cohabitant or former cohabitant occupy a dwelling house which—

  (i) in the case of cohabitants or former cohabitants, is the home in which they live or have lived together as husband and wife, or

  (ii) in the case of spouses or former spouses, is or was the matrimonial home; but

  (b) neither of them is entitled to remain in occupation—

  (i) by virtue of a beneficial estate or interest or contract; or

  (ii) by virtue of any enactment giving him the right to remain in occupation.'.

  No. 118, in clause 35, page 27, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 on page 28.
  Government amendments Nos. 56 to 58.
  Mrs. Maddock: I am aware that the hour is late and that everybody is attempting to hurry. I will do my best, but these are important amendments concerning domestic violence—the one thing that we thought we were going to lose when the Bill fell before Christmas. The purposes of the amendments are to restore the provisions of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill in relation to occupation rights, to give equal rights to cohabitants for protection from violence and to restore the principal criteria for eligibility between different types of occupation orders to the applicant's status in relation to their existing rights to occupy.
  Clauses 33 and 35 are to be deleted, and the provisions for cohabitants and former cohabitants reinstated within clauses 32 and 34 so that, irrespective of marital status, the court should have a requirement to include an exclusion provision in the occupation order if the applicant and any relevant child is at greater risk of harm

  637
  than the respondent and any relevant child. In other words, the balance of harm test should be reinstated as the paramount consideration in determining the matter. Occupation orders under all the clauses should be able to be extended in the time period and the stages set within the different clauses for an unlimited period, bearing it in mind that the court has complete discretion over the length of orders according to all the factors in the case.
  Many people are concerned that the amendments to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill—as set out now in part IV of the Family Law Bill—deny equal rights to protection from violence to those cohabitees with no existing legal right to occupy. Clauses 33 and 35 are very unfair, and will create hardship for those experiencing violence in longer-term common law relationships. That is what we are talking about.
  Mrs. Peacock: The hon. Lady states that she is looking at longer-term cohabiting relationships. Can she give some idea of the length of time she is referring to? Although we condemn violence against any person, many of us are concerned that it is possible that someone in a short-term relationship could seek an ouster order and take over a property.
  Mrs. Maddock: The very next part of what I was going to say deals with that issue. Discretion is needed by the courts to deal fairly with cohabitees on the basis of the nature and length of their relationship. That was present in the original drafting of the Bill, which would have allowed for extremely limited rights of occupation for temporary relief from violence to be granted where the relationship between an applicant and a respondent was recent and unstable. The original Bill provided only limited rights.
  The newspapers and other media blew this matter up and misrepresented the facts. I merely wanted to go back to where we were originally, because the newly redrafted clauses discriminate against many common law wives who have had a long-term relationship and who are sometimes legally entitled to an interest in the home in any case. We want to go back to the original drafting of the Bill.
  Clauses 33 and 35 limit occupation rights to a maximum period of one year. In certain circumstances—particularly where alternative housing options are poor, or where there is illness—there may be insufficient time in which to find alternative accommodation for a mother and her children. My amendment seeks to delete those clauses, but does not stop the courts saying that the period should be only a short one.
  It may help if I explain how clauses 33 and 35 would undermine just and fair resolutions. For example, a woman may have experienced violence after moving in with a common law partner several years ago when he was the original owner or tenant. They may have moved in together, but he may have insisted that the property be put in his name. If there are children of the relationship, the woman will find it harder to leave to escape violence, and she will frequently try hard to make the relationship work, especially for the children. She may also be directly contributing to the rent or the mortgage. She is likely to be contributing to household
  638
  overheads and she will be very likely to have invested earned income or the value of her unwaged work in the household economy.
  A woman in that position may be able to make a legal claim for recognition of her contribution if the relationship breaks down irrevocably, but that may take years and it will not help her with protection from violence in the immediate future. It may well be that her common law partner has refused to marry her, and has refused to put her name on the rent book or the mortgage deeds, precisely because that leaves him with all the financial cards in the relationship and therefore more power and control over the family. We know that that sort of thing happens. Limiting rights of protection from abuse for women in that position is unlikely to create more incentives for such men to marry. That is one of the key points. The current re-drafting of part IV completely fails to address that aspect of domestic violence as it manifests itself in many relationships today.
  The Bill purports to be gender neutral, but the example that I have given of a woman in a long-term cohabiting relationship reveals how frequently power and financial advantage within the family are not gender neutral and may provide greater incentives for men not to marry. Women need protection by law from violence. In many cases, commitment to the welfare of the children and the creation of a stable family does exist outside marriage, but the protection of children and of the non-abusing parent, who is often a woman, at risk from violence, should be the paramount consideration.
  We have heard people say that passing such an amendment will undermine marriage, but I look at it differently. If we do not pass it, we are saying that people who live together and have children do not have the same responsibilities as married people and that in some ways it is not so bad if they commit violence against the people they live with. We should be saying that, regardless of whether people are married or in a long-term relationship and not officially married, violence is unacceptable and the woman deserves to be protected. It sends a message to men that they cannot avoid their responsibilities to women by not marrying.
  I urge the House to support the amendments.
  Mr. Streeter: The intention behind amendments Nos. 115 to 118 is to remove any differences between the way in which spouses and cohabitants are treated when applying for occupation orders. To that extent, I believe that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) is misguided.
  The amendments will have the effect of removing two of the changes made in part IV. First, in the case of cohabitants who have no entitlement to occupy the property, there is a restriction on the length of time for which they can receive the benefit of an occupation order. The limit in the Bill is six months, renewable only once. The amendment would allow indefinite renewals at the discretion of the court, which is the position of non-entitled spouses. The Government believe that an occupation order in favour of a person not entitled to occupy the property should essentially be to provide short-term protection for the victim while they seek

  639
  alternative accommodation. A year should be sufficient to do so. It is important to recognise that, during that time, a person who is entitled to occupy the property will be prevented from doing so. In the case of marriage, which has involved a lifelong commitment, there may be instances where the court feels that it is just to make a longer order in favour of the non-entitled spouse, but such cases must be left to the discretion of the court.
  Secondly, the clauses were redrafted to adjust the operation of the balance of harm test. There was widespread opposition to the suggestion that the court be placed under a duty to grant an occupation order with a restriction or exclusion provision in favour of a non-entitled cohabitant. That is reflected in the clauses as drafted. The amendments would place on the court the same duty in respect of the balance of harm test for both non-entitled spouses and cohabitants. The Government believe that they have ensured that the question of harm to non-entitled cohabitants and to relevant children will be fully considered by the court, by placing in the Bill as drafted an explicit duty on the court to consider that question. The court is not fettered in any way from acting as it sees fit, having considered the question of harm and all the other circumstances of the case.
  In considering the circumstances of the case in deciding whether to make an order in favour of an applicant who is a non-entitled cohabitant or former cohabitant under clause 33, the court is required to have regard to the nature of the parties' relationship and to the length of the time during which they have lived together as husband and wife—the very point that the hon. Member for Christchurch seeks to address. The amendments would also remove this requirement. As I mentioned before, the Government believe that there is a difference between cohabitation and marriage, and we believe that it is proper that the difference is reflected in the considerations of the court. We believe that that is the overwhelming view of the House. However, that does not mean that the court will necessarily come to different conclusions in the two cases, given the concern of the court in these matters to afford effective protection from domestic violence.
  The amendments almost completely eradicate the differences between those who have given the commitment of marriage and those who have not. They are not acceptable to the Government and I ask the House to reject them. Government amendments Nos. 56 to 58 are acceptable and I urge the House to support them.
  11 pm
  Mrs. Maddock: I anticipated the Minister's reaction to the amendments and I maintain that the Government are wrong on this. They are encouraging men not to commit themselves to long-term relationships and denying help to women who are in long-term cohabiting relationships where men hold all the cards. If the amendments are not passed, the principle of men holding all the cards will be upheld. The Government's attitude is disappointing and I hope that many hon. Members will support the amendments.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 261.

  Division No. 148]

  [11.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Godsiff, Roger

  Alton, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Gordon, Mildred

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Graham, Thomas

  Ashton, Joe

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Battle, John

  Grooott, Bruce

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gunnell, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hain, Peter

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Hanson, David

  Benton, Joe

  Hardy, Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Berry, Roger

  Harvey, Nick

  Boateng, Paul

  Heppell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

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

  Hinchliffe, David

  Burden, Richard

  Hodge, Margaret

  Byers, Stephen

  Hoey, Kate

  Caborn, Richard

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

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

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Chidgey, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clapham, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cox, Tom

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cummings, John

  Keen, Alan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

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

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

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Denham, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eastham, Ken

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Fraser, John

  Madden, Max

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maddock, Diana

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mahon, Alice

  Galloway, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  641

  Martlew, Eric

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maxton, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meacher, Michael

  Short, Clare

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Milbum, Alan

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Paul

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Straw, Jack

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pendry, Tom

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don

  Pike, Peter L

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis

  Pope, Greg

  Vaz, Keith

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Wallace, James

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Walley, Joan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Brian

  Randall, Stuart

  Worthington, Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wray, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rendel, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Ms Liz Lynne.

  Rooney, Terry

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butcher, John

  Amess, David

  Butler, Peter

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Congdon, David

  Bates, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Couchman, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Bowis, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brazier, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  642

  Evennett, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Faber, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Marland, Paul

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Marlow, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Forth, Eric

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Merchant, Piers

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gallie, Phil

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Garnier, Edward

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gill, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Nelson, Anthony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gorst, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Norris, Steve

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Paice, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Pawsey, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hendry, Charles

  Pickles, Eric

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Horam, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Jack, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Sackville, Tom

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knox, Sir David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Sproat, Iain

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sykes, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  643

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Watts, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Thomason, Roy

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Yeo, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Ward, John

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 31
  EFFECT OF ORDER UNDER S. 30 WHERE RIGHTS ARE CHARGE ON DWELLING-HOUSE
  Amendment made: No. 55, in page 26, line 31, leave out `(e)' and insert '(d)'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
Clause 38

  ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS IF PARTIES ARE COHABITANTS OR FORMER COHABITANTS
  Amendments made: No. 56, in page 29, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'have', in line 39, and insert—
  '(2) Where the court is required to consider the nature of the parties' relationship, it is to have regard to the fact that they'.
  No. 57, in page 29, leave out line 41.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 45

  REMAND FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REPORT
  Amendment made: No. 58, in page 33, line 31, leave out from 'issued' to end and insert
  `on an application made under section 44(8)'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 60

  RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 59, in page 41, line 23, at end insert—
  '() This section does not apply to rules of court made, or any power to make rules of court, for the purposes of this Act.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 62

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 41, line 35, after 'that' insert—
  '—
  (a)'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 61, 62, 77 to 86 and 96.
  Mr. Streeter: These are minor, technical and consequential amendments to clause 62 and schedules 3, 8 and 10. They do not make policy changes, and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 61, in page 41, line 37, leave out 'and'.
  No. 62, in page 41, line 39, at end insert
  '; and
  (iii) the amendments of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the Finance Act 1985 and sections 42 and 51 of the Family Law Act 1986 extend also to both Northern Ireland and Scotland; and
  (b) in Schedule 10, the repeal of section 2(1)(b) of the Domestic and Appellate Proceedings (Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968 extends also to Scotland.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 1

  ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE
  Amendments made: No. 13, in page 42, line 6, leave out
  `41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  `(Welfare of children)'.
  No. 14, in page 42, line 21, leave out
  `41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  '(Welfare of children)'.
  No. 15, in page 42, line 39, leave out
  `41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  `(Welfare of children)'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 63, in page 42, line 42, at end insert—
  `The fourth exemption
  3A. The circumstances referred to in section 9(7)(d) are that—

  (a) the requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act have been satisfied;

  (b) an occupation order or a non-molestation order is in force in favour of the applicant or a child of the family, made against the other party;

  (c) the applicant has, during the period for reflection and consideration, taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to try to reach agreement about the parties' financial arrangements;

  (d) the applicant has not been able to reach agreement with the other party about those arrangements and is unlikely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future; and

  (e) a delay in making the order applied for under section 3—

  (i) would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family; or

  (ii) would be seriously prejudicial to the applicant.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

  Amendment made to the proposed amendment: (a), leave out
  '41 of the 1973 Act'
  and insert
  `(Welfare of children)'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2

  FINANCIAL PROVISION
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 45, leave out lines 9 to 12.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 113, in page 46, line 14, at end insert—
  '(1A) No financial provision order, other than an interim order, may be made under section 22A above before the end of the first six months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

  (a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or

  (b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

  (i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and

  (ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to be made earlier.'.

  No. 120, in page 46, line 14, at end insert—
  `(1A) No financial provision order, other than an interim order, may be made under section 22A above before the end of the first three months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

  (a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or

  (b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

  (i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and

  (ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to be made earlier.'.

  Government amendments Nos. 65 and 66.
  No. 114, in page 48, line 45, at end insert—
  '(1 A) No property adjustment order may be made under section 23A above before the end of the first six months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

  (a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or

  (b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

  (i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and

  (ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to

  be made earlier.'.
  No. 121, in page 48, line 45, at end insert—
  '(1A) No property adjustment order may be made under section 23A above before the end of the first three months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

  (a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or

  (b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

  (i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and

  (ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to

  be made earlier.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 67 to 76 and 87 to 92.
  Mr. Streeter: Amendments Nos. 64 to 76 make drafting changes and minor corrections to schedule 2 but make no policy changes, and I commend them to the House.
  646
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) moves amendments Nos. 120 and 121, which relate to the making of three-month restrictions on the making of property and other orders, I can accept them. That restriction may be of some benefit to couples who want to reconcile from the time of attending the information session to the time that the court can make a contested order. There will generally be six months to seek a reconciliation before a contested order is made. Once the court has made an order, reconciliation is still facilitated by the power of the court to vary orders on reconciliation. The court also has power to vary all types of property adjustment orders, and lump sum orders, made before a divorce or separation order is made. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 113 and 114 and ask my hon. Friend not to move them.
  Amendments Nos. 87, 91, 92, 88, 89 and 90 are technical and sensible, and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Brazier: Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 would provide three months' extra reflection and consideration in certain circumstances before final financial and property orders can be made. That provision has nothing to do with the total time taken before a divorce is granted but everything to do with trying to save marriages that may still be saveable after the couple have begun the divorce process.
  In cases of domestic violence, eviction orders would be totally unaffected. In the same way, where there is genuine financial need, interim financial orders will also be unaffected.
  The amendments would assist in saving saveable marriages because once the family home is broken up in a property order or financial orders have been made, the couple in question are a long way down the road of a marriage break-up. The House has made it absolutely clear that it wants pause for thought in divorce and has voted for, in most cases, 18 months to achieve it. It would be strange if it were possible in all circumstances after just three months for couples to start the machinery that will effectively break up their marriage.
  This modest pair of amendments provide for three additional months, making six months, before the final property or financial order can be negotiated—subject to a string of let-outs. The Conservative Family Campaign's legal advisers say that those let-outs will probably apply in the majority of cases. There will be a let-out in cases that are uncontested and in which the court rules that exceptional circumstances make that just and reasonable—and the courts are only too willing to allow exceptional circumstances. None the less, in the residue of cases where divorce is contested and there are no special circumstances, people will be required to reflect for six months before they set their decision in concrete. That can only be a good thing and in line with the wishes of the House—which voted for a much longer period for divorce. I urge the House to support both amendments, which would halt the machinery of divorce a little longer.
  Mr. Boateng: We well understand what motivates the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in tabling the amendments. In the real world, however, it is not possible for the parties to be held, as it were, frozen in suspended animation while the world goes on around them. That is not how it happens in the divorce process. As we have

  647
  consistently said, we need to intervene early by pathways to reconciliation. Once those pathways have been explored, there is no point in freezing the machinery any further. If reconciliation is not possible, in the children's interests, the impulse must be to move quickly to agreement in relation to property and to children.
  Therefore, we will with regret, but absolute certainty vote against the amendments. They do not promote reconciliation or assist the process. On the contrary, they present yet another element of complexity that will create only uncertainty and do harm. We will oppose the amendments.
  Mr. Brazier rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
  Mr. Brazier: With the leave of the House,
  Hon. Members: No.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I know that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was seeking to intervene, but, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) had already sat down, the situation cannot arise.
  Mr. Streeter: With the leave of the House, I have noted carefully what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has said. He is wrong.
  Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Streeter: Of course.
  Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has effectively made a case for abridging the total divorce process. I ask the House to think what possible logic there is in having a total divorce process that takes 18 months, but, if people want, in setting it all in concrete in every case after three months.
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The amendments are modest and sensible and I urge my colleagues to support them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 120, in page 46, line 14, at end insert—
  '(1A) No financial provision order, other than an interim order, may be made under section 22A above before the end of the first three months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

  (a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or

  (b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

  (i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and

  (ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to be made earlier:.—[Mr. Brazier.]

  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 223.

  Division No. 149]

  [11.25 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Alton, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Amess, David

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bates, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Bellingham, Henry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Boswell, Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Lidington, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Lord, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Burns, Simon

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burt, Alistair

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Butcher, John

  Maftland, Lady Olga

  Carrington, Matthew

  Malone, Gerald

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Marlow, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Merchant, Piers

  Coe, Sebastian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Congdon, David

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Conway, Derek

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

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

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Day, Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Norris, Steve

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Paice, James

  Dover, Den

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Duncan, Alan

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Pawsey, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Gallie, Phil

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Garnier, Edward

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Gill, Christopher

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Sackville, Tom

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  649

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Viggers, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walden, George

  Stephen, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stewart, Allan

  Ward, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sweeney, Walter

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Dr. Robert Spink and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Allen, Graham

  Fatchett, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Ashton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Barron, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forman, Nigel

  Battle, John

  Forth, Eric

  Bayley, Hugh

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fyfe, Maria

  Benton, Joe

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galloway, George

  Berry, Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Boateng, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradley, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A

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

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Butterfill, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Byers, Stephen

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Wn (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hain, Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hanson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Churchill, Mr

  Harvey, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbett, Robin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cox, Tom

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cummings, John

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Denham, John

  Jack, Michael

  Dewar, Donald

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  650

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pickles, Eric

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Keen, Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Randall, Stuart

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Reid, Dr John

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Short, Clare

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Chris (Isl'tonS& F'sbury)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  McKelvey, William

  Spring, Richard

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  MacShane, Denis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Straw, Jack

  Maddock, Diana

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mahon, Alice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marek, Dr John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

  Touhig, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Trickett, Jon

  Maxton, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Vaz, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Wallace, James

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walley, Joan

  Milburn, Alan

  Wells, Bowen

  Miller, Andrew

  Whitney, Ray

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mudie, George

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Olner, Bill

  Ms Janet Anderson and Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 65, in page 46, line 18, leave out from 'consideration' to end of line 19 and insert
  `is interrupted under section 7(8) of the 1996 Act.'.
  No. 66, in page 46, line 34, at end insert—
  '(5) In this section, "period for reflection and consideration" means the period fixed by section 7 of the 1996 Act." '.
  No. 67, in page 48, line 48, leave out from `consideration' to end of line 49 and insert
  `is interrupted under section 7(8) of the 1996 Act.'.
  No. 68, in page 49, line 10, leave out '22A' and insert '23A'.
  No. 69, in page 49, line 15, at end insert—
  `(5) In this section, "period for reflection and consideration" means the period fixed by section 7 of the 1996 Act." '.
  No. 70, in page 49, line 43, after `(b)' insert
  `above, unless sub-paragraph (ia) below applies,'.
  No. 71, in page 49, line 44, at end insert—
  '(ia) where the order is made by virtue of section 22A(2)(b) above and the application for the divorce order was made following cancellation of an order preventing divorce under section 10 of the 1996 Act, than the date of the making of that application;'.
  No. 72, in page 49, line 45, leave out 'or (d)' and insert `above'.
  No. 73, in page 50, line 16, after 'above' insert
  ', except where paragraph (aa) below applies,'.
  No. 74, in page 50, line 17, at end insert—
  `(aa) in the case of an order made by virtue of section 22A(2)(b) above where the application for the divorce order was made following cancellation of an order preventing divorce under section 10 of the 1996 Act, the date of the making of that application;'.
  No. 75, in page 50, line 18, leave out 'such'.
  No. 76, in page 50, line 18, leave out 'or (d)'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 3

  STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
  Amendments made: No. 77, in page 51, line 43, after `means' insert
  '—
  (a)'.
  No. 78, in page 51, line 44, at end insert 'or
  (b) if the proceedings are for the conversion of a separation order into a divorce order under section 4 of the Family Law Act 1996, the statement of marital breakdown by reference to which the separation order was made.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 8

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 79, in page 66, line 37, leave out from 'In' to 'section'.
  No. 80, in page 66, line 38, after 'applies)' insert
  '—
  (a) in subsection (2)(a)(i),'.
  No. 81, in page 66, line 39, leave out 'and'.
  No. 82, in page 66, line 39, at end insert; and
  (b) in subsection (2)(c)(v), after "Matrimonial Causes Act 1973" insert "(as that Act had effect immediately before the passing of the Family Law Act 1996)".'.
  No. 83, in page 67, leave out lines 4 to 13.
  No. 84, in page 67, line 46, at end insert—
  'Proceedings after decree nisi: general powers of court
  15B.—(1) Where a decree of nullity of marriage has been granted under this Act but not made absolute, then, without prejudice to section 15A above, any person (excluding a party to the proceedings other than the Queen's Proctor) may show cause why the decree should not be made absolute by reason of material facts not having been brought before the court; and in such a case the court may—
  652

  (a) notwithstanding anything in section 15 above (but subject to section 41 below) make the decree absolute; or

  (b) rescind the decree; or

  (c) require further inquiry; or

  (d) otherwise deal with the case as it thinks fit.

  (2) Where a decree of nullity of marriage has been granted under this Act and no application for it to be made absolute has been made by the party to whom it was granted, then, at any time after the expiration of three months from the earliest date on which that party could have made such an application, the party against whom it was granted may make an application to the court, and on that application the court may exercise any of the powers mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) above.'.
  No. 85, in page 67, line 47, after 'divorce' insert 'to'.
  No. 86, in page 67, line 48, leave out from '19)' to end of line 6 on page 68 and insert
  '—

  (a) for "1(5), 8 and 9" substitute "15, 15A and 15B"; and

  (b) for "divorce" in both places substitute "nullity of marriage".'.

  No. 87, in page 69, line 10, at end insert
  `and, if the first party has already applied to the court for the making of such an order, it may dismiss the application.'.
  No. 88, in page 69, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'substitute' in line 26 and insert—
  `—(1) Section 27 (financial provision orders etc. in case of failure to provide proper maintenance) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (5)—

  (a) after "an order requiring the respondent" insert "—

  (a)"; and

  (b) at the end insert ", or

  (b) to pay to the applicant such lump sum or sums as the court thinks reasonable."

  (3) For subsection (6)'.
  No. 89, in page 69, line 31, at end insert—
  '(4) In subsection (7), for "(6)(c) or (f)" substitute "(6)".'.
  No. 90, in page 72, line 9, at end insert
  ',so far as it requires the making of periodical payments." `.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Amendment made: No. 16, in page 72, leave out lines 27 to 46.—[Mr. Llwyd.]
  Amendments made: No. 91, in page 73, line 22, after '22A' insert 'or 23'.
  No. 92, in page 75, line 35, leave out from 'etc.)' to end of line 45 and insert
  '—
  (a) after paragraph (b), insert—
  "(bb) is executed in pursuance of an order of a court which is made at any time under section 22A, 23A or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, or"; and
  (b) in paragraph (c), for "or their judicial separation" substitute ", their judicial separation or the making of a separation order in respect of them".'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 9

  MODIFICATIONS, SAVING AND TRANSITIONAL
  Amendment made: No. 107, in page 83, line 15, at end insert—

  653
  `Transitional arrangements for those who have been living apart
  .—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order provide for the application of Part II to marital proceedings which—

  (a) are begun during the transitional period, and

  (b) relate to parties to a marriage who immediately before the beginning of that period were living apart,

  subject to such modifications (which may include omissions) as may be prescribed.
  (2) An order made under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision as to the evidence which a party who claims to have been living apart from the other party immediately before the beginning of the transitional period must produce to the court.
  (3) In this paragraph—
  "marital proceedings" has the same meaning as in section 21;
  "prescribed" means prescribed by the order; and
  "transitional period" means the period of two years
  beginning with the day on which section 3 is brought into force.'.—[Mr. Nicholas Brown.]
  Amendments made: No. 93, in page 84, line 13, leave out from 'affects' to end of line 14 and insert
  '—

  () any decree granted before the coming into force of the provision;

  () any proceedings begun, by petition or otherwise, before that time; or

  () any decree granted in any such proceedings;'.

  No. 94, in page 84, line 19, after first 'proceedings' insert 'or decree'.
  No. 95, in page 84, line 20, leave out from 'any' to third 'or' and insert 'such proceedings or decree;'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 10

  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 96, in page 86, column 3, leave out line 18 and insert—

  `Sections 9 and 10'.

  —[Mr. Streeter.]

  Amendment made: No. 17, in page 86, column 3, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert—
  'In section 41, in subsection (1) the words "divorce or" and "or a decree of judicial separation" and in subsection (2) the words "divorce or" and "or that the decree of judicial separation is not to be granted.".'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  The House divided: Ayes 427, Noes 9.

  Division No. 150]

  [11.38 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Allen, Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Barron, Kevin

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Battle, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ashton, Joseph

  Bellingham, Henry

  654

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dewar, Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Berry, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Den

  Boateng, Paul

  Dowd, Jim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bradley, Keith

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Faber, David

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

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bums, Simon

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burt, Alistair

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Butcher, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Butler, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Byers, Stephen

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Cabom, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Carrington, Matthew

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Galloway, George

  Chidgey, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Churchill, Mr

  Garnier, Edward

  Clapham, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Clappison, James

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Coffey, Ann

  Gorst, Sir John

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Congdon, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Conway, Derek

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corbett, Robin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Couchman, James

  Gunnell, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cox, Tom

  Hain, Peter

  Cran, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cummings, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hanson, David

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Curry, David

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Dalyell, Tam

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Harvey, Nick

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hawksley, Warren

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

  Hayes, Jerry

  Day, Stephen

  Heald, Oliver

  Denham, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hendry, Charles

  655

  Heppell, John

  McAllion, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  McCartney, Ian

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  McFall, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Hodge, Margaret

  McKelvey, William

  Hoey, Kate

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Hood, Jimmy

  McLeish, Henry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Maclennan, Robert

  Horam, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  MacShane, Denis

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

  Madden, Max

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Maddock, Diana

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Mahon, Alice

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Malone, Gerald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Marek, Dr John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Marland, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Marlow, Tony

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Illsley, Eric

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Ingram, Adam

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Jack, Michael

  Martlew, Eric

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Maxton, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Meacher, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Merchant, Piers

  Jamieson, David

  Michael, Alun

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Milbum, Alan

  Jessel, Toby

  Miller, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Jowell, Tessa

  Morley, Elliot

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Keen, Alan

  Mudie, George

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Mullin, Chris

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

  Murphy, Paul

  Khabra, Piara S

  Nelson, Anthony

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Knapman, Roger

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Norris, Steve

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Knox, Sir David

  Olner, Bill

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ottaway, Richard

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Page, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Paice, James

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Pawsey, James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Pike, Peter L

  Lord, Michael

  Pope, Greg

  Luff, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  656

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Streeter, Gary

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Sweeney, Walter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Sykes, John

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Rendel, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Touhig, Don

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tredinnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Trend, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trickett, Jon

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dennis

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sackville, Tom

  Vaz, Keith

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wallace, James

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walley, Joan

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Short, Clare

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watts, John

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

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitney, Ray

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Spring, Richard

  Wilson, Brian

  Sproat, Iain

  Wolfson, Mark

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stephen, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Allan

  Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Stott, Roger

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Cann, Jamie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Dr. Jeremy Bray and Mr. Edward Leigh

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Cornton Vale Prison (Suicides)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  11.52 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I am privileged to have this debate on suicides at Cornton Vale prison. The latest case concerned a young constituent of mine, Angela Bollan, aged 19.
  I well remember the evening of Friday 26 April. I was organising a dance in my constituency when I was telephoned by the media at 6 pm to be told that one of my young constituents had committed suicide. I know her parents, Jim and Ann Bollan, very well. I went to visit them that evening to offer my condolences. It was no surprise that, when I visited them, they were devastated, distraught and numb at what had happened. They kept asking why it had happened to their daughter.
  Angela was a bubbly teenager. Her mother told me that she had telephoned her the previous day. She said that Angela was a vibrant 19-year-old girl with an outgoing personality who never dwelt on problems or held grudges. She saw the good side of everyone and could with ease bridge the generation gap with her elders. On the day she died, she wrote a letter to her parents in the usual upbeat terms. She was looking forward to release. Her parent said that her letter stated:
  "she had just been to the gym, telling us she had her hair cut and styled and asking us to bring some clothes up later that week."
  Her parents cannot accept Angela's death, and feel that there is culpability on the part of the Scottish Prison Service for her death.
  It is important to remember that Angela was on remand in Cornton Vale prison, and that the issue of remand prisoners in Scotland should be subjected to increasing focus by the Government. In Scotland, the number of such prisoners in recent years has increased. In any one year, 20 per cent. of the 5,500 Scottish prison population are on remand, and between 1990 and 1994 there was a staggering increase of 35 per cent. in the number of prisoners held on remand. In 1990, there were 771 people in that category, and by 1994 the figure had risen to 1,015.
  I have spoken to Clive Fairweather, Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons in Scotland, and I know that he is concerned about the number of prisoners on remand. Among such prisoners there is a prevalence of mental disorder and drug and alcohol dependency. I should like to quote a parliamentary answer by a Home Office Minister that was given to a colleague. It states:
  "researchers from the Institute of Psychiatry recently undertook for the Prison Service a study aimed principally at measuring the prevalence of mental disorder amongst the remand population in England and Wales. They considered that 66 per cent. of the adult males, 53 per cent. of the young men and 77 per cent. of the women in a large and broadly representative sample could be diagnosed as suffering from some form of mental disorder, a term which includes in this context harmful or dependent substance misuse."—[Official Report, 18 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 566.]
  I do not think that the situation is any different in Scotland.
  My young constituent, Angela Bollan, was drug-dependent, but, with parental help and encouragement, she was making every attempt to overcome that. On the day of her funeral, the minister
  658
  who conducted it, the Rev. Ian Millar, in an eloquent homily, said that there was little doubt that, of late, Rainbow house—that is the drug unit to which Angela went in Glasgow—was an immense influence in her life. He said:
  "It was her solace and there she made so many very special friends. There she found love that asked no questions. Love that accepted and love that made no judgments. There she made the first of those faltering 12 steps to health."
  The minister went on to widen the issue of the problem that confronted Angela and many other young people. He commented that, in our community, in Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven area—it is no different in many other communities—
  "many hundreds of good and decent children are thrown on to the scrapheap of unemployment. The future to them seems devoid of any worth and meaning. Is it any wonder that many seek alternatives which might lift the gloom even if only for a moment."
  He went on:
  "I see a metamorphosis before my eyes. That catastrophic change which occurs when the bright and smiling youngsters of the primary school realise that their hopes and dreams of early years cannot be fulfilled. Despite the positive efforts of the school to promote their self-esteem, cynicism enters their soul and they give up on the system."
  He mentioned the anger and the affront that that caused. It causes anger because he and other people in the community, and her parents, thought that Angela might have been saved from the demons that haunted her, and saved from herself within the prison system.
  I am not here to blame the Cornton Vale staff, because I have visited the prison and seen for myself the good efforts that have been made there. The system is to blame—it dehumanises.
  In the previous year, another young constituent of mine—an 18-year-old called Gerry Deary—committed suicide in Greenock prison. I visited his parents and relatives in their home on the following Saturday. His uncle told me that, if the authorities had allowed Gerry's relatives to visit him and tell him to wisen up, not to be so silly, and to prepare himself to come home soon, they could have done something for him. But they were separated from him for a vital few days, and never had that opportunity.
  The fatal accident inquiries into the other deaths in Cornton Vale—those into Arlene Elliot and Kelly Holland—have highlighted the deficiencies. I will not go into the details of the cases, but it is obvious that there were faults in communication both within and outside the prison, and in the expertise of prison officers. In one case, a psychiatrist—Dr. Hunter—went to see Arlene Elliot, but he was not allowed into the prison because his visit coincided with the tea break of the prison officers. That matter was referred to by Sheriff Principal John Maguire in his fatal accident inquiry report.
  Dr. Kevin Power and Professor Gunn have been commissioned by the Scottish Prison Service to look at the deficiencies in identification, communication and care, and they have made a number of recommendations. I have had the opportunity to see the bare recommendations, but not the report. I want the Minister to focus on the recommendations, and give us an assurance that something is now happening.
  That is why I support the plea from my constituents Jim and Ann Bollan for a public inquiry and full disclosure. Alarm bells are ringing: there have been four

  659
  suicides in Cornton Vale over a 10-month period. There were 16 suicides in Scottish prisons in 1994, 10 in 1995, and this year to date there have been four. That contrasts with a yearly average of 6.5 over the previous 10 years. Something is going wrong.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend has raised the very statistics that he and I have discussed, which highlight what I call the explosion of suicides in Scottish prisons. Is not the lack of communication between the medical practitioners and the custodial officers at the root of many of the suicides of people who are infirm, psychologically disturbed and not supervised properly?
  Mr. McFall: That is correct, and Professor Gunn in particular has addressed that matter. The service needs increasing expertise and resources. If the Government are to take people's liberty away from them, they have an obligation to ensure that they are cared for within prison. I can offer a way forward in a number of areas to the Minister.
  First, I refer to the issue of drug offenders. Most of the young girls in Cornton Vale and other prisons are there for the most petty offences. During my visit, I met a young girl who had broken bail three times. I asked her what her original offence had been, and was told that she had stolen a £40 jumper from Marks and Spencer to feed her drug habit.
  The question has to be asked—is prison the proper place to put young individuals with a drug dependency? Is there not a better community alternative? Could they be sent to an intensive treatment clinic as an alternative to gaol? Perhaps they could receive intensive treatment for, say, 12 weeks, followed up by work in the community. That is a way forward, and the Government should be looking at such proposals which could also help to reduce reoffending and ease prison overcrowding.
  In addition, the Government must end the practice of sending young girls on remand. I am aware that Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons has been to Cornton Vale and reported on 31 May. That report has not yet been made public, but I hope that the inspectorate will recommend a course of action such as that, because it is totally inappropriate for young girls to be in such an alien and oppressive situation where they may suffer bullying and then try to take their own lives.
  Angela Bollan's case illustrates that situation. Although the previous day she was, in her parents' word, "upbeat", she committed suicide a short time later. We cannot prevent every suicide in prison, but we must have a proper regime. The deficiencies need to be tackled.
  I wish the Minister to elaborate on the Gunn and the Power recommendations.
  Cultural change is important. Any profession may become preoccupied with a feeling of being beleaguered, misused and misunderstood. I do not want that to happen to the prison service, because it will do the interests of the prison service and prisoners no good, but a fundamental precondition is for the Scottish Prison Service constantly to recall the injunction in its mission statement to treat prisoners with humanity. The Government should give high priority to achieving some of the improvements in the name of humanity and justice.
  660
  With regard to the families—it is important to remember that I initiated this debate as a response to family pressure—crime prevention should concern itself with improving moral and material support to the family unit, as a place where most people receive love, psychological security and care, and civilised values are transmitted from one generation to another.
  We know that the average prison population for females increased by 25 per cent. between 1992 and 1995. About half those women have dependent children. Most are non-violent offenders, and many have committed minor offences. Can it possibly be the best way to proceed to keep them in prison? I ask the Minister to consider that question very seriously.
  Research in the United States of America shows that a prisoner without family support is six times more likely to reoffend in the year after release than one who has maintained close family links. We therefore pay a heavy price if we discard mechanisms that tend to keep family relationships intact.
  We all bear responsibility for sending people to prison and for what goes on there. Therefore, the climate should be one in which we rise above the attitudes and vocabulary of revenge, war or punishment for its own sake, and speak instead the language of justice. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) eloquently did so today in the Scottish Grand Committee, and that principle should be adopted by the Government with regard to the Scottish Prison Service.
  We should create a climate in which we pay more attention to moral and social relationships. Sadly, for Jim and Ann Bollan, that is lost now, but we must look to the future and make our prisons a more secure and humane environment.
  I appeal to the Minister by quoting one of his heroes, Winston Churchill, who said in 1910 of the principles that should underlie penal policy:
  "a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment … and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man"—
  and in the heart of every woman.
  12.7 am
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for the opportunity to place on record the policy of the Scottish Prison Service regarding suicide prevention.
  No one can be anything but extremely concerned about suicides in prison. The loss of lives, especially young lives, in any circumstances is a matter of the greatest regret to us all, and I wish to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the families of those who have taken their lives while in custody at Cornton Vale, at Greenock, and at those other prisons where there have been such deaths in recent months.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to his constituent, Angela Bollan, who died in custody in Cornton Vale on 26 April 1996. I offer my deepest sympathy to Miss Bollan's family. A fatal accident inquiry will be held into the circumstances surrounding her death, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any recommendations made by the sheriff will be considered very seriously by the Scottish Prison Service and by Ministers.

  661
  There will always be a fatal accident inquiry after any death in custody, unless there is a murder case. I am aware that, only today, a fatal accident inquiry has begun into the death of another young woman at Cornton Vale prison.
  There are no easy answers to suicides in prisons—however, that is not to say that there is little that can be done about suicides. The staff of the Scottish Prison Service do a difficult job on behalf of society and they deserve the support of all law-abiding citizens. They take seriously their duty of care to those committed to custody, they identify those at risk of self-harm, and they do whatever they can to minimise that risk. There is much that can be done, and there is much that is being done.
  There is no quick-fix solution to suicide, whether in prison or in the community. As the hon. Member will be aware, suicides in the community have also been rising. An increase in prison suicides is all the more likely when significant numbers of those committed to prison have a history of drug misuse, the withdrawal from which brings with it a range of problems with which prison medical staff and ordinary prison officers have to deal.
  The Scottish Prison Service's suicide prevention strategy has three main strands: screening to encourage the identification of prisoners at risk, the provision of appropriate care, and good communications by all those involved. It recognises the problems prisoners bring with them into prison or develop while in prison, and it aims to engage medical staff, prison nurses and all other people working in prisons to identify prisoners at risk and to provide appropriate care.
  Guidance is available to all prisons on how to deal with prisoners at risk, which takes account of good practice in other institutional settings and which also recognises the reality of the prison situation. However, it is important to remember that prisons are places of secure custody for those who have broken the law and who are deemed by the courts to be in need of such custody for the protection of the public, either because of the nature of their offences or because of the frequency of their offending. Being in prison is certainly no joy ride.
  The public have a right to protection from those who, through their anti-social behaviour, consistently infringe the liberty of law-abiding people. There are very few offenders who find themselves in prison as a result of only one brush with the law or one court appearance. For the majority—this applies to women as well as to men—a whole variety of alternatives to custody will have been experienced before a custodial sentence is imposed.
  The hon. Gentleman hinted—if I understood him correctly—that there is a place for bail hostels. The Government recognise that supervised and supported accommodation can make a contribution. I appreciate that, for some young people, being remanded in a prison or young offenders institution will be a troubling and difficult experience. However, the court has to achieve a proper balance between the risk that the alleged offender may pose to the community and the risk to the young person. Sometimes, remand in custody is the only option.
  Breaches of bail are a serious problem. The public find it difficult to understand why an habitual offender can appear in court one day, only to be released on bail to commit further offences, to cause further distress to victims and to use up police resources. I accept that supervision in the community also has an important role to play in tackling reoffending while on bail.
  662
  Three years ago, we widened the scope of those services receiving 100 per cent. central Government funding to incorporate two pilot bail supervision projects in Lothian and Strathclyde. The projects will be evaluated to assess the impact of bail supervision on the behaviour of those who are subject to it.
  It is our policy to promote the development, within 100 per cent. funding of criminal justice social work services, of a sufficient network of supervised criminal justice accommodation to enable courts or the Parole Board to impose conditions of residence where they think it necessary in the public interest. Offenders could be on bail, on probation or on supervision after release from custody. Development of the network will be phased over a number of years. An offer in principle has been made to the relevant local authority—Dundee council—for the establishment of a new bail hostel in Tayside.
  Whatever the alternatives to prison, however, there will continue to be a need for certain people to be remanded in or committed to prison in the interest of protecting the public, and we need to be realistic about what prisons are. As a sheriff recently observed, prisons are not hospitals; nor are they schools. Identification of those who are at risk is not easy for the professional psychiatrist, far less the ordinary gallery officer. Without that identification, the provision of appropriate care—even within the limitations of the prison environment—is doubly difficult.
  Having said that, I do not wish to underestimate the commitment of the Scottish Prison Service to developing and managing a strategy for the care of prisoners at risk that is effective and humane. I am, of course, aware of the criticisms that have been made of the workings of that strategy, but I wish to put on record that the findings of fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of two young women at Cornton Vale, and other recent deaths, have attributed no blame to the staff or management of the Scottish Prison Service.
  Like any policy for dealing with human behaviour, the suicide prevention strategy of the Scottish Prison Service will adapt to changing circumstances. The recommendations of Professor Gunn and Dr. Kevin Power are being carefully considered, and a number of their recommendations can readily be taken on board. Others will require more careful thought.
  A recurring theme from those who have studied the difficult issue of suicides in prison—from Dr. Chiswick, who investigated suicides at Glenochil in the 1980s, to Professor Gunn and Dr. Power—is the criticism, including criticism by some staff of the Scottish Prison Service, of the use of isolation and seclusion as a response to the apparently suicidal. By "isolation and seclusion", I mean the practice—which is found in virtually all prison systems—of isolating the apparently suicidal in a cell in which the means of self-harm are not available.
  I readily accept that that practice, if applied day and night, is unlikely to address the underlying mental and psychological disturbances that may precipitate the suicidal tendency in the prisoner; but it is nevertheless a fact that those who are so isolated do not in general succeed in taking their own lives. In general, it is not prisoners who are under suicide supervision who do so.
  Professor Gunn and others have recommended over the years that isolation and seclusion in so-called stripped cells should not be used, at least during the day. They recommend a more therapeutic approach, with, in

  663
  appropriate cases, 24-hour surveillance of those who present as potentially suicidal. Professor Gunn has suggested that every Scottish Prison Service custodial establishment—that is, some 19 separate institutions—should have an observational ward for the potentially suicidal, staffed for 24 hours a day.
  I do not dispute the value of 24-hour surveillance, but careful consideration must be given not only to the resource implications but to the practicality, in a prison setting where the prospect of a period in a hospital environment runs the risk of being an irresistible temptation to those who pose no suicide risk but who, by presenting as suicidal, would seek to manipulate the authorities into removing them from normal circulation for their own ends.
  That is one of the dilemmas facing prison staff—the identification of the genuinely suicidal, and distinguishing them from those who would and do use the threat of suicide to achieve an advantage of some kind. I do, however, agree that proper emphasis should be placed on care for the genuinely suicidal, and I know that the Scottish Prison Service will be considering the recommendations that have been made in that regard very carefully.
  The Prisons Board will be considering Professor Gunn's recommendations later this week. Both Professor Gunn and Dr. Power have emphasised the need for more staff training. I assure hon. Members that particular attention will be paid to what further steps can be taken to improve staff's understanding of the suicide prevention strategy, and to professional training.
  A number of steps have been taken to improve the professionalism of staff. Forty per cent. of nurses working in the Prison Service now have registered mental qualifications, compared with fewer than 10 per cent. three years ago. In recent weeks, the service has embarked on a major campaign to increase the volume and quality of psychological services through a major recruitment campaign, and a rolling programme of training with at-risk prisoners is under way for prison nursing staff.
  At Cornton Vale, specific measures have been taken. Staffing levels within the remand unit have been raised to improve supervision and interaction. Prisoners within the unit are out of cell to the maximum extent possible during the daytime, and work is in hand to improve the activities available to them. It should be remembered, of course, that remand prisoners are not required, under the present rules, to work. The provision of purposeful activity for such prisoners is a major challenge for prison management.
  664
  I do not believe that the recent cluster of suicides at Cornton Vale is attributable to shortcomings on the part of prison staff or to fundamental failures in the Scottish Prison Service's suicide prevention strategy. Neither Professor Gunn nor Dr. Power concluded that the strategy is not working. I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that any recommendations made by fatal accident inquiries will be taken extremely seriously, as will any of their observations.
  I stress that everyone has a part to play in the prevention of suicide, including prisoners. The listener scheme at Edinburgh prison, in which designated volunteer prisoners provide confidential support to those who come to them for help, has been widely praised, and has been commended by Professor Gunn. It is being extended to other prisons, with the assistance of the Samaritans. Families and friends also have a role, and I urge any who have reason to be concerned about the possibility of self-harm by a prisoner to contact the governor of the prison concerned.
  The staff of the Scottish Prison Service have the most important part to play—by staff, I mean all staff. Suicide prevention is not the preserve of doctors, nurses or other professionals. All staff must be alert to risk, and discipline staff in the galleries are perhaps better placed than most to pick up the signals.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting this distressing matter. Where further training is required, it will be provided. Where communications need to be improved, they will be. There is no lack of commitment to the task by the management and staff of the Prison Service, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in wishing them well in the difficult job they do.
  The hon. Gentleman made an important point: that less serious offences do not necessarily merit imprisonment. I agree. He has said before that fine defaulters should not necessarily be imprisoned, and that there should be better ways of dealing with them. We should explore those matters, but the public need to be protected from dangerous criminals—we are not in dispute over that. These matters need to be studied carefully in the light of the findings and recommendations of the fatal accident inquiries.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Promotion (Women)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures her 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 her Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31545]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office is committed to the implementation of the Office of Public Service programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity for women in the civil service. It is also a founder member of Opportunity 2000, which aims to increase opportunities for women and promote the achievement of a balanced work force. The Department has continued to encourage measures which increase opportunities for women to reach senior positions. It monitors regularly the number of women in each grade, their annual report markings and their performance on promotion boards. It also makes available career breaks, flexible working arrangements and subsidised child care to assist women who want to combine work with domestic responsibilities.

  There has been steady progress in the promotion of women into senior positions over the past five years. The percentage of women in grades 1 to 7, excluding the Prison Service, has risen from 21 per cent. to 28 per cent. Within that group, the representation of women at the former grade 3 level has risen from 27 per cent. to 43 per cent. and at grade 7 level from 20 per cent. to 33 per cent. Examples of progress elsewhere within the Department are that of the 12 people reaching governor 4 grade on the accelerated promotion scheme in the Prison Service, five have been women, representing 43 per cent., and that representation at grade 7 level in the Forensic Science Service has quadrupled over the past five years.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many life sentence prisoners released on licence in the period 1990–95 were subsequently recalled. [32151]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Provisional data show that there were 578 life sentence prisoners released on licence between 1990 and 1995 inclusive, of whom 37 had their licence revoked and were subsequently returned to prison.

  Prisoners (Phone Calls)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if appropriate equipment exists in all prisons in England and Wales to monitor phone calls being made by inmates. [32466]
  292
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 17 June 1996:The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to answer your recent Question about the monitoring of telephone calls in prison.
  Cardphones for prisoners' use are provided in all establishments in England and Wales and appropriate equipment for monitoring calls is installed in all closed prisons. Arrangements for the monitoring of prisoners' calls are set out in Prison Service Circular Instructions 61/1989 and 21/1992, copies of which are in the Library.
  Consideration is being given to the introduction of new telephone technology which minimises the risk of prisoner making unauthorised calls. This follows a recent successful pilot study at Full Sutton prison.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present policy of his Department in respect of the wearing by prison officers of name badges when on duty in a prison establishment in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [32465]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about name badges.
  Prison Service policy on the wearing of name badges has remained unchanged since it was introduced in 1993. The policy is that staff who come into contact with prisoners or the public will be required to wear name badges; and staff will be encouraged to wear name badges in any circumstances where it will be useful or courteous to do so.
  The implementation of the policy has been by encouragement rather than by active enforcement. There is a high level of non-compliance by staff, particularly from prison officers.
  It is planned that name badges will be superseded by new security passes which will be worn by all staff. Information on the new style passes will include the name and a photograph of the member of staff. The new style passes should be introduced throughout the Prison Service by April 1997.

  Non-human Primates
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if measures to deal with the adverse effects which may be encountered by non-human primates during transport prior to arrival in the United Kingdom will be incorporated into section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [32811]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to amend section 5(4) of the 1986 Act. In advising the Secretary of State on the acceptability of overseas sources of non-human primates, the Home Office animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate takes into account any adverse effects which may arise during transport.
  293

  Prison Service Annual Report
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the Prison Service annual report for the year up to March 1995; and if he will make a statement. [32223]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the publishing of the Prison Service annual report for the year up to March 1995.
  The report will be published on 20 June.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present number of registered drug addicts in England and Wales. [32910]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is published in table A3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 17/95. "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1994 (Area Tables)". A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Immigration Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of people held in prisons in England and Wales for immigration offences as of 1 June. [32464]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of people held in prisons in England and Wales for immigration offences as of 1 June.
  The available information is for 30 April 1996. On that date. 536 persons were detained under Immigration Act powers in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Prisoners (Body Belts)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions a body belt was used on a prison inmate in each prison in England and Wales during 1995. [32478]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of occasions a body belt was used on a prison inmate in each prison in England and Wales during 1995.
  294
  The number of applications of body belt restraints under rule 46(1) of the Prison Rules 1964 and rule 49(1) of the Young Offender Institution Rules 1988 are shown in the attached table.

  Body belt restraints1 applied to violent or refractory inmates in Prison Service establishments, by establishment, 19952

  Establishment

  Number of body belt applications

  Local prisons/remand centres

  Bedford

  1

  Belmarsh

  4

  Birmingham

  2

  Blakenhurst

  1

  Brinsford

  1

  Bristol

  3

  Bullingdon

  1

  Canterbury

  1

  Chelmsford

  7

  Doncaster

  2

  Elmley

  2

  Highdown

  2

  Highpoint

  1

  Holloway

  1

  Hull

  2

  Leicester

  1

  Lincoln

  3

  Norwich

  2

  Rochester

  1

  Shrewsbury

  1

  Wandsworth

  2

  Winchester

  4

  Woodhill

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  5

  Training prisons

  Acklington

  2

  Albany

  2

  Blundeston

  4

  Featherstone

  3

  Frankland

  3

  Full Sutton

  3

  Littlehey

  2

  Long Lartin

  2

  Maidstone

  2

  Moorland

  1

  Parkhurst

  5

  Stocken

  1

  Swaleside

  6

  Wakefield

  5

  Wayland

  2

  Whitemoor

  1

  Total

  95

  1. Under rule 46(1), Prison Rules 1964; Rule 49(1), Young Offender Institution Rules 1988.

  2. Provisional figures.

  Toxicity Tests
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the pre-1990 category acute and subacute whole body lethal toxicity tests is equivalent to the post-1990 category acute and subacute quantative whole body lethal toxicity tests in statistics on scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain. [32813]

  Mr. Sackville
  The categories are not equivalent. The definition was widened to include all lethal toxicity tests.
  295

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs in(a) the Metropolitan police area and (b) the rest of the country, held under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as alleged pit bull or pit bull type terriers are still in custody when proceedings have been (i) discontinued and (ii) dismissed; and if he will list the weekly cost to public funds of keeping these dogs in custody. [32941]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Metropolitan police currently hold four pit bull terriers in custody where proceedings have been discontinued and three pit bull terriers where proceedings have been dismissed. There are no such dogs in either category being held by other police forces in England and Wales. The weekly cost of kennelling these dogs in £460.

  Curfew Orders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about prosecutions arising from breaches of curfew orders. [31643]

  Mr. Sackville
  None, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State plans to visit the United States later this year among other things to discuss with interested bodies the systems in place for the electronic monitoring of offenders.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the new arrangements he intends to introduce for access to criminal records for employment and related purposes. [33375]

  Mr. Howard
  A White Paper will be published on Wednesday, 19 June setting out the Government's proposals for new arrangements for access to criminal records for employment and related purposes.

  Irish Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Irish prisoners were being held(a) on remand and (b) after being sentenced in prisons in England and Wales for (i) the latest date available and (ii) for equivalent dates in (1) 1986 and (2) 1991; [32712]

  (2) what is the total number of persons being held in prisons in England and Wales (a) of Irish descent and (b) designated as travellers, for the latest date available. [32716]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 June 1996]: 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. Gerald Bermingham, dated 17 June 1996:
  ome Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions asking for information on the number of Irish nationals in prison and the number of persons designated as travellers in prison on the latest date available and for details on equivalent dates in 1991 and 1986.
  296
  requested information is given in the attached table and is for 31 May 1996 and 30 June 1991, the closest available month. Information for 1986 is not available.
  Information on the number of persons designated as travellers is not collected.

  Irish Nationals in Prison in England and Wales

  30 June 1991

  31 May 19961

  Remand

  149

  163

  Sentenced

  425

  465

  Total2

  587

  629

  1 Provisional.

  2 Including fine defaulters and civil prisoners.

  Feltham Prison (Travellers)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many white prisoners held on remand at Her Majesty's prison Feltham were deemed to be travellers for the latest date available. [32715]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 June 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Gerald Bermingham, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of white prisoners, held on remand at Feltham young offenders institution, who are deemed to be travellers.
  This information is not recorded.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32676]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 June 1996]: My Department is aware of the problem. The Department's information technology service provider—Sema group—has been commissioned to undertake an audit of all systems to assess the requirements for changes and a report will be produced in August. An action plan will then be prepared taking into account other developments which may have an effect. At that point, likely costs will be assessed.

  Prisoner Transport (Private Taxis)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what use, and under what specific circumstances, private taxis are used for the transporting of(a) prisoners from Buckley Hall prison and (b) other male category C prisons; [31888]

  (2) what guidance is given by his Department as to the suitability of using private taxis for the transportation of prisoners from male category C prisons. [31885]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: 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.
  297
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 17 June 1996
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the use of private taxis to transport prisoners.
  Taxis are used widely to transport prisoners, particularly when there is only one prisoner to be escorted. Guidance on the use of escort vehicles, including taxis, is set out in section 52 of the Prison Service manual on Security, copies of which are in the Library.
  Buckley Hall prison and other category C prisons use taxis in the circumstances set out in the guidance.

  Custody Statistics
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-United Kingdom nationals, including asylum seekers, are currently held in custody in England and Wales; if he will list the locations where they are being held; what is the ethnic breakdown

  Foreign nationals in prison in England and Wales on 30 April 19961, by sex, ethnic origin and establishment

  Ethnic origin

  White

  Black

  South Asian

  Chinese and other

  Not recorded

  Total

  Females

  Askham Grange

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Brockhill

  3

  3

  0

  1

  0

  7

  Bullwood Hall

  5

  14

  1

  2

  0

  22

  Cookham Wood

  6

  28

  3

  6

  0

  43

  Drake Hall

  3

  6

  0

  1

  0

  10

  Durham

  4

  5

  1

  1

  0

  11

  East Sutton Park

  3

  7

  0

  1

  0

  11

  Holloway

  33

  80

  3

  17

  0

  133

  Low Newton

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  New Hall

  1

  3

  1

  3

  0

  8

  Risley

  4

  6

  1

  0

  0

  11

  Styal

  4

  19

  1

  2

  0

  26

  Winchester

  7

  10

  0

  2

  0

  19

  Total females

  75

  182

  11

  36

  0

  304

  Males

  Acklington

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  6

  Albany

  15

  15

  5

  3

  0

  38

  Aldington

  7

  4

  2

  7

  0

  20

  Ashwell

  6

  4

  10

  0

  0

  20

  Alyesbury

  4

  8

  4

  2

  0

  18

  Bedford

  10

  6

  1

  2

  0

  19

  Belmarsh

  44

  46

  2

  18

  0

  110

  Birmingham

  22

  28

  92

  28

  0

  170

  Blakenhurst

  11

  9

  17

  4

  0

  41

  Blantyre House

  3

  2

  2

  4

  0

  11

  Blundeston

  20

  35

  4

  5

  0

  64

  Brinsford

  2

  0

  5

  1

  0

  8

  Bristol

  4

  7

  4

  10

  0

  25

  Brixton

  39

  67

  18

  32

  0

  156

  Brockhill

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  Buckley Hall

  2

  8

  3

  1

  0

  14

  Bullingdon

  22

  12

  9

  4

  0

  47

  Camp Hill

  14

  13

  4

  3

  1

  35

  Canterbury

  36

  5

  9

  11

  0

  61

  Cardiff

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  Castington

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Channings Wood

  11

  4

  3

  2

  0

  20

  Chelmsford

  17

  3

  1

  3

  0

  24

  Coldingley

  7

  28

  3

  5

  0

  43

  Dartmoor

  16

  5

  4

  1

  0

  26

  Doncaster

  3

  5

  3

  1

  0

  12

  Dorchester

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Dover

  3

  11

  3

  2

  0

  19

  Downview

  6

  15

  4

  4

  0

  29

  Durham

  6

  3

  0

  2

  0

  11

  Elmley

  47

  8

  0

  9

  0

  64

  298
  of the non-United Kingdom nationals currently in custody; how many of them are women and if he will list the locations where they are being held; and how many non-United Kingdom nationals in custody have been granted bail, but remain in custody. [31961]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Bernie Grant, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for information on the number, sex, ethnic origin and location of foreign nationals in the prison population.
  Information for England and Wales is given in the attached table. Information for prisoners who have been granted bail but remain in custody is not held centrally.
  299

  Foreign nationals in prison in England and Wales on 30 April 19961, by sex, ethnic origin and establishment

  Ethnic origin

  White

  Black

  South Asian

  Chinese and other

  Not recorded

  Total

  Erlestoke

  3

  4

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Everthorpe

  1

  2

  5

  0

  0

  8

  Exeter

  7

  1

  1

  2

  0

  11

  Featherstone

  14

  8

  10

  6

  0

  38

  Feltham

  15

  18

  6

  18

  0

  57

  Ford

  20

  15

  5

  11

  0

  51

  Frankland

  7

  7

  5

  5

  0

  24

  Full Sutton

  22

  9

  3

  5

  0

  39

  Garth

  6

  5

  7

  4

  0

  22

  Gartree

  6

  5

  9

  1

  0

  21

  Glen Parva

  10

  0

  4

  1

  0

  15

  Gloucester

  6

  2

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Grendon

  6

  6

  6

  4

  0

  22

  Guys Marsh

  8

  2

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Haslar

  6

  61

  18

  44

  0

  129

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Haverigg

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  6

  3

  0

  9

  Highdown

  26

  54

  4

  4

  0

  88

  Highpoint

  24

  33

  2

  8

  0

  67

  Hindley

  3

  0

  2

  2

  0

  7

  Hollesley Bay

  4

  1

  3

  0

  0

  8

  Holme House

  3

  1

  2

  1

  0

  7

  Hull

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  9

  Huntercombe

  5

  11

  2

  2

  0

  20

  Kirkham

  5

  0

  4

  6

  1

  16

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Lancaster

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Latchmere House

  10

  6

  2

  2

  0

  20

  Leeds

  6

  7

  23

  4

  0

  40

  Leicester

  5

  2

  7

  0

  0

  14

  Lewes

  8

  4

  0

  1

  0

  13

  Leyhill

  9

  5

  2

  1

  0

  17

  Lincoln

  4

  7

  2

  0

  0

  13

  Lindholme

  6

  1

  8

  2

  0

  17

  Littlehey

  18

  12

  11

  5

  0

  46

  Liverpool

  11

  4

  4

  2

  0

  21

  Long Lartin

  17

  11

  9

  14

  0

  51

  Low Newton

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Maidstone

  36

  15

  11

  9

  0

  71

  Manchester

  16

  10

  15

  9

  0

  50

  Moorland

  5

  3

  2

  1

  0

  11

  Morton Hall

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Mount (The)

  23

  48

  10

  16

  0

  97

  North Sea Camp

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  4

  Northallerton

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Norwich

  7

  5

  1

  5

  0

  18

  Nottingham

  5

  3

  5

  0

  0

  13

  Onley

  6

  5

  2

  4

  0

  17

  Parkhurst

  20

  8

  4

  13

  0

  45

  Pentonville

  49

  58

  16

  32

  0

  155

  Portland

  4

  5

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Portsmouth

  4

  6

  2

  3

  0

  15

  Preston

  9

  0

  4

  1

  0

  14

  Ranby

  5

  1

  2

  2

  0

  10

  Reading

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  4

  Risley

  10

  6

  6

  5

  0

  27

  Rochester

  5

  86

  20

  86

  0

  197

  Send

  6

  6

  1

  1

  0

  14

  Shepton Mallett

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Shrewsbury

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Stafford

  6

  4

  3

  4

  0

  17

  Stanford Hill

  15

  8

  8

  3

  0

  34

  Stocken

  7

  9

  11

  1

  0

  28

  Stoke Heath

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Sudbury

  6

  7

  15

  4

  0

  32

  Swaleside

  44

  38

  6

  25

  0

  113

  Swansea

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  4

  Thorn Cross

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  300 301

  Foreign nationals in prison in England and Wales on 30 April 19961, by sex, ethnic origin and establishment Ethnic origin

  Ethnic origin

  White

  Black

  South Asian

  Chinese and other

  Not recorded

  Total

  Usk

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  5

  Verne

  35

  44

  5

  24

  0

  108

  Wakefield

  12

  6

  14

  0

  0

  32

  Wandsworth

  49

  48

  10

  24

  0

  131

  Wayland

  9

  27

  4

  9

  0

  49

  Wealstun

  5

  4

  13

  2

  0

  24

  Wellingborough

  9

  2

  6

  3

  0

  20

  Whatton

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  5

  Whitemoor

  32

  20

  2

  13

  0

  67

  Winchester

  18

  2

  6

  4

  0

  30

  Wolds

  6

  2

  2

  5

  0

  15

  Wood Hill

  18

  8

  4

  6

  0

  36

  Wormwood Scrubs

  92

  102

  31

  58

  0

  283

  Wymott

  8

  2

  3

  2

  0

  15

  Total males

  1,300

  1,264

  644

  707

  2

  3,917

  Total males and females

  1,375

  1,446

  655

  743

  2

  4,221

  1 Provisional data.

TREASURY

  Married Man's Allowance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total revenue forgone as a result of the married man's tax allowance in the last financial year for which figures are available, attributed to(a) families with children, (b) childless couples where both are in work and (c) childless couples with only one partner in work. [31603]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated full year revenue cost of the married couple's allowance at 1996–97 income levels is about £3.3 billion. This includes the cost of related allowances—the additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowance. A detailed breakdown of the cost is given in the following table. The estimates are based on a projection of the 1993–94 survey of personal incomes and the 1994–95 family expenditure survey in line with assumptions in the Budget forecast. Employment income is taken to include income from employment and self-employment.

  Analysis of the cost of the married couple's and related allowance

  Cost at 1996–97 income levels £ million

  Married couples where both partners are aged under 65 and:—

  Both are paying tax, both have employment income1

  —with children

  570

  —without children

  800

  One spouse pays tax, other spouse has employment income but does not pay tax

  —with children

  250

  —without children

  180

  One spouse pays tax, other spouse has no employment income

  —with children

  370

  —without children

  310

  Married couples with at least one partner aged 65 or over

  580

  302

  Analysis of the cost of the married couple's and related allowance

  Cost at 1996–97 income levels £ million

  Individuals in receipt of the APA

  220

  Individuals in receipt of the WBA

  20

  1 There are a few couples where both spouses are paying tax, but only one spouse has income from employment and the other spouse pays tax on investment income. These are included in this group.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of tax exemption for permanent health insurance payments in 1995–96. [32237]

  Mr. Jack
  Precise figures are not available centrally, but, based on the latest information from the Association of British Insurers, it is estimated that in 1995–96 the cost of exempting benefits payable under permanent health insurance policies is about £30 million.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32663]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 June 1996]: Work is in hand to assess the effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated in the Treasury.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 25 April, 9122/96, which was transferred to the Office for National Statistics. [31574]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: A reply was sent on 4 June.
  303

ENVIRONMENT

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department has taken to ensure that those involved in the asbestos removal trade operate to proper safety standards. [32071]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The health and safety of those involved in asbestos removal work is regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. HSE administers a system for licensing employers and the self-employed who work with asbestos insulation or asbestos coating, including removal. This enables HSE to monitor and inspect the work of licensed contractors. HSE also gives advice and publishes guidance.

  Domestic Violence (Refuge Places)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the estimated number of refuge places available for women escaping domestic violence in each year since 1991; [32699]

  (2) how many refuges for women escaping domestic violence have been notified to his Department in each year since 1991 (a) in total and (b) in the Greater Manchester area. [32696]

  Mr. Clappison
  A survey carried out by the Women's Aid Federation (England) in 1995 identified 418 refuges in England, offering 6,532 bed spaces. Twenty-two of these refuges were in the Greater Manchester area. No figures are available for earlier years.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32836]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment and its executive agencies are responsible for one of the 41 main charters. This is the council tenants charter, issued in a revised form in June 1995. No charter in DoE's area of responsibility has been withdrawn.

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spent on postage in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; and how many items were posted during these periods. [328451]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  1994–95 cost: £959,000

  1995–96 cost: £952,000.

  The statistics on the numbers of items posted were collected only for the London headquarters over this period and were:

  1994–95: 937,400

  1995–96: 941 400.

  304

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local government expenditure was provided by(a) business, (b) domestic householders and (c) central Government in each of the years 1979 to 1995. [32105]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The requested information is available from 1981–82. Figures for the proportion provided by domestic householders are gross of rebate or benefit—as detailed in note 2—and the grants supporting these expenditures are excluded from column 3.

  Percentage

  Business rates as a proportion of local government expenditure (1)

  Domestic rates/community charges/council tax as a proportion of local government expenditure (2)

  Central government grants as a proportion of local government expenditure (3)

  1981–82

  24.9

  21.6

  54.4

  1982–83

  25.9

  22.9

  51.2

  1983–84

  26.0

  23.4

  49.5

  1984–85

  26.4

  24.4

  49.5

  1985–86

  27.8

  26.3

  48.2

  1986–87

  28.4

  27.7

  44.9

  1987–88

  27.9

  27.9

  43.9

  1988–89

  28.2

  28.7

  42.3

  1989–90

  28.8

  29.2

  40.5

  1990–91

  29.1

  34.2

  36.1

  1991–92

  31.4

  21.6

  47.2

  1992–93

  29.3

  22.7

  49.9

  1993–94

  27.8

  21.5

  52.2

  1994–95

  24.5

  21.2

  54.3

  1995–96 (provisional outturn)

  24.9

  21.4

  51.1

  1996–97 (budget estimates)

  26.9

  22.1

  48.5

  1. For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90 this represents non-domestic rate yields net of rate relief. For the years 1990–91 to 1996–97 this represents the distributable amount from the non-domestic rates pool.

  2. Gross of domestic rate rebates for the years 1981–82 to 1989–90. Gross of community charge benefit grant and transitional relief/community charge reduction scheme grant (1990–91 to 1992–93). Gross of council tax benefit grant and council tax transitional relief scheme grant (1993–94 to 1996–97).

  3. For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90 Government grants comprise aggregate Exchequer grant. For 1990–91 to 1996–97 Government grants included are revenue support grant, specific and special grants in aggregate external finance, community charge grant (1991–92), teachers pay award additional grant (1992–93), standard spending assessment reduction grant (1994–95 to 1996–97), police grant (1995–96 to 1996–97).

  4. The percentages do not add up to 100 per cent. The difference is funding or drawing from balances.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those district areas in Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Devon, Essex, Hereford and Worcester, Kent, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Shropshire where the Local Government Commission for England concluded that the costs of transition would be recovered by ongoing savings in annual running costs following structural change. [32808]
  305
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Local Government Commission's estimates are in respect of whole county areas, not individual districts, and are expressed in each case as a range. They suggest that ongoing savings may be achievable in Essex, Hereford and Worcester, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Shropshire. In each case the estimates of costs or savings are marginal; whether savings are in fact achieved or costs incurred will depend on the decisions of the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the estimates of the Local Government Commission for England for the transitional costs arising from the proposals for the reorganisation of local government in the counties of Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Devon, Essex, Hereford and Worcester, Kent, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Shropshire. [33029]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Local Government Commission's estimates of transitional costs of reorganisation are:

  Transitional costs £ million

  Berkshire

  9.0–13.0

  Cambridgeshire

  14.8–7.9

  Cheshire

  13.6–8.1

  Devon

  5.0–9.0

  Essex

  26.5–12.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  6.0–9.0

  Kent

  17.8–11.2

  Lancashire

  12.9–6.1

  Nottinghamshire

  1.0–7.0

  Shropshire

  12.0–2.6

  1 Excludes costs of redundancy, early retirement and other staff compensation costs.

  2 Consists of £2.5 to £4.2 million for Thurrock (excluding redundancy costs etc.) and £4.0 to £8.0 million for Southend.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the maximum allocation for supplementary credit approvals to meet transitional costs, arising from the structural change of local

  Disaggregation of county council budgets 1996–97 initial notional amounts

  £ million

  Disaggregated County budget 1996–97

  District's net budget 1996–97

  Initial notional amount

  Notional budget including parishes

  Indicative SSA 1996–97

  Bedfordshire

  Bedfordshire CC

  238.2

  238.2

  238.2

  226.6

  Luton

  121.3

  24.0

  145.2

  145.2

  145.1

  Buckinghamshire

  Buckinghamshire CC

  286.6

  286.6

  286.6

  280.8

  Milton Keynes

  126.5

  22.5

  149.0

  150.0

  145.6

  Derbyshire

  Derbyshire CC

  433.4

  433.4

  433.4

  411.0

  Derby City

  149.4

  26.0

  175.4

  175.4

  169.6

  Dorset

  Dorset CC

  211.7

  211.7

  211.7

  206.7

  Bournemouth

  90.7

  19.4

  110.1

  110.1

  116.0

  Poole

  76.8

  11.6

  88.4

  88.4

  88.0

  306
  government, which will be available to relevant local authorities in England in the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99. [32962]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Provision for supplementary credit approvals to meet transitional costs of local government reorganisation for 1997–98 will be decided as part of the local government finance settlement later this year; that for 1998–99 will be decided in the settlement for 1998.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will calculate notional amounts for local authorities which are subject to local government reorganisation on 1 April 1997. [33373]

  Mr. Curry
  We intend to calculate a notional amount for each local authority which is subject to local government reorganisation on 1 April 1997. These figures will serve as a baseline against which to make a fair comparison of an authority's proposed 1997–98 budget requirement for capping purposes.

  We have made a first calculation of notional amounts for these authorities. These figures are shown in the following table along with our estimate of what each reorganised authority's 1996–97 standard spending assessment would have been on the basis of their revised boundaries and functions.

  The aim of our notional amounts calculation is to disaggregate the 1996–97 budget requirements of reorganised county councils so as to reflect the actual pattern of spending between their continuing areas and the areas of the new unitary councils. We are consulting authorities on those figures and we hope that local information will enable us to improve the calculations so as better to reflect the actual pattern of spending. We will generally be willing to accept locally-agreed budget splits put to me by both the relinquishing county and the new unitaries in its area.

  Authorities have until the end of August to comment. We shall consult further on our proposed notional amounts, incorporating any changes which we may make as a result of this initial consultation, as part of the local government finance settlement for 1997–98 later this year. Final notional amounts will be included in a report under section 55 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 which will be subject to approval by the House of Commons.
  307

  Disaggregation of county council budgets 1996–97 initial notional amounts

  £ million

  Disaggregated County budget 1996–97

  District's net budget 1996–97

  Initial notional amount

  Notional budget including parishes

  Indicative SSA 1996–97

  Durham

  Durham CC

  322.0

  322.0

  322.0

  316.8

  Darlington

  61.5

  11.6

  73.1

  73.1

  70.3

  East Sussex

  East Sussex CC

  296.2

  296.2

  296.2

  283.2

  Brighton and Hove

  146.1

  35.9

  182.1

  182.1

  187.6

  Hampshire

  Hampshire CC

  678.2

  678.2

  678.2

  664.2

  Portsmouth

  111.9

  25.4

  137.3

  137.3

  145.9

  Southampton

  130.7

  26.9

  157.6

  157.6

  161.5

  Leicestershire

  Leicestershire CC

  343.2

  343.2

  343.2

  327.8

  Leicester City

  204.3

  55.2

  259.5

  259.5

  255.5

  Rutland

  20.7

  2.9

  23.6

  23.8

  21.0

  Staffordshire

  Staffordshire CC

  461.2

  461.2

  461.2

  459.3

  Stoke on Trent

  152.1

  28.6

  180.7

  180.7

  177.3

  Wiltshire

  Wiltshire CC

  231.8

  231.8

  231.8

  228.5

  Thamesdown

  98.4

  17.5

  115.8

  116.5

  115.3

  Council Leaseholders
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to use his powers in the Housing Bill to help council leaseholders facing high service charges for repair and improvement works. [33354]

  Mr Clappison
  On 14 June we invited comments on our detailed proposals to reduce charges to leaseholders of local authorities and other social landlords. We wish to help leaseholders whose charges are particularly high in relation to any benefits which they receive from such works. We also wish to give landlords flexibility so that they can help those in greatest difficulty—for example, those who would suffer particular hardship as a result of high charges. We have therefore included in the Bill, in clauses 191 and 192, powers to issue directions to social landlords telling them when they can, or must, reduce charges, and to what extent.
  308
  Our consultation paper, "Leaseholders of local authorities, housing action trusts, urban development corporations, registered housing associations and other registered social landlords: further proposals to reduce charges for repairs and improvements," sets out in detail how we propose to use those powers—in particular, the circumstances in which we propose that charges should be reduced, and by how much. We plan to require social landlords to reduce charges in certain cases where these are particularly high and where they will be seeking Government financial assistance for the works on or after the date of the direction. In a wide range of other cases we propose to allow them to reduce charges, and to offer refunds on charges already paid.

  I have placed a copy of the paper in the Library. We have invited comments by the end of August. The Welsh Office will be consulting similarly in Wales.
  309

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Marriage Working Party
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made with regard to the work of the interdepartmental working party on marriage. [33546]

  Mr. Streeter
  The interdepartmental working party today issued a consultation paper following on from the seminar for researchers, service providers and other interested parties held on 3 April. The papers for the seminar have been published and are available in the Library. The results of this consultation exercise will inform the tender specifications being prepared for the funding of pilot projects which have particular potential for reducing the incidence and costs of marriage breakdown.

  The working party has concluded its mapping exercise of existing services. It intends to publish a directory of marriage support services in the summer.

  The mapping exercise has highlighted the lack of information about social attitudes to and expectations of marriage and also about the reasons why some marriages are so very successful when others sadly end in divorce or separation. Tender specifications will shortly be published for research into this field.

  Probate Service
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure that the recommendations contained in the report on the structure of the probate service of September 1994, are subject to parliamentary debate before their implementation. [33095]

  Mr. Streeter
  There are currently no plans for a debate on the recommendations. Comprehensive public consultation on the proposals from the report was carried out between October and March and all hon. Members whose constituencies would be affected were included in this exercise. A submission will soon be put forward for the Lord Chancellor's and my consideration. Any change to the number of probate sub-registries will be introduced by way of statutory instrument which will be laid before the House in the usual way.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors's Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which the recommendations of the report on the structure of the probate service comply with the aims and commitments contained in the courts charter. [33096]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Derek Foster, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the proposed changes to the structure of the Probate Service.
  310
  The quality of service which the Probate Service would be able to provide under any new structure has been the paramount consideration when assessing the proposals. Although no final decisions have yet been made, I am satisfied that the recommended structure for the Probate Service would continue to provide a high quality service and meet the standards in the Charter for Court Users.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Home Shopping
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of the growth of home shopping over the next decade and what assessment he has made of the implications of such growth for the retail industry. [33077]

  Mr. Eggar
  No official forecasts of the e growth of home shopping in the UK have been made, although I am aware that some private sector organisations have made such forecasts. However, there is already a substantial amount of home shopping through mail order, response advertising and other methods. I would expect this total to rise in the next decade as electronic shopping develops.

  Contracts
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the(a) contracts with and (b) work carried out for (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) development corporations by (1) Paddington Consultancy Partnership Ltd. or its directors, (2) Millbank Consultants, (3) Mr. Neale Coleman, (4) Mr. Stephen Hilditch and (5) Mr. Peter Bradley; and if he will indicate the total fees paid to (1) to (5). [32405]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In DTI headquarters, no contracts for external consultancy have been let centrally to the organisations or individuals listed. Information on other contracts is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Agency chief executives have been asked to provide separate responses.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. David Shaw, dated 17 June 1996:
  PADDINGTON CONSULTANCY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED (AND DIRECTORS), MILLBANK CONSULTANTS, MR. NEALE COLEMAN, MR. STEPHEN HILDITCH AND MR. PETER BRADLEY
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question No. 95/2559. I can confirm that the Radiocommunications Agency has not contracted with the consultancy companies, directors or individuals listed.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. David Shaw, dated 17 June 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about Paddington Consultancy Partnership Limited, and its directors, Millbank Consultants, Mr. Neale Coleman. Mr. Stephen Hilditch and Mr. Peter Bradley in relation to The Insolvency Service.
  None of the organisations or individuals listed has been awarded contracts with, or carried out work for, The Insolvency Service.

  Letter from R. J. Marchant to Mr. David Shaw, dated 17 June 1996:
  In the absence of the Comptroller General on official business overseas I am replying for the Patent Office to your question on the use of various named consultancies and individuals.

  311
  The Patent Office has used none of the organisations or individuals listed.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. David Shaw, dated 17 June 1996:
  President of the Board of Trade has asked me to provide additional information on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory in reply to your question about contracts placed with Paddington Consultancy Partnership Ltd, its directors and other consultants.
  of the organisations or individuals listed have carried out work for this Agency.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. David Shaw, dated 17 June 1996:
  recently asked the President of the Board of Trade for information regarding work carried out under contract for his Department. I am replying as Chief Executive of the above Agency.
  None of the persons mentioned are current suppliers to Companies House, nor have they provided any services during the financial years 1994/95 or 1995/96. Since your question did not specify any particular period, we have not checked our records for earlier accounting periods, but have no reason to believe that Companies House has ever used the services of the persons mentioned.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [32336]

  Mr. Lang
  In the last three months I have visited Swindon, Suffolk Coastal, Esher and Brent, South constituencies on official business. I have a number of planned engagements over the next three months, but it is not the Department's policy to make public details of the forward diary.

  Anglo-Yugoslav Trade
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the availability of statistics for trade between Britain and Yugoslavia since 1990. [33277]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information on trade in goods is published in Business Monitor M20, "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", by HM Customs and Excise, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Until the end of 1992 the information was provided for Yugoslavia as a whole. Since the beginning of 1993, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro and Macedonia have been treated separately.

  Volatile Organic Compounds
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his assessment of the market for VOC abatement technology in(a) Europe, (b) America and (c) world wide. [32594]

  Mr. Page
  The Government's 1994 study of the UK environment industry, "The UK Environmental Industry: Succeeding in the Changing Global Market", covered VOC control technology as part of a review of the air pollution control sub-sector. The study concluded that there were good opportunities in western Europe, but that 312
  market opportunities in eastern Europe and north America were limited. The main opportunities in the United States will be for VOC control in light industry.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish his Department's recent report into business links. [32751]

  Mr. Page
  A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House on 13 June.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business links chairmen and chief executives defined their relationship with the Department as "poor" in the categories set out in his Department's recent internal report. [32939]

  Mr. Page
  A total of 11 out of 59 surveyed.

  Strategy for Global Environmental Research
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution he has requested university history departments to make to the United Kingdom national strategy for global environmental research. [32781]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  No contribution has been requested specifically from university history departments. Contributions were requested through an open consultation exercise before the strategy was drafted. An open consultation meeting was subsequently held to consider the draft in March. This was attended by about 240 people from academia, industry and commerce, representative bodies, non-governmental organisations and Government Departments and agencies. Around half were academics from various disciplines. A further 100 people who were unable to attend requested sight of the report and had an opportunity to comment.

  The UK national strategy for global environment research is due to be launched at a one-day conference at the British Association for the Advancement of Science annual festival of science in September 1996.

  Disused Oil Wells
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many disused oil wells in British waters(a) have leaked and (b) are believed to be leaking from the capped reservoirs into the sea. [33072]

  Mr. Page
  Only one well in British waters has leaked small quantities of gas—not oil—from a shallow horizon into the sea and remains uncapped. The well, 22/4b-4, was drilled by Mobil in November 1990.

  It was not physically possible at the time, or subsequently, to perform any sort of intervention into the wellbore which would have any degree of success in plugging or killing the well. It has not, therefore, been capped.

  Recent inspections and sampling by Mobil have confirmed that the fluid now leaking is water, which contains no trace of hydrocarbons.
  313
  There have unfortunately been three disasters where hydrocarbons have leaked into the sea: Piper Alpha, Ocean Odyssey, and Sea Gem. These leaked hydrocarbons for a short time only, until the occurrence was controlled.

  Human Genetics Report
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Government will respond to the third report of the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1995–96 (HC 231) on "Human Genetics: the Government's response"; and if he will make a statement. [33350]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government have today published their response to the Select Committee's report, "Human Genetics: the Government Response". Copies of the response have been laid before Parliament.

  Advances in human genetics have great potential for improved health care, quality of life and competitiveness. The UK currently leads Europe in the research, development and application of genetic science and the Government want that lead to be maintained. As recognised by the Science and Technology Select Committee, however, advances in human genetics raise a number of important social, ethical and economic issues. It will be important that public confidence advances at a pace which reflects that of scientific discovery.

  In evidence to the Science and Technology Select Committee earlier this year, the Government undertook to look at whether there was a need for a new body to take a trans-departmental view of developments in human genetics and to foster public confidence. In the light of this, and after consultations with the Chief Scientific Advisor and the Chief Medical Officer, the Government have decided to establish a new Human Genetics Advisory Commission.

  The new advisory commission will report to health and industry Ministers and will be supported by a joint secretariat from the Office of Science and Technology and the Department of Health. It will report periodically and will be open to the Government to seek its advice on particular issues. More details, including the terms of reference, are given in the Government's response.

  Radio Spectrum (Future Management)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the review of the future management of the radio spectrum; and if he will make a statement. [33349]

  Mr. Lang
  I am today publishing a White Paper, "Spectrum Management: into the 21st Century".

  The radio spectrum is used by used by a wide range of businesses and public sector services and in a variety of scientific and social applications. Radio services are of considerable importance to the economy and are growing rapidly. The White Paper announces proposals to improve the way in which the finite resource of the radio spectrum is managed so that future growth can be accommodated. We intend to achieve this by bringing forward legislation on spectrum pricing when parliamentary time is available. This will allow fees for licences to use spectrum to be set to reflect its value more closely instead of being linked to
  314
  the costs of spectrum management. The White Paper seeks views on the detailed application of spectrum auctions and administrative pricing.

  The proposals will benefit the economy, enhance competitiveness and create jobs. By promoting spectrum efficiency, they will:
  tackle spectrum shortages and congestion affecting the most heavily used services in some parts of the country,
  increased opportunities to access spectrum so that more users can be accommodated in the finite spectrum that is available and the rapidly growing demand for radio services can be met;
  accelerate the introduction of advanced digital technology; and
  increase competition and choice.

  The purpose of spectrum pricing will be to achieve spectrum management objectives, rather than to increase revenue. Pricing will be phased in and applied selectively with a review after three years. Increases in charges will be focused where congestion is worst and kept to the minimum necessary to achieve spectrum management objectives. Most users will face no increases in fees and may benefit from reductions. Some users will face increased charges, but the increased availability of spectrum will bring considerable economic benefits overall. There will be concessions for safety-of-life charities.

  Radio makes a substantial and growing contribution to wealth creation, competitiveness and jobs. The UK is a world leader in the use of radio. This success is placing ever-increasing demands on the finite spectrum resource. Unless we can meet these, the UK will suffer considerable economic losses as businesses are deprived of spectrum and new services are delayed.

  The Radiocommunications Agency has fully explored existing regulatory measures to manage the spectrum effectively. These are no longer sufficient, so we intend to introduce spectrum pricing to augment them. The legislation will include provisions to allow enhanced security of tenure for licensees and selective financial assistance to radio users to accelerate desirable changes in spectrum use.

  The public sector, which is a major user of radio, will be charged on a basis comparable with the private sector, but there will be safeguards for the operations of essential services.

  The legislation will address the way in which fees are charged for licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It will not affect the licensing of independent broadcasters under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Bill currently before Parliament, nor the BBC's position under its royal charter and agreement.

  The adoption of digital broadcasting is the key to the Government's long-term spectrum strategy, since it has the potential to generate exciting wealth creation opportunities through the release of valuable spectrum for new broadcasting use or other applications. The Broadcasting Bill provides for a review of progress of digital broadcasting. The White Paper states that this review will consider the use of spectrum pricing to accelerate the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting.
  315
  The White Paper also deals with the organisation of spectrum management. Core functions, such as international representation, overall control of spectrum strategy and enforcement, need to be retained within Government. But there is already considerable private sector involvement in various aspects of spectrum management outside the core functions and we are keen to encourage further private sector participation where it delivers improved quality of service.

  The measures announced in the White Paper are necessary to deal with pressing spectrum management problems. They will provide a framework of progressive spectrum management for continued growth and success into the next century and open the door to further market-based reforms, such as secondary trading of licences.

  I am placing in the Libraries of the House copies of the White Paper and a background technical study.

  Electricity Pricing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will order an inquiry into the electricity pool pricing system; and if he will make a statement. [32900]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply, who keeps the operation of the pool under review and publishes reports and other papers from time to time.

  Nuclear Generating Stations, Scotland
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish detailed information on all nuclear generating stations in Scotland with special reference to safety, structural soundness, security, and good working practice, before privatisation. [31689]

  Mr. Eggar
  Detailed information on British Energy's nuclear generating stations, including those in Scotland at the Hunterston B site and at Torness, is contained in the British Energy pathfinder prospectus issued on 10 June and will also be included in the publicly available full retail prospectus which will be published on 26 June. That prospectus will also contain detailed information about the legislative and regulatory regimes which British Energy must comply with to operate. Magnox Electric's nuclear generation station at the Hunterston A site in Scotland has closed.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools (Parental Choice)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many complaints under section 269 of the Education Act 1993 have been received by the ombudsman from parents failing to obtain a place for their child in the school of their choice in respect of (i) grant-maintained schools, (ii) voluntary-aided schools and (iii) special agreement schools for each year since the Act came into force. [32600]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This information is not held by the Department for Education and Employment. The annual report of the local government ombudsman for 1994–95 notes that 1,187 complaints concerning education were 316
  received in that year, and that 45 investigation reports were issued. The report does not state how many of these concerned school admissions.

  Muslim Community Schools
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number of Muslim community schools in England. [32872]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are currently 44 Muslim schools in England which are registered independent schools, and none in the maintained sector.

  SHL Software
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the contracts his Department and his agencies have with SHL software computer systems; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; and what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract. [32914]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department and agencies do not have any contracts with any company under the name of SHL software systems, nor have we been able to identify a company in this name.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what progress has been made on the privatisation of services provided by placement assessment and counselling teams in the Employment Service; and if he will make a statement; [32310]

  (2) what progress has been made on the privatisation of local occupational psychology services within the Employment Service; and if he will make a statement; [32311]

  (3) what progress has been made in the privatisation of functions carried out by the ability development centre in the Employment Service; and if he will make a statement. [32312]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the privatisation of placing, assessment and counselling teams, local occupational psychology services and Ability Development Centres. As all of these relate to the market testing programme and to disability services, this letter seeks to respond to all three questions.
  As a Next Steps Agency, the Employment Services (ES), is subject to systematic and periodic examination in the form of a Prior Options Review. This review, conducted in early 1995 examined all of the services provided by ES including the feasibility of abolition, privatisation, strategic contracting out and, where these were rejected, market testing or the maintenance of current arrangements. Following the review, the then Secretary of State announced via a written Parliamentary Question that the services delivered by placing, assessment and counselling teams (PACTS) should be market tested in one or two ES regions on a pilot basis.

  317
  Market testing is a means of identifying whether the private sector can take forward work currently undertaken by the public sector at better value for money. This is done by allowing a team drawn from within the in-house service to compete with private sector bidders for the contract to do the work. Privatisation on the other hand entails a firm decision that the service should no longer be undertaken by the public sector, but should be contracted directly with the private sector. In this case we are clearly engaged in a market test, not a privatisation.
  As a consequence of preliminary research into how the Secretary of State's recommendations could be taken forward, ES senior managers decided that the market test should cover the whole of the ES Disability Service within the North West region. This includes the services provided within the Ability Development Centre (ADC) and the local occupational psychology service in addition to the PACTs service. This decision was taken to ensure that ES clients would continue to receive fully integrated service and would not suffer any disadvantage as a result of how the market test had been packaged.
  The market test was advertised in the "Disability Now" publication, and various national papers. As a consequence expressions of interest were received from private and voluntary sector organisations and also one from a team representing the in-house service. Organisations (including the in-house service provider) who wish to pursue their interest further have been asked to send an outline of how they would propose to deliver the Disability Service in the North West region, to ES by 28 June 1996. These proposals will be evaluated and shortlisted during July, with the aim of negotiating the detailed delivery proposals with the shortlisted organisations throughout the autumn. Final decisions on the outcome of the market test and the award of contract/service level agreement are planned for April/May 1997.
  Local Occupational Psychology Services (LOPS) in each of the ES regions were subjected to market testing in 1994. In each case the in-house service providers were successful. Our decision, noted above, to market test the whole of the North West Disability Services has resulted in the LOP services in North West being included in that test. Except for that region, our plans are that these services will continue to be delivered under the present arrangements for the full duration of the current service level agreements. These are scheduled to run until September 1999.
  This year we asked consultants to undertake a review of the functions of Ability Development Centres (ADCs) and how they were delivered. The review concluded that all the functions of ADCs should continue to be carried out. However, it also made a number of recommendations to allow them to be delivered more flexibly and improve their effectiveness. Senior management in ES accepted the recommendations and is currently considering how best to implement them. Within North West region, since ADC functions are within the scope of the market test, the way in which these functions will be carried out here in the future will depend on the outcome of the test.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within her Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32824]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department and its executive agencies publish the following charters:

  the parents charter,

  the jobseekers charter,

  the further education charter,

  the higher education charter.

  No charters have been withdrawn.
  318

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what number and percentage of children in(a) primary and (b) secondary maintained schools in England have been in classes of (i) 30 or more and (ii) 40 or more in 1996; and if she will give the percentage change since 1995. [32964]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member at the end of June, when provisional information on class sizes in January 1996 will be available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Jovan Zebic
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on what dates Ministers met Mr. Jovan Zebic in their official capacity since 1990; [32306]

  (2) on what dates Ministers met Mr. Zoran Tanic in their official capacity since 1990. [32307]

  The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, none.

  Sir James Kirkham
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met Sir James Kirkham; and if he will outline the matters discussed. [32965]

  The Prime Minister
  I have never heard of Sir James Kirkham. The hon. Member may be referring to Sir Graham Kirkham, whom I last met on Sunday 9 June at the Oval cricket ground and at a dinner at Downing street. We discussed raising funds for good causes, in particular Mencap, in whose interests the cricket was played and the dinner given.

  Conservative Party (Donations)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 21 May,Official Report, column 96, what reports he received in 1991 and 1992 alleging donations to the Conservative party from sources linked to Bosnian Serbs. [33285]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashown) on 21 May,Official report, column 96.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those compliance cost assessments published during the latest six-month period. [33355]

  Mr. Freeman
  Since April 1993, the Government have required Departments to prepare and publish compliance cost assessments with all proposed legislation presented to Parliament to assess the impact on business costs. This includes a special test of the impact on small businesses. Since January 1996, the responsible Minister has had to
  319
  certify that he has seen the compliance cost assessment and is satisfied that the regulatory proposal strikes an appropriateness balance between cost and benefit.

  I have presented to Parliament today a Command Paper listing 91 CCAs published between 1 July 1995 and 31 December 1995 plus four CCAs published between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 1995 which were omitted from the previous Command Paper. This is the fourth such Command Paper and further papers listing all CCAs published in the preceding six month period will be published at six monthly intervals.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burundi
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Belgium regarding the security situation in Burundi. [32568]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain in close touch with the Belgians and our other European partners about the situation in Burundi.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current security situation in Burundi, and if he will make a statement. [32569]

  Mr. Hanley
  The security situation in Burundi is a cause of grave concern and we have made clear our condemnation of violence from whatever quarter. We continue to give our full support to international efforts, led by former President Nyerere, to resolve Burundi's problems through political dialogue.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current political and security situation in Rwanda. [32570]

  Mr. Hanley
  Conditions inside Rwanda are generally stable. We are supporting action in the UN to deal with the deterioration in the security situation along the border in eastern Zaire.

  World Heritage
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the United Kingdom was not represented at the biennial general assembly of states parties to the world heritage convention in November 1995. [32747]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Her Majesty's Government were represented at this meeting by the UNESCO observer section of the British embassy in Paris.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards world heritage matters; what are the responsibilities of the United Kingdom observer at UNESCO in this connection; and how information gathered by him is disseminated to interested parties in the United Kingdom. [32748]
  320
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Government ratified UNESCO's world heritage convention in 1984 and actively supports its provisions concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. The world heritage list of sites considered to be of outstanding universal value contains 16 UK sites. Later this month we shall be nominating maritime Greenwich for addition to the list.

  The Government contribute annually to the world heritage convention. For 1996, the UK contribution is approximately £129,000.

  The UNESCO observer section of the British embassy in Paris monitors events and occasionally attends meetings on behalf of the lead Whitehall Department, the Department of National Heritage. The observer's reports are sent to the DNH, which informs interested UK parties as necessary.

  Tibet
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to recognise the Tibetan authorities in exile as the legitimate Government of Tibet; and if he will make a statement. [33021]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not recognise the self-proclaimed Tibetan Government in exile. We do, however, consider that Tibetans should have a greater say in the running of their own affairs in Tibet, and we have consistently urged the Chinese authorities and Tibetan Buddhist leaders to enter into a constructive dialogue, without preconditions.

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent on postage in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; and how many items were posted during these periods. [32852]

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of postage in the FCO diplomatic wing was £154,685 for the financial year 1994–95 and £150,757 for 1995–96. The number of items posted in 1995–96 was 403,322. Figures for 1994–95 are not available.

  The cost of postage for the ODA was £42,000 for the financial year 1994–95 and £51,000 for 1995–96. The number of items posted in 1994–95 was approximately 104,000. The number of items posted in 1995–96 was 104,152.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32837]

  Mr. Hanley
  We introduced charter standard statements for overseas pensions in 1992 and consular services, legalisation work and overseas trade services in 1993. None have been withdrawn.
  321

  Burma
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the future of human rights and democracy in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [32759]

  Mr Hanley
  We have taken action both bilaterally and in international fora such as the United Nations to put pressure on the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council in Burma to implement democratic and human rights reforms. We have severed defence links and have imposed an embargo on arms sales and all non-humanitarian aid.

  We issued a statement on 22 May condemning the detention of National League for Democracy members and urged the SLORC to enter into meaningful dialogue with pro-democracy groups. Our ambassador in Rangoon repeated these concerns in a démarche to the SLORC on 7 June.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 165, when a decision is to be taken on the application by Mr. Gultasab Hussain (ref: HO C8645) to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to join his wife in the United Kingdom. [32958]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 383, if the teacher named and the letter from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), of 28 March has been able to take advantage of the new rules relating to maternity leave on St. Helena; and if he will make a statement. [33173]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The teacher was not able to take advantage of the new rules relating to confinement leave in St. Helena as she resigned from her job on 25 April 1996. The new rules became effective from 31 May 1996.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the General Affairs Council and the intergovernmental conference ministerial meeting on 10 June. [33279]

  Mr. David Davis
  In accordance with the current policy of non-co-operation I withheld UK agreement from 17 measures where unanimity was required. I agreed to three others: signature of the EU-Slovenia agreement, a mandate for a new EU-Algeria agreement, and a joint action on Bosnia election monitoring. As a result, the only "A" points in document 7929/96 that were adopted were items 1 to 10 inclusive, which did not require unanimity, and item 26, Bosnia election monitoring. The single item 322
  in document 8047/96 was blocked. The documents will be placed in the Libraries of the House as soon as they are available. I argued strongly for early agreement on a framework for lifting the beef ban. While other Ministers and the Commission expressed their concern at the policy of non-co-operation, many urged the Commission to produce such a framework at the earliest possible date, and both the Commission and the Presidency made clear their commitment to work for an early agreement.

  The Council had a further discussion of the MEDA regulation on aid to Mediterranean countries.

  The Council discussed follow-up on the Barcelona Euro-Med conference on 27–28 November 1995.

  The Presidency explored their ideas for an informal Euro-Med ministerial in Rome on 17 June. The Presidency also asked for approval of conclusions on Barcelona follow-up activity, but I made it clear that I could not agree these on beef ban non-co-operation grounds.

  The Council discussed the middle east peace process and the Council asked the European political directors to take forward work in preparation for the Florence European Council.

  The Presidency explained arrangements for the Florence European Council.

  In a discussion on the former Yugoslavia, the Presidency and the Commission reported on their tour of the region. Carl Bildt, the EU's High Representative, briefed the Council on preparations for the Florence Peace Implementation Council.

  The Council discussed Commission proposals for revision of the agricultural generalised scheme of preferences.

  The Council discussed the draft EU-Canada action plan.

  The Commission and the Presidency reported on preparations for the EU-US summit to be held on 12 June.

  The council had an exchange of views on possible Euro-African summit.

  A ministerial session of the IGC focused on external issues. On defence, Ministers discussed the implications for the IGC of the recent Berlin NATO ministerial meeting. Ministers also discussed general common foreign and security policy issues, the question of whether the Union should acquire legal personality, and questions of external economic competence.

  The ministerial session was preceded by an exchange of views with representatives of the European Parliament.

  President Menem of Argentina briefly addressed the Council on 10 June. The first EU-Mercosur-Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay-ministerial meeting was held in the margins of the GAC on 10 June.

  On 11 June, there were meetings of the EU-Syria Co-operation Council and the European Economic Area Council.
  323

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what arrangements have been made to procure the cladding for the new parliamentary building; what factors have delayed the procurement process; and if he will make a statement. [31305]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The new parliamentary building is being procured using the construction management form of contracting. This involves tendering separately for each of the main elements of the building under a firm of construction managers. The tendering process includes advertising the main packages in the EC Journal before selecting a short list of companies to submit their offers. The criteria for awarding the packages is overall value for money.

  In the particular case of the fenestration, the initial offers were all over the budget. It was therefore necessary to modify the scheme before seeking revised bids, which were received towards the end of last year. Since then, detailed discussions have taken place to finalise the technical and legal aspects of the contract.

  The contract has now been awarded to Seele Avis Fenestration Ltd., a joint venture formed by Seele GmbH and Alvis plc to combine and exploit their respective skills. I understand that much of the work will be undertaken at Alvis' factory at Coventry.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many security passes for hon. Members have been reported lost or stolen during the last five years. [32966]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  One hundred and one.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  ODA Fundamental Expenditure Review
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the recommendations from the Overseas Development Administration's fundamental expenditure review which(a) will and (b) will not be implemented indicating the criteria used to select those recommendations which will be implemented. [32702]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development confirmed on 10 June in another place,Official Report, House of Lords, column 147 that the Government have accepted and are implementing most of the recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review. She listed the few exceptions.

  Each recommendation was considered against our development and foreign policies, whether it would enable us to pursue better key objectives and whether operational efficiency and effectiveness would be improved.
  324

  Oslo Conference (20/20 Initiative)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 111, which countries attended the Oslo meeting on the 20/20 initiative; which countries committed themselves to adopting the 20/20 initiative; and which countries have indicated they will implement the 20/20 measures on time. [32578]

  Mr. Hanley
  Representatives from more than 30 countries attended the Oslo meeting on the 20/20 initiative. These included more than 10 donor countries. All countries present agreed the consensus, to which I referred in my answer of 21 May. Several countries indicated informally that they would pursue the initiative in future aid talks. The United Kingdom is open to approaches from developing countries which have an interest in developing the initiative. There is no time limit for implementing the initiative.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the report of the Overseas Development Administration social security adviser on his visit to St. Helena was first made available to members of the St. Helena(a) Executive Council and (b) Legislative Council. [33170]

  Mr. Hanley
  The report was sent to the St. Helena Government on 12 June for consideration and distribution.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to use the private finance initiative to fund the proposed millennium exhibition which she announced on 28 February. [31560]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Millennium Commission is continuing to explore the viability of the proposed millennium exhibition at Greenwich. Sir Peter Levene is assessing commercial support for it on the commission's behalf.

  Ethnic Minority Broadcasting
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans the Radio Authority has to consult (i) black and (ii) other ethnic minorities in(a) Manchester, (b) Birmingham and (c) London on commercial radio; and if she will make a statement. [32558]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is a matter for the Radio Authority to decide on groups and bodies to be consulted in discharging its responsibilities.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her Department's policy in respect of ethnic minority radio broadcasting. [32556]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are committed to the promotion of diversity and choice in radio. The BBC recognises its particular duty as a public service broadcaster to represent and serve Britain's ethnic minorities by providing targeted programmes and services and through ensuring fair representation in mainstream
  325
  radio services. In the commercial sector, the Broadcasting Act 1990 requires the Radio Authority, in awarding local radio licences, to have regard to the extent to which any applicant for a licence would cater for the tastes and interests of the local community and broaden the range of programmes available to it. These principles will be taken forward into digital audio broadcasting by the Broadcasting Bill currently before the House.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what consultative meetings her Department has held with representatives of the black and other ethnic minority communities on radio broadcasting in 1995–96; and if she will make a statement; [32555]

  (2) what plans her Department has to consult black and other ethnic minorities nationally about commercial radio; and if she will make a statement. [32557]

  Mr. Sproat
  Ministers and officials from my Department meet representatives from a wide range of radio broadcasting interests from time to time. The most recent meeting with representatives of the black community involved in radio broadcasting was a visit to Choice FM by the Department's permanent secretary on 24 April. We currently have no plans for a formal consultation exercise on any aspect of commercial radio policy.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many (i) black and (ii) other ethnic minority staff the Radio Authority employs; and if she will make a statement. [32554]

  Mr. Sproat
  Of the seven members of the authority appointed by my right hon. Friend, there is currently one black member. The Radio Authority has 33 staff, of whom one is from an ethnic minority. The authority also retains a former member of the authority, who is from an ethnic minority, as a consultant on ethnic minority issues.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many radio licences have been issued to (i) black and (ii) other ethnic minority radio stations. [32553]

  Mr. Sproat.
  The Radio Authority has issued 10 licences to provide local radio services aimed at catering for the tastes and interests of black and ethnic minority audiences.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [31511]

  Mr. Lilley
  I gave instructions that the European Union flag should not be flown from Department of Social Security buildings on 8 May.
  326

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preferences to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31527]

  Mr. Burt
  Under the next steps programme responsibility for recruitment has been devolved to individual business units and, within agencies, to local level. Employment agencies and executive search agencies are used by personnel sections where their expertise can add value to the recruitment process. In most cases they are used to fill senior or specialist vacancies. The Department uses recruitment and assessment services to recruit staff to the fast stream grade. The Contributions Agency has contracted out its personnel services and the contractors undertake all recruitment action on the agency's behalf.

  War Disablement Pension
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time currently taken to process (a) an application for a war disablement pension and (b) an appeal against a refusal of an application for a war disablement pension. [32153]

  Mr. Heald
  These are matters for Mr. Kevin Caldwell, chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. David Hanson, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about War Pension claims and appeals.
  The current average time being taken by the War Pensions Agency to clear a first claim to War Pension is 169 working days and the average time to clear an appeal is 328 working days.
  War Pensions claims and appeals, in many instances, relate to World War II cases and thus involve the determination of cause and effect of medical conditions arising from incidents in service over 50 years ago. The retrieval of old service records and the linkage from service incidents to current disablements, as well as the assessment of the current degree of disablement and determination of the part played by the service incident are all complicating factors.
  The War Pensions Agency set about a programme of modernising its administrative processes and through 1995 introduced a substantial programme of change: restructuring its operational teams into end-to-end sections to provide holistic service to claimants; introduction of a major operational computer system linked to the Department's other systems; and moving to new purpose built accommodation. These changes, aimed at providing an improved, more cost-effective service, did lead to a down-turn in performance in the second half of 1995 as the costs of retraining staff in the new arrangements were felt. As the throughput of work has picked up, and more cases are being cleared, more of these are relatively old cases in the system and average clearance times are elongated.
  The position on appeals has also been affected by the considerable increase in appeals in 1994. There are still many old appeals in the system, which will continue to depress performance, but the Agency is making inroads and now has 10,475 appeals on hand compared to 14,360 at the same time last year and is clearing about 1,000 a month against a current average intake of less than half that number.

  327
  I should explain the War Pension appeals are dealt with in two stages. First, the Agency prepares appeal papers and a Statement of Case for the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunals (PAT), who come under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The PAT, who consider all War Pension appeals, are then responsible for arranging the appeal hearing.
  The figures I have quoted relate solely to the Agency's performance. I am advised by the PAT that, after receiving the appeal papers from the Agency, it is currently taking them on average 59.4 weeks to arrange a hearing.

  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to(a) commission and (b) undertake research into the impact of incapacity benefit. [32489]

  Mr. Burt
  A programme of external research and in-house studies is already in place to help assess whether incapacity benefit is meeting its objectives. These are to target help on people whose medical condition makes them incapable of work and to provide help in getting them back to work through arrangements that are simple to understand and fair.

  Appeals
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he intends to complete his review of the legal basis of decision-making and appeals for social security benefits. [32240]

  (2) what plans he has to reform the system of independent appeals tribunals with right of audience for appellants. [32241]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The review my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced in February is concerned with how to achieve simpler, more efficient and cost effective arrangements for decisions and appeals whilst preserving claimants' rights to properly based decisions and access to an independent appeals mechanism. It is too soon to say when the review will be completed.

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spent during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 on sending civil servants accompanying Ministers from his Department on official duties abroad. [32420]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), on 20 March,Official Report, columns 238–40. Costs attributable to civil servants cannot reliably be identified separately.

  Means Testing
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 7 May to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy),Official
  328
  Report, columns 93–94, if he will provide the same information for each year since 1978. [32579]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  £ million

  Year

  Social security benefit expenditure (a)

  Means-tested benefits (b)

  (b) expressed as a percentage of (a)

  1978–79

  15,873

  2,692

  17.0

  1979–80

  18,777

  2,940

  15.7

  1980–81

  22,658

  3,830

  16.9

  1981–82

  27,698

  5,587

  21.1

  1982–83

  31,628

  7,917

  25.0

  1983–84

  35,332

  9,449

  26.7

  1984–85

  38,225

  10,755

  28.1

  1986–86

  41,699

  12,163

  29.2

  1986–87

  44,913

  13,171

  29.3

  1987–88

  46,697

  13,398

  28.7

  1988–89

  47,333

  13,265

  28.0

  1989–90

  50,174

  14,050

  28.0

  1990–91

  56,509

  16,804

  29.7

  1991–92

  66,382

  20,328

  30.6

  1992–93

  75,336

  25,518

  33.9

  1993–94

  82,427

  28,707

  34.8

  1994–95

  84,866

  30,308

  35.7

  1995–96

  88,787

  31,625

  35.6

  "The Growth of Social Security"
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the assumptions concerning gross domestic product growth and unemployment in the three cases in "The Growth of Social Security" were used as the basis for calculating figure 10 in the Social Security departmental report, Cm3213. [32485]

  Mr. Burt
  The projections in "The Growth of Social Security" all assumed an unemployment level of around 3 million in 1992–93 which either stayed constant (case 1) or fell (cases 2 and 3) over the period to 1999–2000. None of these cases were appropriate for the latest projections—figure 10 of the Social Security departmental report—which assumed that the unemployment level remained constant at 2.1 million from 1995–96 to 2000–2001.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families with children in receipt of child benefit aged(a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18 and (d) 19 years, have a household income of (a) £0 to £5,000 per annum, (b) £5,000 to £10,000 per annum, (c) £10,000 to £15,000 per annum, (d) £15,000 to £20,000 per annum, (e) £20,000 to £25,000 per annum, (f) £25,000 to £30,000 per annum, (g) £30,000 to £35,000 per annum, (h) £35,000 to £40,000 per annum, (i) £40,000 to £45,000 per annum, (j) £45,000 to £50,000 per annum and (k) £50,000 and over. [30138]
  329
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested as child benefit is not payable in respect of 19-year-olds. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Numbers of benefit units receiving child benefit for children aged 16, 17 and 18, by bands of gross household weekly income, UK, 1992–93

  Thousands

  Numbers of benefit units receiving child benefit for children aged:

  Gross household weekly income (January 1993 prices)

  16

  17 to 18

  16 to 18

  £0–£192

  80

  60

  130

  > £192 to £385

  140

  120

  250

  > £385 to £577

  130

  110

  220

  > £577 to £769

  70

  90

  150

  Over £769

  90

  100

  180

  Total

  510

  470

  930

  Notes:

  1. Figures show the estimated number of benefit units which receive child benefit in respect of a child aged 16 to 18, by bands of weekly gross household income. A benefit unit is defined as a single adult or a couple with any dependent children; a household can contain one or more benefit units. Benefit units with children aged 16, and aged 17 or 18, will appear in both the first two columns; rows may therefore not sum.

  2. Benefit units are grouped according to bands of gross weekly household income. If received throughout the year, these bands would correspond to annual incomes in January 1993 of: (i) £0 to £10,000 (ii) over £10,000 to £20,000 (iii) over £20,000 to £30.000 (iv) over £30,000 to £40,000 and (v) over £40,000. A more detailed breakdown would not be reliable.

  3. 1992–93 is the latest period for which data is available. Figures for 1992–93 are for two calender years combined.

  4. Estimates are derived from survey data and are subject to sampling error.

  Estimates for 17 and 18-year-olds are combined, as are certain income groups, to reduce these sampling errors. Figures are shown to the nearest 10,000 benefit units. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  1992–93 Households Below Average Income dataset.

  Child Support Agency
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the additional annual administration costs of the new powers of investigation which are to be given to the Child Support Agency. [32599]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  There are no plans to give the Child Support Agency new powers of investigation.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the current position in relation to the preparation of the case against Asil Nadir. [31641]

  The Solicitor-General
  Asil Nadir stands indicted before the central criminal court on 13 counts of theft involving over £33 million alleged to have been stolen from Polly Peck International plc. A warrant has been issued for his arrest. The Crown is ready to proceed as soon as he returns or is returned to the jurisdiction.
  330

  Racism
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on prosecutions for racist attacks. [31642]

  The Attorney-General
  From 1 October 1995 to 31 March 1996, 429 defendants in cases identified as racial incidents were prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about prosecutions for acts of racism in the last 10 years. [31644]

  The Solicitor-General
  There have been 29 applications for consent to prosecute under part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Twenty-four have been granted. Four have been declined and one withdrawn.

  Driving Offences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the number of cases relating to(a) driving without due care and attention, (b) causing death by dangerous driving, (c) causing death by reckless driving that have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last five years resulting in (i) prosecutions and (ii) convictions. [32801]

  The Attorney-General
  Information about the number and outcome of cases by offence category is published annually by the Home Office in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales".

  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records showing by offence category the result of cases referred to it. The information is held on individual case files, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list for each of the last five years the number of cases relating to road traffic accidents involving death or injury that have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and resulted in (a) prosecution and (b) conviction. [32800]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records in respect of specific offences. The information is held on individual case files, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prosecuting Departments
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement concerning his relationship with those Government Departments with prosecuting responsibilities which are not subject to his superintendence. [33363]

  The Attorney-General
  I do not expect to be routinely informed about prosecutions which I do not superintend merely because they are difficult or have a high, or potentially high, public profile. But it may well be appropriate to consult me in relation to cases raising, for example, particularly difficult public interest considerations, issues of propriety, or important issues of law of general importance.

  It is always open to prosecutors to seek my guidance in relation to particular problems or issues, and open to any Department to drawn concerns about a prosecution to

  331
  my attention, whether or not it is one which I superintend. A fuller account of my role is contained in a paper which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Scott Report
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Attorney-General is he will make a statement on the recommendation contained in Sir Richard Scott's report that there should be a formalised system of supervision of export control prosecution by the Attorney-General. [33364]

  The Attorney-General
  As indicated in my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the debate on Sir Richard Scott's report on 26 February,Official Report, column 597, the Government have accepted that in future the role of the Attorney-General should include the exercise of increased supervision of Customs and Excise prosecutions in relation to export control matters. The arrangements to give effect to this increased supervision have now been settled and are contained in a paper which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I shall be answerable to the House for actions taken by Customs and Excise in relation to individual prosecutions relating to defence exports and to sanctions infringements, other than those involving strict liability—that is not requiring evidence of deliberate evasion. Treasury Ministers will continue to be answerable for general enforcement and prosecution policy and will also remain responsible for the investigation of such offences.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many children below the age of 10 years were prosecuted in the last year for which figures are available; which were the main offences; and if he will make a statement. [32059]

  The Attorney-General
  None. There is an irrebuttable common law presumption that children under 10 years are incapable of criminal responsibility.

  European Union (Withdrawal)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his Department's recent work on the implications of withdrawal from the European Union. [31637]

  The Attorney-General
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that there is no suggestion of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. In any event, by convention, the fact of whether advice on any issue has been sought from or given by the Law Officers is not disclosed.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost to public funds of the case involving Nick Rodwell and other defendants at Northampton crown court; and what assessment he has made of the desirability of a change in the practices of the Crown Prosecution Service in such cases. [32919]

  The Attorney-General
  The costs incurred by the prosecution in the case involving Mr. Rodwell and other defendants are estimated at £2,856.62. The costs to the 332
  Lord Chancellor's Department of the five-day Crown court trial are assessed at £10,390. That figure includes staff and administrative costs and judicial salaries but not an element for the cost to the legal aid fund. To date no payment has been made from either the legal aid fund or from central funds. Those costs will not be known until the final bills have been assessed.

  The practice of the Crown Prosecution Service in deciding whether to prosecute such cases is to apply the existing law and the code for Crown prosecutors, which is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has recently issued revised guidelines to provide a consistent standard for the selection of charges for offences against the person, which gives further guidance to prosecutors in dealing with cases such as that against Mr. Rodwell. The prosecution of Mr. Rodwell reflected the proper application of those principles.

  Improper Trading
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those offences in law that may be referred to as improper trading or misrepresentation of company financial status; if he will make a statement on the position of(a) civil servants and (b) Ministers, should companies to which they hold directorships be found guilty of such offences; and if he will make a statement. [31854]

  Mr. Lang
  I have been asked to reply.

  What offence or offences were charged in any particular case would depend on the individual circumstances of that case, but the offences which might be charged would include section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 (Fraudulent Trading), section 233 (Approval and Signing of Accounts) or section 234 (Duty to Prepare Directors' Report) of the Companies Act 1985, section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (Misleading Statements and Practices), section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (False Accounting), section 209 (Falsification of Company's Books) or section 210 (Material Omissions from statement Relating to Company's Affairs) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

  The position of any civil servant found guilty of a criminal offence is a matter for the Department in which the individual is employed in accordance with its disciplinary procedures. A Minister in a similar position would be responsible for judging how best to act and for justifying his or her conduct to Parliament. Ministers can remain in office only for as long as they retain the Prime Minister's confidence.

TRANSPORT

  Salvage Tugs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to implement Lord Donaldson's recommendation in respect of the stationing of salvage tugs around the coast of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [31439]
  333
  Mr. Norris
  Emergency towing vessels were stationed, as a trial, at Dover and Stornoway as a result of recommendations made by Lord Donaldson's inquiry and the emergency towing study team. The next highest priority identified by the inquiry and by the emergency towing study team was the south western approaches. On the basis of our experience with the tugs in Dover and Stornoway over the last two winters, we shall station a tug at both these locations again next winter; further, we have decided to place a third tug in the south western approaches next winter. We will shortly be inviting competitive tenders for that contract.

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 on sending civil servants accompanying Ministers from his Department on official duties abroad. [32418]

  Sir George Young
  Information on such visits was placed in the Library in response to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) on 11 March 1996,Official Report, column 474. No further overseas visits were made in the financial year 1995–96.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [32335]

  Sir George Young
  I am placing the information requested in the Library.

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Licences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the changes that will affect licences held by HGV drivers as a result of the implementation of EC directive 5415/96. [32778]

  Mr. Norris
  The European Commission proposal for a Council directive amending directive 91/439/EEC is to introduce the use of a set of codes on licences to signify conditions under which licences may be used. It also provides for the formation of a committee of national experts to undertake minor changes to the codes, and more generally minor changes of a scientific and technical nature to the annexes to directive 91/439/EEC. Driving licences, including those for large goods vehicle drivers, first issued or renewed after the directive comes into force would be required to include codes appropriate to their conditions of use, and may be subject, in so far as they are relevant, to other, minor changes of a scientific and technical nature as agreed by the committee.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for transport if he will list the number of drivers entitled to drive(a) class 1 HGVs and (b) class 2 HGVs. [32779]

  Mr. Norris
  Class 1 and class 2 HGV licences were replaced in 1991 by EC driving licence categories which have a different basis. Numbers of pre-1991 HGV licences are not now held in disaggregated form, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  334

  London Underground (Investment)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what levels of investment were planned by his Department in 1992 in the London Underground for the period 1992 to 2000; and what was the level of investment(a) made in 1993–94,1994–95,1995–96 at (i) outturn and (ii) 1996 prices and (b) planned at 1996–97 prices for 1996–97 and successive years until 1999–2000. [32705]

  Mr. Norris
  Investment in London Underground is planned by London Transport, not the Government. The information requested is set out in the tables:

  London Underground core business investment 1993–94 to 1995–96

  £ million

  Year

  Outturn prices

  1996–97 prices

  1993–94

  480

  516

  1994–95

  503

  531

  1995–96

  485

  490

  London Underground core business planned investment 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Year

  1996–97 prices (£ million)

  1996–97

  360

  1997–98

  446

  1998–99

  522

  1999–2000

  622

  Figures supplied by London Transport.

  Aircraft Inspections
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions, and for what reasons, aircraft operated by(a) Air Operations of Europe and (b) Air Operations of Sweden have been grounded or had their take-off delayed by the Civil Aviation Authority. [32797]

  Mr. Norris
  None. However, the Swedish civil aviation authority withdrew the certification of airworthiness for one aircraft operated by Air Operations of Europe in May 1995 when severe corrosion was found by engineers during routine maintenance at Heathrow. If the Swedish authorities had not taken prompt action once the fault had been uncovered, the Civil Aviation Authority would have issued a direction to prevent the aircraft from flying. The certificate of Airworthiness was restored by the Swedish authorities when the fault had been rectified.

  At the request of the Department, the CAA undertook ramp checks of two further aircraft operated by Air Operations of Europe. These inspections did not delay the take-off of the aircraft concerned.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of inspection reports compiled by the Civil Aviation Authority as a result of inspections undertaken on aircraft operated by Air Operations of Europe and Air Operations of Sweden. [32799]

  Mr. Norris
  The CAA did not produce reports of the two inspections carried out on aircraft belonging to Air Operations of Europe, which has now ceased trading.
  335
  However, they provided the Department with advice on the condition of the aircraft. That advice concluded that the aircraft concerned were airworthy. The CAA has not carried out any inspections on aircraft operated by Air Operations of Sweden.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by airport for each of the last five years the number of inspections of aircraft undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority and the number of aircraft that(a) were grounded and (b) had their take-off delayed. [32798]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Airport Capacity (London)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the usage of the cross-wind 23/05 runway at Heathrow in the last 12 months. [32788]

  Mr. Norris
  Data provided by national air traffic services shows that the crosswind 23/05 runway at Heathrow was used for 23 landings in the 12 months up to 31 May 1996.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the declared runway and terminal capacities for Heathrow and Gatwick airports. [32790]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for BAA plc.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the current terminal and runway throughputs for Heathrow and Gatwick airports together with the percentage usage of available capacity these represent. [32791]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand from BAA plc, that the current terminal and runway throughputs for Heathrow and Gatwick airports are as follows:

  Throughput Year to May 1996

  Terminal passengers Thousands

  Air transport movements

  Heathrow

  54,886.3

  422,337

  Gatwick

  23,082.2

  200,955

  The capacities of Heathrow and Gatwick airports are a matter for BAA plc.

  British Airways
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of UK air transport is held by British Airways and its franchisees. [32793]

  Mr. Norris
  British Airways and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Brymon Airways, contributed 58.3 per cent. of all available tonne kilometres offered by UK airlines in 1995. A further 1 per cent. of ATK was contributed by BA's franchise partner airlines.

  Transatlantic Airline Alliance
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions he has given to his officials who have been sent to Washington to support the British Airways/American Airlines alliance. [32803]
  336
  Mr. Norris
  No officials have been sent to Washington DC to support the proposed British Airways/American Airlines alliance. Informal contacts between the US and officials of this Department have continued since the UK broke off air services negotiations last year.

  Central Railway Group
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the legal basis for his view that a debate in each House on the Central Railway Group's proposals is required to be on a motion moved by a Minister seeking the House's approval of the proposals, regardless of whether the Government support the motion. [33100]

  Mr. Watts
  Section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 says that in the case of proposals which in the Secretary of State's opinion are of national significance the Secretary of State may not make an order authorising the proposals unless each House of Parliament has passed a resolution, on a motion moved by a Minister, approving them. A motion seeking such approval is the only certain way of securing a decision one way or the other in a single debate. A motion framed in other terms—for example, to take note of the proposals—would risk an inconclusive result and a need for a second debate.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which statistics his Department had discontinued(a) the collection and (b) the publication of since 1989. [32868]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the list:

  Statistics for which collection and publication have been discontinued since 1989

  Express bus passengers;

  Local authority road maintenance expenditure;

  Ports' accounts;

  London coach survey;

  Oil rig servicing at ports.

  Statistics for which publication has been discontinued since 1989

  Road track costs;

  Passenger miles by bus passengers;

  Provisional quarterly estimates of road accidents;

  Average length of haul for rail freight;

  Rail receipts per passenger kilometre;

  Merchant navy seafarers;

  Ports' employment;

  Average traffic flow at selected points on the motorway network by type of vehicle;

  Road lengths by county;

  Average daily traffic flow on classified roads by type of vehicle (monthly data);

  Fish landings at ports;

  International comparisons of road capital expenditure.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters Which have been withdrawn. [32826]
  337
  Mr. Norris
  The central transport group of the Department of Transport has published a leaflet entitled "Serving the Public", which sets out the standards of service for answering correspondence, responding to telephone inquiries and handling complaints. The Highways Agency publishes its standards of service in the road users charter. Each of the Department's other executive agencies—DVLA, the Vehicle Inspectorate, and the Driving Standards, Coastguard, Marine Safety and Vehicle Certification Agencies—publishes its service standards in customer service guides, dedicated charter standard statements or codes of practice for its business customers.

  Several of these charter documents have been revised and updated; none has been withdrawn.

  Rail Freight Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he(a) has had and (b) intends to have with the managing director of English, Welsh and Scottish Railway Ltd. concerning the sale by Railtrack of strategic land sites needed for the future development of the rail freight industry. [33076]

  Mr. Watts
  None. The arrangements for safeguarding strategic freight sites are governed by a legal agreement between Railtrack and those licensed rail freight operators either currently or formerly owned by British Rail, including English, Welsh and Scottish Railways Ltd.

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent on postage in the financial years 1995–96 and 1995–96; and how many items were posted during these periods. [32844]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department spent £13,262,194 in 1994–95 and £13,809,113 in 1995–96 on postage. A complete record is not kept of the number of items posted, but exceeds 61 million.

  A458, Ford
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the public lavatory alongside the A458 road at Ford in Shropshire; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of public lavatory provisions on the A458 road at Ford in Shropshire. [32206]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the future of the public lavatory alongside the A458 road at Ford in Shropshire, and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of public lavatory provisions on the A458 at Ford in Shropshire.
  The funding available for trunk road routine maintenance this year has been reduced. In these circumstances the Highways Agency has examined all activities encompassed in this type of work and taken the view that it must give priority to those directly related to safety. As a result many non safety related activities including the cleaning of trunk road toilets have been reduced in frequency or stopped. This has led to closure of some trunk road toilets. Facilities where
  338
  local authorities, local franchises or businesses have entered into agreements with the Agency to take over responsibility and associated costs for the day to day running are not affected.
  With regard to the toilets on the A458 at Ford in Shropshire, the Highways Agency are seeking to avert closure by concluding an agreement with the owners of the "Dinkies Dinah" cafe for its day to day running. If an agreement is not concluded in the near future then the toilets are likely to be closed.
  I am aware of the benefit of these facilities, but in the face of shortages, activities concerned primarily with safety must have first call on available funds.

  Sea Empress Oil Spill
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the international oil pollution compensation fund and the Sea Empress insurers have paid out to victims of the spillage engaged in(a) fishing, (b) tourism, (c) clean-up operations and (d) other. [32961]

  Mr. Norris
  The international oil pollution compensation fund has provided the following information on the amounts paid by the joint claims handling office by 14 June:

  £

  Tourism

  54,596.75

  Fishing

  1,205,327.93

  Clean-up

  0

  Other

  45,188.29

  Total

  1,305,112.07

  In addition, cheques amounting to £75,348.06 are awaiting collection by claimants.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent to date by(a) local authorities, (b) the marine pollution control unit and (c) private organisations on the Sea Empress clean-up operation. [32960]

  Mr. Norris
  Precise figures on local authority expenditure are not available, but it is estimated that they have incurred costs of the order of £4 million. To date, the marine pollution control unit has spent £7,372,022. Information on spending by private organisations is not held by Government.

  Milford Haven Port Authority
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place copies of the annual reports of the Milford Haven port authority for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1992–93, (d) 1991–92 and (e) 1990–91 in the Library. [32959]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that the Milford Haven port authority makes its annual reports publicly available on request. I have asked the authority to send copies to the hon. Member.

  College Farm
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the progress of his consideration about the future of College farm. [33288]
  339
  Mr. Norris
  Specialist advisers have been appointed to look into all the options for College farm with a view to establishing the planning position for the site. They are expected to report to us by the end of July, following which we shall determine the way forward for the farm.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cattle Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cattle exported from Northern Ireland in 1995 and not certified for export for(a) breeding and (b) slaughter were (i) under and (ii) over six months of age. [31117]

  Mr. Ancram
  Cattle exported from Northern Ireland and not certified for(a) breeding and (b) slaughter are certified for further fattening.

  In 1995, 7,587 further fattening cattle under six months of age and 78 over six months of age were exported to other member states.

  Elections (Identification)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to amend the electoral rules to permit either part of a Northern Ireland driving licence to be sufficient identification for voting purposes. [32079]

  Mr. Ancram
  The list is kept permanently under review, but I have no plans to alter the requirement for both parts of the driving licence to be presented. I believe it is clearer simply to request that the complete driving licence be produced.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people, by constituency, in the 30 May elections were turned away by election staff for failing to produce required identification. [32078]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland does not keep a record of the number of people turned away by election staff for failing to produce required identification. The Government are confident, however, that both of the leaflets specifying the precise identity documents and the legal requirement for them which were delivered to each household in Northern Ireland in April and May will have made it unlikely that many of the electorate were unaware of the statutory requirements.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange for the details of required identity documents to specify in future the need for both parts of a Northern Ireland driving licence to be produced at a polling station when used as evidence of identity. [32080]

  Mr. Ancram
  I am happy to take the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion on board. In future, the NIO information leaflets prior to elections will make it clear that both parts of the Northern Ireland driving licence are required at the polling stations. The chief electoral officer is also prepared to ensure that this clarification is included on the polling cards that he issues.
  340

  Elections (Invalid Votes)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many votes in each constituency in the 30 May elections were invalidated for lack of the official mark or perforation; what were the equivalent figures in the 1992 general election; and if he will make a statement. [32076]

  Mr. Ancram
  There was a 45 per cent. drop in the number of invalidated papers at the elections on 30 May as opposed to the 1992 general election. The figures are as follows:

  Constituency

  1992

  1996

  Belfast, East

  Nil

  36

  Belfast, North

  Nil

  3

  Belfast, South

  Nil

  38

  Belfast, West

  11

  47

  North Antrim

  9

  17

  South Antrim

  49

  18

  East Antrim

  44

  16

  North Down

  Nil

  Nil

  South Down

  80

  1

  East Londonderry

  40

  20

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Nil

  Nil

  Foyle

  38

  7

  Lagan valley

  45

  Nil

  Mid-Ulster

  9

  1

  Newry and Armagh

  54

  18

  Strangford

  3

  4

  Upper Bann

  47

  8

  West Tyrone

  n/a

  Nil

  Total

  429

  234

  Company Directors
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have been disqualified from being directors of companies in each of the past five years. [32178]

  Mr. Ancram
  The following table shows the number of people disqualified from acting as directors of Northern Ireland companies:

  Financial year

  Number of directors disqualified

  1991–92

  Nil

  1992–93

  Nil

  1993–94

  Nil

  1994–95

  2

  1995–96

  24

  Population Growth
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the population growth in(a) the catchment area for the Ulster hospital since its construction and (b) the town of Bangor in the same period; and what were the forecast figures. [32082]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The population in the catchment area of the Ulster hospital has grown from 207,000 in 1961 to 257,000 in 1991. The population of the municipal borough of Bangor in 1961 was 24,000. The population
  341
  of this area has since increased to 54,000. In 1961 there were no population forecasts made at the level of geographical disaggregation requested.

  Schools (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total capital expenditure of schools in(a) Strangford constituency and (b) Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [32176]

  Mr. Ancram
  Capital expenditure by education and library boards on controlled schools and grants paid by the Department of Education on approved capital expenditure incurred by voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools for each of the financial years 1989–90 to 1993–94 is as follows:

  Year

  Strangford £

  Northern Ireland £

  1989–90

  2,015,000

  38,570,000

  1990–91

  4,118,000

  56,339,000

  1991–92

  4,607,000

  61,071,000

  1992–93

  1,453,000

  68,214,000

  1993–94

  1,797,000

  64,962,000

  Water Supply (Asbestos Cement Pipes)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the Water Research Centre report on asbestos cement pipes for the Mourne to Belfast water supply; and what monitoring the department of the Environment intends to carry out on the Mourne scheme. [32087]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department has stated that the report of the water research centre on the use of asbestos cement pipes will be made publicly available when it makes a policy announcement on this topic. It expects to do this in the near future. A copy of the report will then be placed in the Library. Monitoring of the Mourne conduit will continue as is operationally appropriate. This monitoring takes account of the state of the conduit and the quality of water it delivers.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost to public funds of public inquiries held by the Planning Appeals Commission in each of the past five years. [32177]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested. The total cost of the planning appeals commission to public funds in each of the last five years is

  Ordinary admissions and day cases: Number of first order episodes of private patients (category code 20–22) completed during year by specialty NHS Hospitals, England, 1990–91 to 1994–95

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  100 General Surgery

  14,197

  15,033

  13,657

  13,325

  13,639

  101 Urology

  3,626

  4,064

  4,386

  4,665

  5,596

  110 Trauma and Orthopaedics

  9,007

  9,263

  8,611

  9,884

  9,645

  120 Ear, Nose and Throat

  5,019

  5,139

  4,556

  4,797

  4,342

  130 Ophthalmology

  7,069

  7,793

  7,512

  8,274

  8,746

  140 Oral Surgery

  2,136

  2,059

  1,453

  1,416

  1,602

  141 Restorative Dentistry

  2

  2

  1

  0

  4

  142 Paediatric Dentistry

  4

  9

  6

  5

  13

  342
  set out in vote 4 of the Department of the Environment's appropriation accounts, copies of which are available in the Library.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Assets
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to reduce the value of the assets in their care. [32601]

  Mr. Alison
  The Church Commissioners' assets were valued at £2.7 billion as at 31 December 1995. The commissioners' liabilities include clergy pensions, the cost of which is currently met from income. Under the arrangements being discussed within the Church of England, about half of the commissioners' assets, if the proposed pensions measure is passed, will, upon the death of the last beneficiary, be fully spent out on the payment of pensions in respect of service up to 1998. The remaining assets will continue to be used to support the commissioners' other commitments, mainly to supporting the ministry in needier dioceses, bishops and cathedral staff.

HEALTH

  Local Care Services (Costs)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the relative level of costs of providing local care services in rural areas. [32490]

  Mr. Bowis
  A number of indicators of per capita expenditure and unit costs by individual social services departments in England for 1993–94 (the latest year for which the information is available—can be found in tables E4 and E6 of the 1995 edition, and table UI of the 1996 edition of "Key Indicators of Local Authority Social Services", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private patients in NHS pay beds received treatment in each specialty in 1990–91 and each year since then. [31936]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally relates to finished consultant episodes. The table shows the number of episodes, for each specialty, where a private patient underwent treatment during their first episode of care within a hospital spell.
  343

  Ordinary admissions and day cases: Number of first order episodes of private patients (category code 20–22) completed during year by specialty NHS Hospitals, England, 1990–91 to 1994–95

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  143 Orthodontics

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  150 Neurosurgery

  1,744

  2,127

  2,039

  2,370

  2,359

  160 Plastic Surgery

  1,696

  1,530

  1,380

  1,217

  1,402

  170 Cardiothoracic Surgery

  2,280

  2,704

  2,683

  2,692

  2,319

  171 Paediatric Surgery

  314

  537

  529

  449

  432

  180 Accident and Emergency

  135

  101

  84

  58

  67

  190 Anaesthetics

  507

  922

  701

  718

  828

  300 General Medicine

  7,253

  8,044

  7,308

  8,183

  8,011

  301 Gastroenterology

  419

  846

  889

  1,189

  1,664

  302 Endocrinology

  115

  111

  121

  202

  240

  303 Haematology

  663

  1,025

  880

  990

  1,281

  304 Clinical Physiology

  1

  3

  0

  0

  1

  305 Clinical Pharmacology

  304

  308

  308

  474

  421

  310 Audiological Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  311 Clinical Genetics

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  314 Rehabilitation

  0

  1

  2

  17

  27

  315 Palliative Medicine

  0

  23

  33

  5

  3

  320 Cardiology

  2,719

  3,572

  3,705

  3,894

  4,018

  330 Dermatology

  134

  179

  208

  239

  320

  340 Thoracic Medicine

  667

  906

  874

  1,050

  933

  350 Infectious Diseases

  23

  107

  123

  138

  76

  360 Genito-Urinary Medicine

  59

  39

  22

  35

  41

  361 Nephrology

  227

  200

  305

  384

  425

  370 Medical Oncology

  2,434

  2,786

  3,808

  5,928

  4,790

  371 Nuclear Medicine

  0

  3

  5

  1

  5

  400 Neurology

  1,214

  1,145

  1,219

  1,238

  1,244

  401 Clinical Neuro-Physiology

  4

  4

  14

  13

  14

  410 Rheumatology

  405

  407

  441

  425

  410

  420 Paediatrics

  947

  1,113

  1,058

  1,406

  1,425

  421 Paediatric Neurology

  49

  206

  237

  181

  179

  430 Geriatric Medicine

  229

  257

  228

  329

  381

  450 Dental Medicine

  0

  65

  24

  1

  0

  460 Medical Ophthalmology

  0

  0

  0

  23

  0

  501 Obstetrics

  2,259

  2,429

  2,220

  1,894

  2,070

  502 Gynaecology

  8,908

  8,360

  7,193

  7,958

  8,112

  610 General Practice—Maternity

  1

  33

  20

  2

  1

  620 GP—Other Than Maternity

  102

  121

  81

  53

  83

  700 Mental Handicap

  0

  4

  2

  5

  0

  710 Mental Illness

  66

  59

  36

  32

  37

  711 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  712 Forensic Psychiatry

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  715 Old Age Psychiatry

  0

  1

  3

  2

  6

  800 Clinical Oncology

  1,108

  1,352

  1,663

  2,129

  6,421

  810 Radiology

  165

  189

  129

  567

  683

  820 General Pathology

  7

  12

  21

  25

  30

  821 Blood Transfusion

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  822 Chemical Pathology

  5

  10

  4

  0

  2

  823 Haematology

  487

  610

  880

  824

  912

  824 Histopathology

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  830 Immunopathology

  7

  35

  61

  33

  32

  901 Occupational Medicine

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Not known

  203

  25

  38

  55

  246

  Total

  78,945

  85,877

  81,767

  89,797

  95,540

  Note:

  Data in this table is grossed for coverage only.

  Source: HES.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of the possible new strain of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease are currently under investigation by the CJD surveillance unit at Edinburgh. [32171]

  Mr. Horam
  All cases of suspected Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease referred to the CJD surveillance unit are investigated. It is impossible to differentiate between new variant and other cases while they are still under investigation.
  344
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people under 42 years have died of CJD in the last five years; and of those how many had growth hormone treatment. [33181]

  Mr. Horam
  From 1991 to date the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit in Edinburgh have confirmed 20 deaths from CJD of people aged under 42 years, of which 10 had had human growth hormone treatment.
  345

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to examine the efficiency and quality of the operation of the Medicines Control Agency. [31839]

  Mr. Horam
  Key tasks and targets for the Medicines Control Agency, including efficiency and quality targets, are agreed each year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and placed in the Library. Performance against these targets is monitored throughout the year and a record of the agency's performance is published in "Next Steps Review".

  A review of the agency, covering its performance since it was established in 1991 and options for its future, was completed last year. A summary of the results of that review were placed in the Library.

  AIDS Conference, Vancouver
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people working in community-based organisations in the United Kingdom are being sponsored to attend the eleventh international conference on AIDS in Vancouver in July. [32350]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people living with HIV/AIDS in the United Kingdom are being sponsored to attend the eleventh international conference on AIDS in Vancouver in July 1996. [32003]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department is not directly sponsoring anyone from community-based organisations nor anyone living with HIV/AIDS to attend the conference.

  The Department is providing £1.6 million to HIV/AIDS voluntary organisations this year and it is for them to decide if they wish to send anyone to the conference.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioners and (b) whole-time equivalent general practitioners there were in each of the last three years. [32560]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Number of unrestricted principles

  26,289

  26,567

  26,702

  Number by contractual commitments

  25,327.5

  25,430.25

  25,429.25

  Data shown for contractual commitments does not equate to whole time equivalents since general practitioners may work longer hours than those they are contracted to undertake.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the latest figures for shortages of general practitioners by(a) region, (b) health authority and (c) county. [32562]
  346
  Mr. Malone
  The recent Medical Practices Committee survey confirmed that overall there are enough good applicants to enable appointments to be made and we have no information which suggests that general practitioner shortages exist.

  NHS Pension Schemes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend NHS pension schemes to all employees in primary care. [32564]

  Mr. Malone
  Opening up the national health service pension scheme to practice staff employed by general practices is under consideration.

  Pensioners' Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the advantages of enabling pensioners who go into permanent care to hand over their homes to their children free from charges from local authorities relating to their parents' care; and if he will make a statement. [32753]

  Mr. Bowis
  We recognise that elderly people want independence, choice and dignity. They do not want to be a burden on their families or the state, and many want to help their children by passing on some of their savings or other assets. The proposals in the Government's consultation paper "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age" are intended to help people make better provision for their own long-term care, so that they can both meet their own care costs and bequeath assets to their children.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which contracts of the London ambulance service for accident and emergency services with the health authorities in the London area will include performance requirements for activation and response that are at least equal to the national Orcon standards. [32704]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally. Each health authority is responsible for ensuring that appropriate services, including accident and emergency, are provided for its residents. The hon. Member may wish to contact health authority chairmen for specific information about their contracts.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the value of high street pharmacies to the health of local communities; and if he will make a statement. [32943]

  Mr. Malone
  Community pharmacists have a very important role to play in a primary care led national health service. Community pharmacy's position in the high street offers a readily accessible NHS dispensing service to the community and an opportunity to provide other services which use pharmacists' professional skills for the benefit of patients.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of pharmacies in England by year since 1979. [33082]
  347
  Mr. Malone
  The table shows the number of pharmacies in England by year since 1979. Figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Year

  Number of community pharmacies in England in contract to supply NHS prescriptions

  1979

  8,698

  1980

  8,704

  1981

  8,790

  1982

  8,935

  1983

  9,052

  1984

  9,203

  1985

  9,490

  1986

  9,741

  1987

  9,905

  1988

  9,753

  1989

  9,694

  The figures then change to a financial year basis:

  1990–91

  9,714

  1991–92

  9,765

  1992–93

  9,763

  1993–94

  9,766

  1994–95

  9,771

  Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authority social services departments pass on to their registered rest home and nursing home owners the annual cost of living increase. [32904]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  GPs (Patient Lists)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the size of the average general practitioner's patient list in England and Wales. [33103]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is contained in "General Medical Services Statistics for England and Wales (October 1995)," copies of which are available in the Library.

  GP Fundholders, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholders are currently in general practice in the London borough of Wandsworth. [33106]

  Mr. Malone
  Health service information is not collected on a local authority basis.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) contracts managers, (b) other contract staff, (c) public relations managers, (d) other public relations staff, (e) risk managers, (f) other risk management staff and (g) business managers work in national health service trusts; and what is the cost of employing each category of manager. [33119]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.
  348
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the current(a) M1 management costs, (b) M2 management costs and (c) management consultancy costs (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of income for each NHS trust. [33120]

  Mr. Malone
  Individual trusts' out-turn 1994–95 M1 management costs and spending as a proportion of income were published on 5 December 1995 in "Management Costs in NHS Trusts Financial Year 1994–95" copies of which are available in the Library. Trusts' out-turn 1994–95 M2 management costs are not available centrally. Trusts will be publishing their out-turn 1995–96 M1 and M2 costs in their annual accounts later in the year.

  Information on trusts' spending on management consultancy is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general and senior managers there were in the national health service(a) in 1989–90 and (b) at the latest available date. [32921]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 6 November 1995 at columns 624–25.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made to review the safeguards against harm to children in residential care and in other placements away from home. [33435]

  Mr. Dorrell
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 13 June, I have asked Sir William Utting, the former chief inspector of the social services inspectorate in England, to review the existing safeguards for children living away from home.

  I have today written to Sir William in the following terms:

  Letter to Sir William Utting from Stephen Dorrell, Secretary of State for Health

  CHILDREN'S SAFEGUARDS REVIEW
  The government is grateful to you for agreeing to undertake this review. I enclose a copy of the terms of reference.The new safeguards introduced in recent years for the protection of children living away from home following the Children Act were the outcome of careful thought and consultation, and of scrutiny in Parliament. Since then, however, it has become clear from court cases and criminal justice investigations that the scale of abuse and of abuse risks was higher than generally appreciated.An important purpose of your review is to assess whether the safeguards now in place provide so far as is possible protection against these risks as they are now recognised. We are therefore concerned that it should be thorough, and that it should cover the enforcement of the safeguards as well as their principles I know that you will make the review accessible to all those with views and ideas to put across.349 There are as you know a number of areas where the Government is planning further initiatives relevant to the protection of all children and other social services users. As already announced, we shall be consulting later this summer on the ethical regulation of the social services professions. Home Office Ministers are announcing today proposals for improved arrangements for checking criminal records and new measures to prevent further crimes by convicted sex offenders after their release from prison. And we shall soon be receiving Tom Burgner's review of social services regulation. If while you are conducting your review there are any points you wish to convey to us as we take the various matters forward I and the other responsible Ministers would be very glad to know of them.It is equally important that local authorities and all others with the responsibility for ensuring the safety of children and other vulnerable people in their care should discharge that responsibility scrupulously within the framework of safeguards as it now exists. You may find ways of improving the framework, but it is essential that while your review is in progress all concerned should enforce the existing safeguards with the necessary diligence and wariness.
  STEPHEN DURRELL CHILDRENS'S SAFEGUARDS REVIEW
  to review the safeguards introduced for England and Wales by the Children Act 1989 at its implementation in 1991 and the further measures since taken to protect children living away from home, with particular reference to children's residential homes, foster care and boarding schools;to assess whether these safeguards are the most effective that can realistically be designed to protect such children from abuse and other harm and whether they are being satisfactorily enforced;
  to make recommendations accordingly to the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an immediate public inquiry into the alleged abuse of children in Cheshire homes. [32920]

  Mr. Bowis
  Investigations are continuing and prosecutions still pending in the north west. Until these are completed no decision regarding further inquiries can be made.

  Supervision Registers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 536, if he will break down the numbers on supervision registers by district within each region. [33099]

  Mr. Bowls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 December 1995 at column 809.

  Home Help Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage the provision of home help services by the private sector. [33052]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are required to include proposals for purchasing non-residential care services from the independent sector in their community care plans. We have encouraged providers in the independent sector to contribute to the consultation stage of these plans.
  350

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom are in residential homes in the most recent year for which figures are available in the(a) 16 to 64, (b) 65 to 74, (c) 75 to 84 and (d) 85 years and over age groups; and in each of those categories if he will list the numbers funded by (i) the local authority on a means tested basis, (ii) the individuals themselves and (iii) the Department of Social Security through preserved rights; and if he will make a statement. [33056]

  Mr. Bowis
  Centrally available information for England is provided in the table. Questions relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, and for Scotland, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  We estimate that around 25 per cent. of elderly people in residential care currently meet their own costs in full. It is not possible to obtain the number of self-funders by subtracting local authority supported residents and people with preserved rights from the number of residents, since some people receive funding from both Department of Social Security through preserved rights and a local authority.

  Residents in residential care and source of funding, by age

  England, 31 March 19951

  Numbers

  Age

  Residents in staffed residential care

  Local authority supported residents

  People funded by DSS through preserved rights to income support1

  18–64

  49,600

  36,200

  34,100

  65–74

  24,700

  13,600

  10,300

  75–84

  76,800

  39,000

  20,200

  85 or over

  118,900

  50,900

  33,700

  Note:

  1DSS figures relate to February 1995.

  Source:

  DH annual returns RAC5. SR1 and DSS QSE.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom are in nursing homes in the most recent year for which figures are available in the(a) 16 to 64, (b) 65 to 74, (c) 75 to 84 and (d) 85 years and over age groups; if he will list in each of those categories the numbers funded by (i) the local authority on a means tested basis, (ii) the individuals themselves, (iii) the Department of Social Security through preserved rights and (iv) NHS contract; and if he will make a statement. [33055]

  Mr. Bowis
  Centrally available information for England is provided in the table. Question relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  351
  We estimate that around 25 per cent. of elderly people in nursing care currently meet their own costs in full. It is not possible to obtain the number of self-funders by subtracting local authority supported residents and people with preserved rights from the number of residents, since some people receive funding from both Department of Social Security through preserved rights and a local authority.

  Information on people funded by the NHS is not centrally available.

  Residents in nursing care and source of funding, by age

  England, 31 March 19951

  Numbers

  Age

  People in nursing care

  Local authority supported residents

  People funded by DSS through preserved rights to Income Support1

  18–64

  11,800

  3,400

  7,600

  65–74

  19,900

  5,900

  7,800

  75–84

  51,100

  16,400

  20,800

  85 or over

  64,500

  17,500

  28,900

  Note:

  1 DSS figures relate to February 1995.

  Source:

  DH annual returns K036, SR1 and DSS QSE.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom were living in(a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes for the most recent year for which figures are available for (i) less than six months, (ii) between six months and a year, (iii) between one and two years, (iv) between two and three years and (v) three years and more; and if he will make a statement. [33057]

  Mr. Bowis
  Latest centrally available information on length of stay in residential care in England is published in table 3 of "Survey of age, sex and length of stay characteristics of residents of homes for elderly people and younger people who are physically handicapped in England at 31 March 1988", copies of which are available in the Library. Information on length of stay in nursing homes is not centrally available.

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

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who acts as chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines in the absence of Professor Rawlins. [32721]

  Mr. Malone
  Professor Breckenridge, the vice-chairman.

  Licensing Authority
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the Licensing Authority last met. [32744]
  352
  Mr. Malone
  The Licensing Authority as constituted by section 6 of the Medicines Act 1968 does not hold formal meetings dedicated to consideration of its functions under the Act.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines relating to desogestrel and gestodene. [32719]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 318, on how many occasions since 1 January 1990 Ministers have used powers conferred by section 3(2) (c) of the Medicines Act 1968 to make requests to the Medicines Commission. [32720]

  Mr. Malone
  Since 1990 the Medicines Commission has been asked to review the committees established under section 4 of the Medicines Act 1968, with regard to changes in their numbers, on three occasions and following the commission's advice, statutory instruments were made as follows:

  The Medicines (Committee on the Review of Medicines) (Revocation) Order 1992 (No. 606)

  The Medicines (Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials) (Revocation) Order 1994 (No. 3120)

  The Medicines (Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products) Order 1994 (No. 102)

  GP Prescribing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his letter of 1 April and his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 382, what were (a) the total prescribing costs in cash terms in each year and for each category of general practitioners and (b) the total prescribing costs in 1989–90 for first wave fundholders; [33090]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 4 June, Official Report, column 382, if he will list the net ingredient cost per prescribing unit in 1989–90 for first wave fundholders; and when he expects data on prescribing costs for 1995–96 to be available. [33088]

  Mr. Malone
  Data for 1990–91 are shown in the table. Information on total prescribing costs by wave of fundholders for each year for 1990–91 to 1994–95 is shown in the table. The available data for 1989–90 are not held in a form which allows analysis by wave of fundholder. Data for 1995–96, as I indicated in my earlier reply, will be available shortly.
  353

  Prescribing data for General Practitioners: Non-Fundholders and Fundholders by Fundholding wave Financial years 1990–91–1994–95

  Net ingredient cost (£ million)

  Year

  Non-FH

  FH

  Continuing Non-FH

  1st wave

  2nd wave

  3rd wave

  4th wave

  5th wave

  1990–91

  2,267

  0

  1,375

  150

  133

  251

  222

  137

  1991–92

  2,424

  168

  1,566

  168

  153

  289

  258

  158

  1992–93

  2,552

  350

  1,757

  184

  165

  326

  290

  179

  1993–94

  2,467

  732

  1,943

  202

  181

  349

  323

  200

  1994–951

  2,118

  1,039

  1,913

  204

  179

  350

  307

  204

  1 For technical reasons, a proportion of items and their associated NIC values have been excluded from the 1994–95 data. The 1994–95 figures for NIC (£ millions) are not therefore comparable with those for earlier years. The 1994–95 figures for NIC per Prescribing Unit, items per PU and NIC per item are comparable with those for earlier years.

  1. Prescribing budgets for both fundholders and non-fundholders are initially set in NIC (net ingredient cost, or basic price). Fundholders' budgets are then converted to actual cost and monitored on this basis. Actual cost is not exactly equivalent to "cash", as, for example, VAT is excluded.

  2. All figures in the table are given in NIC, which is the common currency normally used to compare relative prescribing costs of fundholders and non-fundholders. To convert figures for individual waves into cash would involve substantial data manipulation and would not affect the comparison of different waves.

  3. Timing differences mean that the figures do no correspond to national NIC figures published elsewhere. The table should therefore be used only to compare the prescribing of fundholder waves and non fundholders relative to each other.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage financial institutions to participate in PFI projects with NHS trusts and to minimise the financial difficulties in doing so. [33028]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is committed to the private finance initiative in the national health service. The PFI offers investment opportunities to the private sector, while enabling NHS bodies to obtain best value for money for the taxpayer when developing capital schemes. Fifty-seven PFI projects—including four major district general hospitals—with a capital value of more than £500 million have been approved since the PFI was launched in November 1992. A further 40 schemes with a total capital value of about £1.5 billion are testing private finance options as part of the procurement process.

  Officials in the Department of Health's private finance unit meet with financial institutions regularly to smooth the PFI process. Where potential difficulties have arisen action has been taken promptly. For example, the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act 1996 which was passed in May this year and is now in force, makes it clear to financial institutions that, should an NHS trust be dissolved, whether as a result of financial difficulties or for any other reason, its liabilities will be transferred to the Secretary of State or to some other NHS body. Also, a potential difficulty with the availability of VAT refunds in NHS PFI projects was addressed recently by a new Treasury direction which came into force on 26 April.

  Vacant Doctor Posts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 418, on vacant doctor posts when the information will be available. [33121]

  Mr. Malone
  Information for 1995 should be available in the autumn.

  Rochdale Health Care Trust
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that future developments by the Rochdale 354
  health care NHS trust will be safeguarded following the local health authority's review of health services; and if he will make a statement. [33175]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for Bury and Rochdale health authority. The hon. Member may wish to approach Mr. Alan Maden, Chairman, for more information.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what is the stage reached for the planned private finance initiatives for each of the proposed new hospitals in(a) Norfolk and Norwich, (b) Amersham, (c) Carlisle, (d) Swindon, (e) North Durham, (f) Bishop Auckland, (g) the Royal London hospital and (h) St. Thomas's hospital. [31876]

  Mr. Horam
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 June 1996, column 587]: I regret that my previous answer was incorrect. It should have read as follows:

  "Full business cases for Norfolk and Norwich, Amersham, and Swindon have all been approved. Outline business cases for the remaining schemes have been approved. At Carlisle, North Durham and Bishop Auckland the Trusts concerned have identified preferred bidders and are preparing full business cases. At the Royal London hospital and St. Thomas' hospital, the trusts concerned have prepared shortlists, from which they will identify their preferred bidder".

  Health Authorities (Guidance)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is provided by his Department to health authorities in respect of reorganising health services in a manner which entails the serious reduction of health service provision in one area within a health authority so as to increase health services in another area within the health authority. [33174]

  Mr. Horam
  Departmental guidance makes clear that health authorities are responsible for assessing the health needs of their population and purchasing services to meet those needs, and the consultation requirements where this involves a substantial variation in services. Copies of relevant guidance are in the Library.
  355

  Medical Locums
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 419, when the information on medical locums will be available. [33126]

  Mr. Malone
  The data from the census of hospital and community health service medical and dental staff in post at 30 September 1995 should be available in the autumn.

  Trust Mergers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers are available to health authorities to merge trusts. [33176]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Trusts and Health Authorities (Debts)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 93, if he will analyse the last set of annual returns from each area and health authority to show the level of total debt (a) in financial terms and (b) as a percentage of income. [33098]

  Responses to OEJC

  Pre-qualification

  Shortlisted

  Bidders remaining

  Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust

  31

  8

  3

  1

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust (Amersham)

  38

  12

  4

  1

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  15

  8

  3

  1

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust (Swindon)

  42

  6

  5

  1

  North Durham Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (North Durham)

  13

  10

  5

  1

  Bishop Auckland Hospitals NHS Trust

  16

  11

  4

  1

  Royal Hospitals NHS Trust (Royal London Hospital)

  18

  3

  3

  2

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust (St. Thomas' Hospital)

  8

  3

  2

  2

DEFENCE

  Bourlon Barracks, Catterick
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the advice obtained by his Department about the specifications for(a) the support rails for the crane, (b) the motor for the crane, (c) the local exhaust ventilation system, (d) the doors and (e) the space allocated for storage and specialist trades for the LAD building (No. 36) at Bourlon barracks, Catterick. [31613]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) My Department provided the crane specification and, as the contract included both the "design and build", it was the contractor's responsibility to install appropriate support rails.

  (b) The statement of requirement provided by my Department in January 1993 included a requirement for exhaust extraction. The specification for the local exhaust ventilation system was developed by the design team, on advice from GKN Defence the makers of Warrior. A general extraction system was also included in the specification.

  356
  Mr. Horam
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  New Hospitals (PFI)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bids for the proposed private finance initiatives have been received for the proposed new hospitals in(a) Norfolk and Norwich, (b) Amersham, (c) Carlisle, (d) Swindon, (e) north Durham, (f) Bishop Auckland, (g) the Royal London hospital and (h) St. Thomas's hospital. [31881]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: Under EC directives and public procurement regulations, national health service trusts must publish a series of advertisements and notices in the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Community for all potential contracts exceeding specified thresholds. All the schemes referred to in the question exceeded the threshold. Trusts pre-qualify a smaller number of potential partners from the list of initial responses to the OEJC advert and issue an invitation to negotiate document to the pre-qualified consortia. Trusts draw up a shortlist of the most promising potential partners following rigorous evaluation of the responses and negotiation from which the best obtainable solution involving private finance is eventually identified. The numbers of bidders involved at the various stages of the process for the trusts referred to in the question are as follows:

  (c) The specification for the doors was written by the design team.

  The specification for the space allocated for storage and specialist trades were also included in the statement of requirement, and followed JSP 315 Scales 27(4) and 45.

  Chemical Weapons (Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring has been carried on since 1966 in respect of the safety for its current use of the site used as a chemical weapons training and trials facility at South Molton, north Devon, during the second world war; what action has been taken following such monitoring; and if he will make a statement. [31768]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has no record of any monitoring having been carried out at the South Molton site. The land in question is no longer part of the defence estate and prior to its return to civilian use any identified contamination relating to its former use involving chemical weapons activities would have been removed. Should the MOD have been alerted to any such contamination being revealed subsequently, we would
  357
  have taken the measures necessary to remedy the problem. In the case of South Molton we have no record of any such incident.

  Military Attachés
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries in which Her Majesty's Government have a military attaché. [32915]

  Mr. Soames
  Her Majesty's Government have service attaches resident in the following countries:

  Abu Dhabi

  Argentina

  Australia

  Austria

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Brazil

  Bulgaria

  Canada

  Chile

  China

  Columbia

  Croatia

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Egypt

  Finland

  Former Yugoslavia

  France

  Germany

  Ghana

  Greece

  Guatemala

  Holland

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Malaysia

  Mexico

  Morocco

  Nepal

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  358

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Russia

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  South Africa

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Thailand

  Turkey

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  USA

  Venezuela

  Zimbabwe

  A further 69 countries are covered by attachés with non-residential accreditations.

  Missiles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement concerning the contract for a conventionally armed stand-off missile; how many missiles are to be purchased; and what criteria he will use in making his decision. [32652]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 13 June 1996]I hope to be in a position to announce the successful bid for the conventionally armed stand off missile competition shortly. The quantity of missiles being procured is classified information and cannot be released. Many factors have been considered during our assessment, including industrial factors the total cost to public funds, operational effectiveness, and such technical aspects as performance, reliability and compatibility with our delivery aircraft.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the sites(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in British territories abroad where chemical weapons have been manufactured or stored since 1966; and if he will places in the Library a copy of the declarations made to date under the chemical weapons convention; [33066]

  (2) if he will list the sites on which chemical weapons have been manufactured or stored since 1966 to which Crown immunity applies. [33079]

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom relinquished its offensive chemical weapons capability in the mid-1950s and no chemical weapons have been manufactured since that time in either the United Kingdom or dependent territories. Stocks of chemical weapons held were destroyed and storage sites decommissioned prior to 1966.
  359
  Any items of chemical ordnance subsequently discovered at sites in the UK where such weapons were formerly stored or trailed, are made safe and transferred to PLSD Porton Down for temporary storage prior to destruction. Porton Down is the only site at which these items have been stored since 1966.

  The chemical weapons convention requires states parties to make declarations of their chemical weapon activities since 1946. Declarations are to be made within 30 days of entry into force of the convention which is likely to occur early in 1997. No UK declaration has yet been made.

  The Chemical Weapons Act 1996 implements the CWC in the United Kingdom. The Act will be commenced before the convention enters into force. The Act expressly binds the Crown subject to certain qualifications.

  Computer Hackers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each of the last five years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers in each of the services; and if he will make a statement. [32459]

  Mr. Soames
  As a result of the robust security policy on connectivity to public data networks such as the Internet, enforced throughout my Department, there is no evidence of any incursion, from an external source, to any departmental information technology system.

  Records of unauthorised incursions by departmental staff have been maintained centrally only for the past 18 months. None of the four recorded instances has had any operational impact and appropriate disciplinary measures were taken in each case.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which areas of his Department's property are being used to(a) store and (b) dispose of cattle as part of the Government's BSE eradication programme; how much his Department is receiving for the use of this property; how many cattle have been destroyed on his Department's property; when this practice first began; and if he will make a statement. [32695]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Quedgeley is being used for the storage of rendered meat and bone meal as part of the BSE eradication programme. Use of this site started on 20 May 1996. However, deliveries have now ceased. In accordance with our normal policy, the rental paid for use of this site is commercially confidential. No cattle have been or will be stored, disposed of or destroyed on my Department's property as part of the BSE eradication programme.

  Boards of Inquiry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 April,Official Report, column 462, when the board of inquiry system was instituted; and if boards of inquiry are automatically set up after an accident or suspected accident involving British-controlled nuclear weapons. [32760]
  360
  Mr. Soames
  The authority to convene naval boards of inquiry is exercised under the royal prerogative; there are no statutory rules requiring or relating to them. Records of naval boards of inquiry go back at least as far as the 18th century. The Army Act of 1881 made provision for courts of inquiry to be set up. These were adopted and adapted by the Royal Air Force when it was formed in 1918.

  The rules and regulations relating to service boards of inquiry lay down a number of circumstances in which they must be convened: these do not specifically indicate nuclear weapon-related matters, although they are not necessarily excluded.

  Any accident or suspected accident involving British-controlled nuclear weapons is investigated, but the appropriate form of inquiry is decided upon in the light of the particular circumstances.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who has been responsible for compiling and updating the central record of accidents and suspected accidents involving(a) British-controlled nuclear weapons and (b) United States-controlled nuclear weapons within British territory since 1966. [32762]

  Mr. Soames
  Such information is held on a central database maintained by the staff of the nuclear weapon safety adviser.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the nuclear weapons safety committee was set up; how many people are on the committee; and how many of members are drawn from outside his Department. [32761]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee was established in 1959. It comprises 12 Members, including the chairman. All are drawn from outside my Department but currently include four who have served previously in it. They are assisted by officials from my Department and other Government Departments who also attend meetings of the committee as and when necessary.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is responsible for compiling reports on accidents and suspected accidents involving(a) British-controlled and (b) United States-controlled nuclear weapons on British territory; if the nuclear weapons safety committee receives the reports; and if reports are compiled on each accident and suspected accident. [32764]

  Mr. Soames
  There are established procedures for reporting any unplanned occurrence involving a nuclear weapon on British territory which has resulted in actual or potential hazard to life or property or which may have impaired nuclear safety. Responsibility for compiling an immediate report would rest with the unit which has custody of the weapon. The Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee would of course be advised of any such incidents.
  361

  Departmental Function
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the persons who were admitted to his office on 5 June to attend a function held during the beating of the retreat ceremony by the Household cavalry. [33054]

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not my practice to give such information.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs he estimates were(a) created and (b) safeguarded by inward investment in Wales in the year to 31 March. [31661]

  Mr. Hague
  Inward investment recorded for Wales last year promises the creation of 6,800 new jobs and the safeguarding of 5,848 existing jobs, an increase of almost 40 per cent. on the previous year's total.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new inward investments have recently come to south Wales. [31665]

  Mr. Hague
  Welcome announcements and openings have recently been made, including Ford's £300 million expansion at Bridgend; Newport Wafer-Fab' s £230 million expansion near Newport; Halla's £17 million investment at Pentrebach; STS's £5 million expansion at Imperial Park; Ringtel's project at Cwmbran; the Showa Corporation's new investment at Aberaman Park in the Cynon Valley; and General Electric's £27 million expansion at Nantgarw. These projects alone account for almost 5,000 new and safeguarded jobs.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in encouraging inward investment from Taiwan. [31666]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has recently announced the official opening of an important Taiwanese manufacturing investment—Ringtel Electronics at Cwmbran. Taiwan is a very promising market and we are confident that this important investment will be followed by others.

  RAF Valley
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on resources for training at RAF Valley related to the contractorisation programme. [31662]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In addition to those made by the hon. Member, the Welsh Office received four representations.

  I am sure that the hon. Member will welcome the creation of some 400 new civilian jobs at RAF Valley, following the outcome of the contractorisation process.

  Planning Guidance (Town Centres)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the 362
  recommendations contained in the recently published planning guidance relating to town centres and shopping; and if he will make a statement. [31663]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received a number of letters which have been supportive of the planning guidance issued on 21 May which recognises the importance of town centres including a strong retail base and encourages development within town centres rather than out of town sites. I will shortly be issuing for consultation a draft technical advice note on town centres and retail development.

  Built Heritage
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has(a) taken recently and (b) plans to take to conserve the built heritage of Wales. [31664]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for National Heritage have recently presented our consultation document, "Protecting our Heritage", which seeks views on a wide range of issues relating to the built heritage. We hope that responses will help shape our policies in this important field into the next millennium. In addition, new planning guidance for Wales has been published, setting out the planning framework which we expect will underpin the protection of the built heritage. Both documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss the safeguarding of existing jobs in Wales. [31667]

  Mr. Hague
  I frequently meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Power Station (Pembrokeshire)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in the current year on the proposals for an orimulsion-fuelled power station in Pembrokeshire. [31668]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have received several hundred letters.

  Health Commissioners (Funding)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the funding for health commissioners in Wales for 1996–97. [31669]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since October 1995, six letters have been received by my right hon. Friend and three parliamentary questions have been answered.

  Food Industry
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures have bene taken by his Department to encourage further development of the food industry in Wales. [31670]
  363
  Mr. Hague
  My Department administers a number of grant schemes aimed at developing the food industry. In addition, I announced in the White paper "A Working Countryside for Wales" my intention to develop a food strategy for Wales, which I will launch at the Royal Welsh show in July.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students in Wales are currently in higher education institutions; what was the figure in May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [31671]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested may be found in the following table:

  Students on higher education courses in Wales

  1979–80

  1994–951

  Further and higher education institutions (including colleges of the University of Wales2

  33,769

  79,323

  Open university3

  n/a

  4,441

  Total

  33,769

  83,794

  Notes:

  1 Provisional.

  2 At November or December each year depending on source.

  3 At February each year. Data not available for 1979–80.

  Source:

  Universities Statistical Record, Open University, Higher Education Statistics Agency and Welsh Office.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will compensate Welsh farmers for the increased transport costs arising from the lack of Welsh abattoirs participating in the 30-month slaughter scheme. [30704]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on 16 May 1996,Official Report, columns 544–45.

  Ministerial Working Hours (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by month for the last six months, the number of working hours he has spent in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [30740]

  Mr. Hague
  Since taking office I have divided my working time approximately equally between Wales and London.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 521, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31458]

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

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search agency or employment 364
  agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31522]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11 June,Official Report, columns 83–84.

  Promotion (Women)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress his Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31542]

  Mr. Hague
  During the last 12 months my Department has held development training for senior women and a series of seminars on specific equal opportunities topics for all senior officers. This training is open to staff in the executive agency Cadw.

  My Department has been a member of Opportunity 2000 since 1992 and actively supports its aims.

  Over the last five years, the proportion of women in the senior civil service, grades 1 to 5, has risen from 15 per cent. at 1 January 1992 to 22 per cent. at 1 April 1996.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32833]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has published charters for patients, parents, council house tenants, for further education and higher education, and a charter standard for farmers. A charter guide to the planning system has been published jointly with the Department of the Environment and the National Planning Forum. In addition, a charter standard for visitors has been produced by Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments. No charters have been withdrawn.

  Travelling People
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 491, to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy if he will now publish details of the number and location of sites for travelling people for each county and district area and for Wales as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [32458]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information has already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mineral Sites
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the mineral sites on the first lists of sites prepared by mineral planning authorities in compliance with mineral planning guidance note 14 where the sites are wholly or partly within sites of special scientific interest and indicating the relevant sites of special scientific interest. [32765]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not collected centrally.
  365

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the reorganisation of ambulance trusts in Wales; what public access there is to the plans; what are the main proposals; and if he will make a statement. [32766]

  Mr. Hague
  None. I would expect any proposals for trust reconfigurations to come from the boards themselves with the full support of their commissioning authorities. If such proposals are received, the application document would be subject to public consultation and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to amalgamate ambulance services in Powys with Powys NHS Healthcare trust; and if he will make a statement. [32767]

  Mr. Hague
  None. These are operational matters for the NHS.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to close ambulance stations in powys; and if he will make a statement. [32768]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This is an operational matter for the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on proposals to reduce operational manning levels by the South and East Wales Ambulance trust. [32769]

  Mr. Hague
  This is an operational matter for the board of trust which will be discussed with the Department in the context of the 1996–97 operational plan.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the financial situation of the South and East Wales Ambulance trust. [32770]

  Mr. Hague
  All NHS trusts in Wales publish their annual report and accounts in September each year. My officials have had a number of discussions with the chairman about the work he is doing to put the trust on a firm financial footing. The trust will continue to provide monthly financial progress reports to the Department as part of the regular monitoring process.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount spent on consultancy fees by the South and East Wales Ambulance trust for the last two financial years for which figures are available. [32771]

  Mr. Hague
  Expenditure by the trust on external contract staffing and consultancy services is shown in its audited accounts for the following years as:

  1993–94: £ Nil

  1994–95: £123,000

  The audited accounts for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Robert Powell (Medical Treatment)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 470, if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the inquiry into the keeping of the general practitioner records pertaining to the appeal concerning the medical treatment of Robert Powell; and what plans he has to
  366
  make changes to the rules governing the holding of general practitioner records which are the subject of official action under NHS procedures. [33091]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 10 June, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 470, what representations he has received from the family of the late Robert Powell or their legal representatives concerning ministerial meetings with the general practitioners of the late Robert Powell. [33089]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received a letter from Mr. Powell's solicitors which raises the issue. During his time as a Welsh Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) was not involved with the case because he was acquainted with some of the individuals concerned.

  Health Services (Market Testing)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with chairmen of health commissions in Wales about market testing of services. [31658]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. NHS trusts are required to market test catering, laundry and domestic services, and are expected to look at other services which would benefit from market testing, which is a proven and successful tool for achieving high quality and flexible services, and for obtaining better value for money.

SCOTLAND

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [31540]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My Department continues to support policies which enable and assist women to reach senior positions. Flexible working patterns and family-friendly policies are well established and women in particular find this facility helpful in enabling them to further their careers.

  The proportion of women is increasing at all management levels. In 1992, the earliest for which these data are available, there were 81.5 women in a total of 627.5 staff in grades 1 to 7 in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies. By 1996, a comparable figure was 102.3 women in a total of staff of 569.4.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent in the last year for which figures are available on the remuneration of the members
  367
  of the (a) West of Scotland Water Authority, (b) East of Scotland water authority and (c) the North of Scotland water authority. [32475]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is set out in the table and relates to remuneration paid to members by the authorities from their establishment on 17 July 1995 up to the end of March 1996.

  £

  West of Scotland water authority

  Chairman

  26,807

  Chief executive

  53,561

  Other members (each)

  4,021

  East of Scotland water authority

  Chairman

  16,968

  Chief executive

  53,333

  Counsellor Ann Dickson

  2,984

  Other members (each)

  4,242

  North of Scotland water authority

  Chairman

  28,413

  Chief executive

  46,667

  Other members (each)

  4,242

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which members of Scotland's water authorities have declared interests under schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 1994 at meetings of these bodies. [32428]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There have been no such declarations to date.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what legal obligations exist on Scotland's water authorities in relation to the fluoridation of public water supplies. [32408]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, as amended, provides that water authorities may, on receipt of an application from a health authority, increase the fluoride content of the water which they supply within the area of that health authority.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for copies of the declarations of interests of the members of Scotland's water authorities to be placed in the Library. [32429]

  Mr. Kynoch
  A note of the declarations made by the members of each water authority will be placed in the Library at the same time as the authorities' annual reports.

  Bible John Case
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Strathclyde police will report their investigations into the Bible John case. [33124]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that Strathclude police have continued to keep the regional procurator fiscal at Glasgow informed of progress with their investigations. Forensic tests have been carried out on their behalf by expert scientists at Cambridge university and a full report by the scientists to Strathclyde police is awaited shortly. Very soon thereafter, a comprehensive police report, including the results of the 368
  forensic scientific tests, will be submitted to the regional procurator fiscal, who in turn will report to Crown counsel for instructions.

  Marine Mammals (Bycatchers)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the estimated harbour porpoise population in the Celtic sea area is represented by the bycatch level recorded in the United Kingdom and Irish large mesh monofilament gillnet fisheries in this area in 1992 to 1994; and what percentage bycatch of harbour porpoise populations was adopted in 1995 by the scientific committee of the International Whaling Commission as being a reasonable threshold for concern about the sustainability of catches. [31772]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: Based on available data on gillnet bycatches, the estimates are 6 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively. The scientific committee of the IWC is currently considering criteria for assessing the status of the harbour porpoise population.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what commitments to harbour porpoise conservation the Government made in their response to the biodiversity action plan; and what is his Department's policy towards its provisions on fisheries bycatch. [31778]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The Government endorse the main proposals in the biodiversity action plan steering group report as a basis for follow-up action by country groups for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These groups will be responsible for implementing individual action plans, including that for the harbour porpoise, and a UK group will co-ordinate this process. The Scottish Office is committed to fulfilling its obligations for harbour porpoise conservation.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many harbour porpoises were killed annually in large mesh monofilament gillnet fisheries(a) in United Kingdom and Irish gillnets in the Celtic sea observed during 1992 to 1994 and (b) in Danish gillnets in the North sea during 1993. [31769]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The estimated number caught in these gillnet fisheries are 2,237 and 7,000 respectively.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many marine mammals were recorded as bycaught under the national voluntary reporting scheme in each of the last five years(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of this scheme. [31779]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 7 June I996]: Under this scheme, three common dolphins and three common seals were recorded as bycaught in 1992 and 1993 by UK fishing vessels. No bycatches have been reported in Scottish waters under these voluntary arrangements. Research is under way to determine the extent of cetacean bycatch in the bottom-set gillnet fishery in the North sea.
  369

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bull Semen
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries outside the European Union which ban the importation from the UK of bull semen; and what steps have been taken in each case to persuade those countries to lift the ban. [31617]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following countries are known to have banned the importation of bull semen from the UK prior to the introduction of the EC ban:

  Argentina

  Australia

  Bulgaria

  China

  Costa Rica

  Iran

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Kenya

  Mexico

  Paraguay

  United Arab Emirates

  Uruguay

  In addition, the former USSR had imposed a ban. Lithuania and the Ukraine have effectively carried this forward by requiring five-year country freedom from BSE as a condition of import.

  The health conditions for the importation of bull semen into third countries from the United Kingdom are determined by the countries concerned. Prior to the introduction of the EC ban, the Department was conducting negotiations with those countries for which we had trade interest.

  Now that the EC ban—as it affects semen exports—has been lifted, the Department is writing to the veterinary authorities of those third countries to which UK businesses have expressed a wish to resume exports of bull semen.

  Share Fishermen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional payments(a) exist and (b) are planned for supplementary decommissioning awards with compensation for share fishermen who took their jobs when their vessels were laid up. [32535]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 4 June 1996,Official Report, column 437.

  Seeds
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those species of tomato the buying and selling of whose seeds is permitted. [32272]

  Mr. Boswell
  Sale of seed of all species of tomato is permitted in the United Kingdom. However, sale of seed of varieties of tomato species Lycopersicon lycopersicum 370
  (L.) Karsten is controlled by the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982, as amended. The effect of the regulations, which implement EC directives, is that seed of varieties of this particular tomato species may be marketed only if they are on a national list of varieties of vegetable species or the EC "Common Catalogue of Vegetable Varieties."

  There are currently 50 varieties of this tomato species on the UK national list and some 1,500 on the EC common catalogue.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) for what reasons the Butcher's disease-resisting cucumber is omitted from the list of species which are allowed to be commercially bought or sold as seeds; and if he will make a statement; [32276]

  (2) for what reasons the Brown Bath Cos lettuce is omitted from the list of species which are allowed to be commercially bought or sold as seeds; and if he will make a statement. [32275]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982, as amended, which implement EC directives, require a variety on the UK national list or EC common catalogue to have a "maintainer", responsible for maintaining it true to its original description. "Butchers disease-resisting" cucumber and "Brown Bath Cos" lettuce were deleted from the UK national list in July 1986 and April 1979, respectively, because no one could be found to maintain them.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons John's Purple carrot is omitted from the list of species which are allowed to be commercially bought or sold as seeds; and if he will make a statement. [32277]

  Mr. Boswell
  There is no record of a carrot variety "John's purple" being entered as a candidate for the UK national list under this name.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 505, on agricultural systems, if the comparative study his Department is considering of organic farming against conventional farming will include (a) the internalisation of agriculturally derived pollution clear-up and water treatment, (b) energy use, (c) soil erosion, (d) the internalisation of wildlife loss, (e) the impact of the BSE situation and (f) the job creation potential of each system; and if he will make a statement. [32476]

  Mr. Boswell
  Our general aim is to explore over time the relative environmental impact of organic and conventional farming. Because of the complexity of the issues raised, the work we have in mind at this stage is necessarily of a preliminary nature. We need to assess the available methods for comparing farm systems and valuing the differences, so that we have a reliable basis on which to take forward in-depth research. Our current plan is therefore to commission two short-term desk studies on these technical aspects. We will then consider the options for further, substantive work in the light of these initial studies.
  371

  Animal Feedstuffs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the cattle feed manufacturers who(a) now specify the full ingredients of their feeds on packaging and (b) do not do so, identifying those manufacturers who have additionally included the (i) estimated and (ii) actual amount of each ingredient; and if he will make a statement. [32271]

  Mrs. Browning
  The precise information is not available. The Government, however, welcome the recent announcement by the trade organisation that most compounders are to switch to full ingredient listing for most compound feeds at the earliest opportunity. It is estimated that this change will result in some 85 per cent. of compound feed sales being subject to full ingredient listing.

  Land Management
  Mrs. Ann Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage farmers, conservationists and local authorities to work together on land management. [32425]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry has recently established new consultation arrangements to bring together key farming, conservation and local authority interests to work with us in developing our programme of agri-environment schemes. These include. the National Agri-Environment Forum, the first meeting of which I chaired in March, which includes representatives from around 25 major national bodies. We have also established regional agri-environment consultation groups in each of the nine MAFF regions. These groups bring together local farming, conservation and Government bodies to ensure that schemes are responsive to local and regional needs.

  Beef Exports
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnages of British beef were exported to each European Union member country in 1994. [32902]

  Mrs. Browning
  Provisional data on exports of beef from the United Kingdom in 1994, as recorded in the overseas trade statistics, are as follows. Beef originating from the United Kingdom is not separately identifiable.

  Tonnes

  France

  102,030

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  3,960

  Netherlands

  25,135

  Germany

  2,739

  Italy

  21,103

  Irish Republic

  22,893

  Denmark

  2,788

  Greece

  1,025

  Portugal

  1,155

  Spain

  8,421

  Sweden1

  1,176

  Finland1

  31

  Austria

  nil

  Total

  192,456

  1 Countries joining EC in 1995.

  372

  Decommissioned Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the fishing vessels(a) Pict and (b) Sir Fred Parkes were decommissioned; how much was paid by his Department for each; to what (i) company and (ii) liquidator; and who owned the vessels at the time they were decommissioned. [32901]

  Mr. Baldry
  The fishing vessel Pict was decommissioned on 8 August 1986. A total of £728,000 was paid to Hellyer Bros. Ltd. who owned the vessel when it was decommissioned.

  The fishing vessel Sir Fred Parkes was decommissioned on 11 March 1985. £620,000 was paid to Putford Enterprises Ltd. who owned the vessel when it was decommissioned.

  Institute of Animal Health
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Institute for Animal Health at Compton. [32036]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  As I announced on 22 February 1996, the Institute for Animal Health is currently undergoing a prior options review, alongside reviews of other research establishments which carry out research in similar or related fields. I await the outcome of these reviews, which are due to be completed by end-July 1996.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of the United Kingdom Government on safeguarding the welfare of animals being exported to third countries. [32327]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have a long standing policy of permitting the export of food animals only to those countries with standards at least equivalent to those in force within the European Union on the protection of animals during transport and at slaughter.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has received from the Dutch Government in respect of transportation of sheep from the Netherlands on 12 to 16 August 1995 and 5 to 7 September 1995; if he will(a) list and (b) make available the representations he has received on this subject; and what action the Dutch Government have reported to him that they have taken. [32098]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: The details are still under consideration in the Netherlands. We receive many representations about the transport of animals, but records are not kept separately on the number in every category.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to address the problem of discrimination against disabled people in agriculture where the employer is not covered by the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [32267]
  373
  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 13 June 1996]: Employers, including agricultural employers, who employ fewer than 20 employees are not covered by the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Such employers will be encouraged to follow the guidance in the employment code of practice. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment will be deciding when and how to promote this in due course.

  Beef Industry
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received Coopers and Lybrand's second report on the United Kingdom beef industry; and if he will make a statement. [33237]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am placing in the Library copies of Coopers and Lybrand's second report on the United Kingdom beef industry. The report examines the problem of unsaleable stocks in the beef chain against the 374
  background of my statement on 16 April, Official Report column 515, when I said that the Government did not consider that financial assistance equivalent to that being made available to the slaughtering and cutting sectors should be paid to other sectors.

  Coopers and Lybrand notes that many parts of the UK beef industry are entering a period in which realignment and downsizing will take place, but state that they could not suggest any public interest argument to justify Government financial intervention at this stage.

  As foreshadowed in my statement of 16 April, the Government will introduce a scheme to support the disposal and, where necessary, the storage of unsaleable beef and beef products held in the supply chain outside the slaughtering sector. This aims to help rebuild market confidence and ensure that appropriate disposal methods are used in the interests of the environment and public health. My Department will shortly issue a consultation document asking for expressions of interest in the scheme. It will be entirely voluntary and no payments will be made to companies for ownership of the stocks.

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

Cairn Gorm: Funicular Development
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the strong and conflicting views that are held by supporters and opponents of the present form of the proposal for a funicular development on Cairn Gorm; and what plans they have to enable a resolution of the issues concerned.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my right honourable friend is aware from correspondence that he has received that the proposal for a funicular development on Cairn Gorm has generated many comments for and against the development. Resolution of the issues concerned is a matter for Highland Council, as planning authority, in conjunction with other interested parties.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that well-informed observers believe that a modified version could meet many of the environmental objections while still improving the prospects for tourism and employment? As the Government are nominating the area to be a world heritage site, have they considered appointing an independent mediator to help the parties reach a solution since planning procedures alone seem too rigid to assimilate all the relevant factors or to identify possible areas of agreement?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend's comments concerning the
2
rigidity of the planning rules and regulations. I believe that planning procedures are sufficiently comprehensive and flexible to deal with this kind of application. My noble friend also mentioned a modified project. Consideration of any alternative proposal is essentially a matter for the applicant.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that neither the proposed monitoring system nor the environmental targets for the application have yet been fully developed? Does he not agree that it would be foolish in the extreme to go ahead without them? Is the Minister further aware that approval of the development would probably lead to a permanent refusal of the designation of this site as a world heritage site? Surely we would all wish to see the site so designated and would not want to see an application rejected because of lack of care?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I do not necessarily agree with the noble Baroness's comments about the world heritage site. Development is not incompatible with world heritage site listing. The requirement is to ensure that development is not incompatible with maintaining the outstanding natural heritage value of the Cairngorms. The noble Baroness asked whether the development would be in contradiction of the development of the SAC and SPA in that area. If the Section 50 visitor management plan is agreed to, Scottish Natural Heritage is satisfied that the terms of the directive will be complied with.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the alternative proposal for a visitor centre at low level down by Loch Morlich serving the Corrie Cas area with a gondola has certain advantages over the funicular proposal? It would keep the general mass of visitors off the fragile habitat of the summit and the Cairn Gorm plateau; the new visitor centre would be easily accessed because of its low level at a mere 1,100

3
feet above sea level; and it would facilitate the bypassing of the snowdrifts, which often cause the ski lifts to be closed due to inaccessibility?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, as regards the alternative scheme which has been put forward by the Save the Cairngorms and Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link's report, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware that it recommends an outline feasibility study for the construction of a gondola from Glenmore to Corrie Cas, the replacement and modernisation of scheme facilities and their associated works. However, those alternative proposals do not form part of the application currently before the Highland Council and therefore do not fall to be considered in that context.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the chairlift company concerned is said to be looking for about £10 million of public funds out of a total of £16.5 million for the project and that most if not all of that money could be invested in other Highland and Island development projects? Given the highly contentious nature of the project, not least because it appears on authoritative estimates to be between nine and 20 times more expensive per direct job created compared with what is normal in the Highlands, will he ask his noble friend who would normally have replied to the Question to satisfy himself that that level of public expenditure is justified? If so, will the Government publish their findings?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister always takes a keen interest in what is said in this House when he is unable to be here. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned a number of points relating to the cost of the proposed development which is before the planning authority of the Highland Council. Planning consent has not yet been granted and work is being carried on concerning the Section 50 visitor management programme. Until that agreement has been made under legally binding contract and planning consent is granted the sums to be invested cannot be firmly established.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising the Question. However, if I may say so, I believe that the Minister was, perhaps, a little too casual about the matter. We are talking about a most important development; indeed, a large amount of public money will be involved. Moreover, as my noble friend Lady Nicol said, it is a site of international importance. Therefore, will the Minister take the issue back to his department and consider the possibility of an independent examination? Some of the development carried out in the Aviemore area was rather disappointing. I believe that we should try to stop any development of that nature on this particular site.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, it is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, thinks that I have been casual in my answers. There was certainly no intention on my part to be so. As regards an independent inquiry
4
under planning legislation, I believe that the noble Lord has in mind a proposal for a public local inquiry under the chairmanship of an independent planning reporter appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The outstanding issues in relation to the current application are already being addressed by the Highland Council, the developer and other interests. While a public local inquiry under an independent reporter remains a possibility, none is envisaged at this stage.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in reply to a question from the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, my noble friend the Minister said that the alternative suggested was not being considered because it was not in the application. Does that not illustrate the point that I made; namely, that the ordinary planning procedures are too rigid for a case of this dimension?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, for an individual project to be considered by the planning authority, such a project must be put before it. I am sure that those concerned are aware of the report, as, indeed, is my noble friend the Minister.

Road Users: Acts of Violence
2.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What contacts they have had with the Association of Chief Police Officers about acts of violence between road users known as "road rage".
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my officials have held meetings with the ACPO Traffic Committee and are considering with that committee what further measures to deal with the problem might be necessary in addition to those already available under the criminal law.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does the noble Baroness agree that, if the opinion of people from other countries is anything to go by, we still have, overall, a fairly civilised pattern of behaviour on our roads—that is, as regards good manners and the general good usage of our roads—but that a small minority are spoiling it for us all? Is there no way in which the Government, perhaps together with organisations like the AA and the RAC, can stimulate some kind of action or campaign to stop people reacting so quickly and so violently to perceived or actual provocation? It seems that to some extent the rude finger sign and the flashing of headlights have now been overtaken by direct action, with people getting out of their cars and engaging in activities which can lead to unhappy and violent results.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount in that we have to consider perception. Most of the people who drive on our roads are law-abiding citizens. I also have to say that I do not believe that the term "road rage" is helpful in that it tends to glamorise

5
such activity. In my view it is nothing short of unacceptable violent and criminal behaviour carried out, as the noble Viscount said, by very few people.
As to what is being done and what more can be done, I can tell the House that discussions are being held involving the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Department of Transport, the AA and the RAC, together with insurance companies which can also bring pressure to bear. The Department of Transport has produced guidance for learner drivers which it is hoped will be incorporated in the Highway Code. Indeed, it is also hoped that some of the questions forming part of the driving test will refer to behaviour on the roads. I understand that the AA and the RAC have produced guidance, some in written form, and that there is even a video which is aimed at younger drivers.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether this is entirely a male problem?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to say yes to my noble friend's question, but I understand that we females are becoming pretty aggressive in our driving, although I hope that we fall a long way short of criminal behaviour. Nevertheless, we are at least on a par with our partners.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether she read the reported case last week where someone developed road rage because another motorist was travelling too slowly? Further, can my noble friend bear such a situation in mind and perhaps ask the Department of Transport to instruct drivers who drive slowly to use the slow lane on a motorway? I believe that many people are provoked by other motorists who drive slowly and steadily in the centre lane, thus creating a danger to other traffic and, indeed, the build up of a considerable amount of irritation as regards other drivers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has made a most important point. Indeed, I expect that that will be part of the guidance which will feature in the Highway Code and form part of the questioning for those taking driving tests.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness aware that that is no excuse for what is no more nor less than common assault, and that the separation and naming of a particular form of assault is probably not beneficial to the victim? Indeed it is arguable that the separation of rape from common assault has not been beneficial to women.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the important thing is that the law is adequate to deal with this offence. This is not just a road traffic offence; it is common assault. There is a large number of traffic offences such as speeding, dangerous driving, careless driving, drinking and taking drugs while driving, causing a danger to road users, refusing to give a name or address when stopped, and inconsiderate driving. In addition there is a large number of offences under the criminal law such as attempted murder, manslaughter—all of which we have seen on our roads—murder, common assault, making
6
threats to kill, wounding with intent, malicious wounding and using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards a person with intent to cause that person to believe immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or her. I believe it is that side of the law which probably applies to many of the cases we have read about recently.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, as regards the guidance that my noble friend says will be incorporated in the Highway Code, is it possible that that could be sent to those of us who have not looked at the Highway Code for 30 years or so since we took our tests?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, at least I am honest about it. There is one way of achieving my proposal. Each year we are sent a letter from the licensing authority about taxing our cars. Could not one simple sheet of paper be attached to that to give guidance to those of us not taking a driving test or reading the Highway Code?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I recognise the honesty of my noble friend. I think, as she spoke, there were probably some guilty faces around the Chamber. The Department of Transport has already issued its guidance. The intention is that it should be incorporated in the next edition of the Highway Code. The other suggestion that my noble friend made was a rather good one; namely, that we could all receive guidance when we renew our licences. I shall pass on those comments to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that I agree with her wish not to glamorise this behaviour by calling it road rage or any other apparently acceptable phrase? Will she use her best endeavours to ensure that certainly Members of Parliament and Ministers do not use the term, and if possible ensure that the press do not use the term because it constitutes a kind of excuse for this behaviour?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we can exhort people not to use the term. I do not know that I have that much control over Members of Parliament and I have absolutely none at all over the press.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that one of the triggers for road rage—this is not an excusable trigger—is the fact that so many motorists insist on giving improper warning signals of what they intend to do and, even worse, invite other people to take action as a result of their signals? Could not the Highway Code be strengthened in its prohibition of unnecessary and damaging signals?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on those comments. I understand that all of those points are being taken on board by the group of people who are meeting to determine what can be done next. The noble Lord makes an important point.

Berkshire: Unitary Authorities
2.53 p.m.
Lord Bancroft Lord Bancroft asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they still intend to implement their proposals for splitting the Royal County of Berkshire into six unitary authorities; and, if so, what is their latest estimate of the costs involved.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): Yes, my Lords. We intend to lay an order tomorrow conferring unitary powers on the six Berkshire district councils. The Royal County of Berkshire will remain. The first bids from the authorities concerned suggest that transitional costs may be between £16 million and £20 million in the year preceding reorganisation.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for that uncharacteristically disobliging reply. Is he aware that the decision to dismember, to the point of destruction, the Royal County will cause dismay and strong opposition, especially in this Chamber, when the separate order and its accompanying O'Hagan amendment come to be debated? As to extra costs, would he care to comment on the latest extra costs which are transitional costs of £6 million a year in years four to 10 and continuing extra costs of between £18 million and £20 million a year, making a total of £25 million a year, or an additional £90 a year for the average council tax payer in Berkshire?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord should have found it a disobliging Answer. I know that he is concerned about what happens in Berkshire, as indeed are a number of noble Lords. However, he will recall that it was the local government reorganisation commission which discussed whether there should be a change or whether there should be unitary authorities. It went out to consultation on the basis of four bodies, and Berkshire County Council at that time supported that proposal. Five bodies were then recommended and for reasons of which the noble Lord will be aware my right honourable friend decided on six. The noble Lord will also know that that proposal has had the widespread support of all Members of Parliament, with the possible exception of one Liberal Democrat who decided to support his own district of Newbury. I suggest it would be quite wrong that that should have been overturned by my right honourable friend, who has taken the advice of an independent review and also of local Members of Parliament.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this matter was most carefully considered in great detail and that the decision arrived at is accepted by most people in the area as being sensible?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point. When there is a change, some people become upset. However, a number of people have accepted the change that is proposed. All
8
those in another place who are representatives of the people have also accepted it. The best course is to try to make it work.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that there is no intention to abolish the Royal County of Berkshire; the intention is to abolish the county council of Berkshire as recommended by the Local Government Commission? Is he aware, in so far as the costs are concerned, that the county council has arrived at these without discussion and has refused any discussion at all with the six district authorities? Indeed, the compilation is such as to make it extremely suspect and unreliable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord was quite right to refer to his first point. I meant to make that point to the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, but I failed to do so. The Royal County of Berkshire remains; it is only the county council which is being abolished.
The noble Lord also referred to costs as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. The only figures which are available—and they are reasonable—are the bids which have been submitted on the basis of the changes being made during next year. In fact the changes will be made in the year thereafter and new bids will have to be submitted. It will be a matter for the new unitary authorities to make savings where they can.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my appreciation of his right honourable friend's courtesy in receiving a deputation on this subject towards the end of last week has now been considerably watered down by this decision? Is he further aware that to reserve for Berkshire alone, among the 36 shire counties, the fate of total dismemberment will come as a sharp and unpleasant shock to the traditional supporters of this Government within the county of Berkshire?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know that my noble friend met my right honourable friend, who listened carefully to what he and those in his delegation said. However, one has to make a decision. My noble friend says that many people will not like the decision—I accept that some people will not like it—but plenty of people will like it. I repeat that the independent Local Government Commission has made its recommendations. All the Members of another place agreed with that decision. My noble friend now asks my right honourable friend to overturn the decision. If it had been a Labour area and the independent commission had suggested an all-unitary structure and all the Labour Members of Parliament agreed with it, if my right honourable friend then decided to overturn the decision, one can imagine the hoo-ha that would arise.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in a recent MORI poll 73 per cent. of the population of the Royal County of Berkshire were against these proposals?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I suggest that MORI polls are dangerous to quote. I can quote some MORI polls

9
which give another view. But we should then be bandying figures around. I think that we should leave it at that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm to the House that for three years, up until last year, Berkshire County Council campaigned for its own abolition? Will the Minister also confirm that in its evidence to the Local Government Commission review Berkshire County Council submitted that,
"All councils, including the county council, recognise that unitary authorities are the best way of delivering services in Berkshire".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it gives me the most enormous pleasure to agree with the noble Baroness—which does not often occur. But she is absolutely right. The Berkshire County Council campaigned for unitary status. For some funny reason it changed its mind. It has now whipped up a quite enthusiastic campaign against such status. Why it changed its mind, I do not know, and I doubt whether the noble Baroness knows.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, perhaps I may join the campaign to support Berkshire County Council. Will the effectiveness of the county council's social service responsibilities benefit from the change, especially as regards the control of child abuse, the ability to organise adoption and looking after those with special educational needs and, dare I mention it, dyslexia?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we expect the new unitary authorities to work as independent organisations. However, there will be times when unitary authorities will have to work together. My noble friend has given some examples. I refer also to schools for children who are backward. On such occasions the district councils may have to work together. I have no reason to believe that they will not.

Montserrat: Volcanic Eruption
3.2 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the economic and human situation in Montserrat following the recent volcanic eruption.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, most people have had to leave their homes in the south of the island of Montserrat and are staying with friends and relatives, or in the improvised accommodation in the north. The present relocation is likely to be prolonged. The economy has been seriously disrupted. The British Government are providing £16.5 million in assistance and have made special arrangements for the entry of Montserratians who wish to come to the United Kingdom.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that informative Answer. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that Montserrat is a British dependent territory, and that Her Majesty's Government bear a direct line of responsibility for the welfare of its people, if not for the actual volcano.
10
As the noble Baroness said, some 5,000 people from the more prosperous and fertile southern part of the island have been resettled in temporary shelter in the north. They are reluctant to leave Montserrat because it is their home. What plans have the Government permanently to develop the economy and infrastructure of the northern part of the island? It may well be the only safe and habitable area for many years even if the current eruption simmers down.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for not blaming the Government for the volcano erupting. However, joking apart, it is a very serious situation which has continued for nearly 11 months. The people of Montserrat have suffered sorely from it. I wish to pay tribute to their stoicism in the face of this continual cloud of volcanic dust which seems to hang across the island.
About 4,500 people have gone from the south to the north. About 1,500 people still on the border of the safe zone might have to be removed to the north should the drift of the volcano's ashes turn further northward.
In the first place we set up temporary accommodation. However, it has become clear that although the Chief Minister of Montserrat arranged the accommodation, more now has to be done. We have a full-time engineer there, plus other staff, helping the governor. We are taking the help of a number of specialist engineers. Some from Her Majesty's services have been assisting there. As did my right honourable friend, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, last week on a visit there, we are considering what further assistance must be given. We are following a twin track approach, allowing people to come to the United Kingdom for up to two years if they wish—to work, we hope, if they can find work—or through the aid programme supporting those who stay on the island.
The provision of more than £16.5 million in total for something under 10,000 people is a significant help. With the Government of Montserrat—they are responsible, although it is a dependent territory—we are considering what more can be done to help people gain a livelihood in the north and better living accommodation.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are so many things for which to blame the Government that we do not yet have to resort to blaming them for volcanoes.
I do not believe that the Minister answered my noble friend's Question. However, we need to consider the long-term future of Montserrat by securing a less dependent economy if those who are now leaving are to return. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government are now doing to promote an economy which is less dependent than at present?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, obviously the long-term future must be worked out with the Government of Montserrat. They are an elected government. They have made it clear that they wish to maintain Montserrat as a viable community. We shall support them in that. Those who are resident there who wish to move permanently to the north will be helped to do so. But it must be the decision of the Government

11
of Montserrat as well as of the Government of the United Kingdom. One cannot take decisions away from people who are elected and will soon stand in the north for re-election. That factor is very important indeed.
While final decisions cannot yet be made, work is going on and the help that the people of Montserrat need is being given to them by people well qualified to do so and with a greater knowledge of the situation than I have.

Royal Assent
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act,

Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act,

London Regional Transport Act,

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act,

Arbitration Act,

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Act.

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Arrangements for making grants]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 6, after ("may") insert (", by or in accordance with regulations,"}.
The noble Lord said: This amendment heads a composite group in which Amendment No. 2 is the most important. Depending on the Minister's response, I may need at the end of the debate to move that amendment to a Division. I may also wish to come back at a later stage to other amendments such as Amendments Nos. 6, 13, 16 or 31.
I set the scene for what may be a long day's night with some words from the much underrated poet, Hilaire Belloc, who wrote:
"Godolphin Horne was Nobly Born:
He held the Human Race in Scorn …
Alas! That such Affected Tricks
Should flourish in a Child of Six"!
12
I hasten to add, for the benefit of noble Lords opposite, that that is not confined to the aristocracy in any way whatever and should be held as a comment upon the whole of the human race at the age of six. But, as the twig is bent, so will the branch grow; and education in the earliest years of our lives is perhaps more significant, more important than at any other stage when the mind is wax to receive and marble to retain.
Still, we make no apology for spending some time on this scheme, and particularly in asking for serious consideration of the need to take this whole business at a responsible and respectable rate. In the terms of the Latin tag, festina lente—let us make haste slowly; because what is decided among us today and on the day we come to the Report stage will have a most significant effect on a very large number of young people. So Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 6, 13, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and even so late an amendment as Amendment No. 84, which I hope we shall reach before dawn, are of great significance.
The second amendment in this group would require the Secretary of State to proceed by order in making arrangements to make grants under the Bill. Under the terms of Amendment No. 84, relating to the powers attached to Clause 7, such an order would then be,
"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
The purpose is to require a further round of parliamentary scrutiny before the arrangements are put in place to enable the scheme to proceed. As the Bill stands, Ministers may proceed to impose it at any stage after Royal Assent and to make the arrangements to introduce the main schemes without any further parliamentary consideration.
It occurs to me that it is an odd Bill in so many ways. It is called the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. But it is the word "voucher" that seems to be the cause of all the churning trouble in the nation at the present moment. A number of noble Lords tell me that their postbags are stuffed, crammed, pressed down, shaken together and running over with complaints from all over the country about nursery vouchers. They, like me, are mildly surprised that the Bill simply talks about the Secretary of State's power to make some sort of "arrangements". An examination of all the little pamphlets that emanate from the DFEE shows the scheme to be very closely argued, whether you like it or not, in relation to the issue redemption, use, value and inspection of vouchers. But there it is. That is the form in which it has come before us. It has been before the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. After a certain amount of care and thought and much correspondence and to-ing and fro-ing with the DFEE, the committee feels that it is probably all right the way that it stands. However, given the uncertainty surrounding the scheme and its practical effect in the pilot areas—the committee will forgive me if I refer to "pilot areas" instead of "phase one areas"; the two terms seem to have become inextricably intertwined—which is as yet unproven, it

13
is argued by us that Parliament should have a further opportunity, having as it were conceded the principle of nursery vouchers, to consider at what point it is wise to proceed to the main scheme.
Amendment No. 6 requires the Secretary of State, in proceeding with the main scheme, to have regard to the results of any evaluation conducted in advance. That links with Amendment No. 13 which prevents the Secretary of State from proceeding with the main scheme before he has laid in front of Parliament an evaluation of the operation of the pilot over a full 12-month period. That amendment is designed to draw together the many strands of ongoing evaluation—to which I shall return—to which the department has drawn attention in debates so far, but to require that evaluation applies to the full period of the pilot, and for it to be made coherent and published in Parliament so that we can all have a look at it. Evaluation would thus become a public rather than a private process, although nothing in the amendment would impede the work which the department has already put in train to assess the pilots in their middle and later stages. It is just that the matter should not depend on what happens to churn up in Norfolk or other places during the next couple of months before that has been set in a full context.
The Government may argue that the amendment would introduce an element of delay since the full evaluation could not be completed until after 31st March 1997. But the logic of the Government's position, having started pilot schemes which are already in operation as parliamentary approval is sought, would be that those pilots ought to be allowed to run their course and a proper judgment be made as to their success or failure, strengths or weaknesses, and what lessons are to be learnt before the main scheme proceeds. Festina lente—make haste slowly.
The amendment in no way cuts against the purpose of the Bill, which, incidentally, contains no date for the main scheme to start. No date is mentioned. It merely introduces what we consider to be an orderly timetable born of the logic of the Government's policy so far which places the Bill and the parliamentary approval they seek into a proper framework. It seems to us that the onus is on the Government and the Minister to convince us that the process must go through at this breakneck speed and that evaluation is not necessary before implementation for some reason which produces the date at a point where it comes absolutely at the end of the pilot scheme.
Evaluation has been discussed before. The key point was encapsulated by the Secretary of State when she said on 19th March 1996:
"We shall evaluate exactly how the scheme works as phase I proceeds".
In other words, the evaluation will start and finish before the pilots are concluded.
But other things have been said. Ministers have committed themselves to evaluating a pretty fair range of issues. The evaluation is to include reports from the autumn, with the chief inspector being invited to report on phase one as a whole before it finishes. The second
14
issue is publicity and public information for parents, which presumably can be gathered before the scheme is complete. Thirdly, I quote the noble Lord the Minister:
"We need to evaluate the benefits to children's later educational performance".—[Official Report, 20/5/96; col. 717.]
On any ordinary reading of those words it seems that those "benefits" to their "later performance" could hardly be evaluated in any sensible way until some time had passed and the benefits or disbenefits to their future educational performance had been at least investigated. Presumably they will be investigated before phase one finishes.
Fourthly, Ministers will evaluate how effectively forms reach parents. That is probably all right. It can be done within the 12-month period. The fifth issue relates to how vouchers are issued, collected and redeemed. That is more complex but, with enough person power and resources, something can perhaps be done. Sixthly, they will evaluate how effectively vouchers create new provision. That, I submit, is much more difficult. Although I believe it is an undisputed fact that, so far, very few other providers have crept out of the woodwork and set up their stalls, it may very well be that that will come on stream very much faster in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth months of the phase one pilot scheme and be much more difficult to evaluate as it actually happens.
Seventhly, do the Government propose to evaluate whether the voucher is set at a right value or not? Of course we shall have a great deal more to say about that. Once again, how much easier it will be to do if the pilot scheme has run its course.
Eighthly, there is the impact of special needs pupils. That again is going to be extremely difficult to evaluate because special needs pupils will need to be evaluated as a group and over a period. Those things cannot be done on a snapshot basis.
Ninthly, the Government have said that they will evaluate safeguards against fraud. That may be possible within a 12-month period but I have serious doubts about that.
In the circumstances it is clear that Ministers accept the need for a wide evaluation. What they have so far refused to accept, and what our amendments in this group hope to convince them of, is that it should be thorough; that it should be based on the full year's experience in the pilot areas; and, if possible, that it should be published.
The Government are running four pilot schemes or phase one schemes from 1st April 1996 to test the workings of the nursery voucher proposals in three London boroughs: the City of Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea, and in the County of Norfolk. The plan now is that the main scheme should be introduced from the 1st April 1997, with vouchers being issued (according to the schools Minister) before the general election due by May 1997. As things stand there is no relationship between the ending of the pilot schemes and the launch of the main scheme, since the Bill as proposed enables Ministers to introduce the main scheme without any further preconditions at any date they choose.
The original purpose of creating pilot schemes seems to have been side-stepped in order to hurry this timetable for issuing nursery vouchers. I hope that the Minister will explain that when he comes to reply to this first debate because, as we see it—I approach this delicately—regardless of what may happen at a general election, the issue of nursery vouchers is not going to be helped by being rushed. If the Labour Party were returned with a respectable majority, we are quite clear what we would do: we would honour the existing vouchers and issue no more. If the Conservative Party were returned with a suitable majority it would simply carry on with the scheme as it has inaugurated it. Why the unseemly rush?
The latest government document Nursery Education Scheme: the Next Steps which was published on 9th January 1996 seems to me to invert the logic of holding pilot schemes at all by arguing that:
"Full evaluation must await the bedding down of the full scheme".
On that basis a full evaluation of a pilot scheme seems to be impossible in any circumstances.
I would make one thing very clear. This amendment is not intended, nor would it function, as a wrecking amendment. It would have the effect of preventing the Government from introducing the main scheme before a full year of the pilot scheme has elapsed, plus a short period for the evaluation and the laying before Parliament of a report. The effect of the amendment, if agreed, would be, on the Government's own logic, to enable the voucher proposal to proceed in a more effective manner. The amendment would require an order to be agreed by Parliament before the main scheme could be started, but the timing involved differs very little from that announced by Mr. Squire in launching the scheme on 2nd November 1995. In practice an order could still be laid before a general election held at the end of the Parliament, although it might be thought more proper for the subject to be a matter of debate at the general election in the light of the pilot schemes, and for the new government of whatever party then to decide whether to proceed. The crucial point is that Parliament would be empowered by being given a vote on the order if prayed against.
If I may draw all that together, this group of amendments points the way for the Government to run, as they claim they will, successful pilot schemes which can demonstrate in practice how the vouchers will work. It offers the Government the opportunity to seek a public affirmation of the value of the scheme after a one-year experiment endorsed by Parliament and introduced after proper consideration. No doubt the pilots will yield experience which will be very useful to civil servants in the private planning of the main scheme, but there will be no opportunity either to demonstrate their success or for Parliament to apply the brakes if the train appears to Parliament to be heading directly for the buffers. The Government should then in our view seriously consider whether this amendment
16
does not offer the opportunity significantly to improve the credibility of their policy for the expansion of nursery education. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for explaining the set of amendments so fully. I am particularly grateful, because I returned from a 12-day official visit to China only late last night, and have spent my time since then trying to come to terms with all that has happened in relation to amendments to the Bill since I left. I am also grateful that he explained it so fully because I do not need to do so, and can be much briefer. I am very conscious that my body clock tells me that it is now coming up to half-past ten at night and I hope very much to be home before my body clock tells me it is time for breakfast.
The two essential points of all these amendments are, first, that a full evaluation must be carried out before we go ahead nationwide; and, secondly (and equally importantly), that Parliament must have an opportunity to debate, discuss and decide upon it before it goes ahead nationally. It seems to me (we spoke of this on Second Reading) that a full evaluation of the pilot projects is absolutely essential. I can see no point whatsoever in establishing pilot projects if we are not going to be given the opportunity to learn something from them. When the Next Steps document, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred just now, says that a full evaluation is not possible before the full scheme has been allowed time to bed down, I worry about what the Government have in mind.
We accept of course that a full and in depth evaluation of the effects over time of an extension of early years' learning can be possible only after it has been in operation for some time. There is a whole range of other very important matters about which we are learning through the implementation of the pilot projects—indeed, that is why the pilot projects were established in the first place—and on which we need to have a report in order to be able to consider, discuss and debate them before the full scheme is inflicted on the country. There is a range of important issues about which we need to know before we apply the scheme to the country. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has already mentioned most of that in more detail than I would wish to do.
We need to look at whether the whole bureaucratic process is necessary (and even if it is, whether it is working effectively), and what are the administrative costs going to be. It has been suggested by the Government that the administrative costs of applying the whole scheme in 108 local education authorities is only four times that of applying it in the four pilot project areas. As leader of a local education authority I find that somewhat hard to believe and would certainly wish to see more evidence of it.
There is much concern—we will return to this later today, I am sure—about the scheme's possible effects on special educational needs and their provision. We will return also to the effects on capital and training,

17
three year-olds, and so on. Those are all matters upon which we need to have some evaluation as well as the actual administrative process of the pilot schemes.
I believe that it has been properly established that as we are having pilot projects before we launch a nationwide scheme, we need properly to consider a full evaluation of those pilot projects. Otherwise, what is the purpose of having them in the first place? We might just as well have gone to the whole scheme.
The second point relates to parliamentary approval, by whatever means suggested. The amendments cover a number of different ways of achieving that. The main point at this stage is not necessarily how we do it, but that we do it at all. It is important that before we go nationwide Parliament should have an opportunity to debate and consider the evaluation, and then to debate and approve the arrangements and the enormous power being given to the Secretary of State to implement such a scheme.
On Second Reading in this Chamber some reference was made to whether we had learned nothing from the lessons of the poll tax. The poll tax was implemented despite dire warnings from virtually everyone involved with local government finance, be they professionals, politicians or indeed the public. The Government went ahead regardless. I have been thinking since then that a better comparison might be with the national curriculum, which is basically a desirable objective—a good idea—as most people in your Lordships' House believe that the extension of early years' learning is a desirable objective. The national curriculum was rushed and introduced with too little regard for the many concerns and criticisms that were expressed about it. We have spent years since then not merely suffering from the effects of that rush but undoing the damage that need not have been done had there been a more careful consideration in the first place. We should learn the lesson from that.
There is much concern expressed by professionals, by people working in the scheme and by politicians about the implementation of the suggested nursery voucher scheme. We need to listen to it. That is why we need the evaluation and why Parliament must have the opportunity to decide before the scheme goes nationwide. A refusal to allow such an evaluation to be considered and the scheme to be given approval by Parliament, which must seem a logical and sensible process, can only lead to one conclusion; namely, that this Government are more concerned to push vouchers through the voters' letterboxes before the general election than to provide an extension of good quality early-years learning.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I attend this debate at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I wrote him a note to say that I would listen to the merits of the argument and, if they appealed, I should support him. I am afraid that I cannot do so. I have listened with great care to what has been said. I am not concerned with the poll tax, nor with the national curriculum, nor with paving the way to an electoral victory for my party
18
at the next election. But I am concerned with the merits of this argument.
As to those merits, I refer the Committee to Clauses 1 to 3. In Clause 1 the Secretary of State has very wide powers to make arrangements for making grants, which is in no way restricted by Clauses 2 and 3. There is inbuilt in that power almost unlimited flexibility, which is a far more sensible proposal than the limitations proposed in any of the series of grouped amendments that I have read.
This is not a wrecking amendment; it is accepted that it has a significant effect—the whole object of the provisions is to have a significant effect; and it is not at all in conflict with the purpose of the Bill. But all legislation is experimental. I cannot recall—perhaps some Member of the Committee will help me—any precedent for this type of double-take, especially where there is inbuilt flexibility in the master clause.
I apologise for taking time, but those are my reasons for not being able to support the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: In this group of amendments, I speak principally to those tabled in my name; namely, Amendments Nos. 2, 6, 13 and 84.
When I was in the education service as a teacher in the independent and maintained sectors and later as an education officer with Leicestershire and Oxfordshire LEAs, I used to note with professional interest how little in the way of solid evidence often underlay people's perceptions of educational issues, whether it was the issue of selective versus comprehensive schools or simply the reputation of one school compared with another. In the same way, the teaching profession would come into and go out of public favour on a tide which was often just a matter of fashion and political opinion.
We are witnessing a particularly violent swing of the pendulum at the moment. If I had been able to be present at Second Reading, which unfortunately I was not, I should have said a few words on this subject and entered a plea for a substratum of measurable facts to inform future debates on education. A great deal of nonsense is being talked in some quarters and it is doing much damage.
The relevance of the present amendments is precisely that they give us an opportunity to introduce some firm evidence into a controversial area. I do not believe that we can rely on the kind of flexibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has just referred. We need something a great deal more specific. In common with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I believe that something has gone wrong with the original idea of a pilot scheme. It is very significant that it now appears under the name "phase one". How can Parliament properly agree to the main scheme before the evidence from the pilot—like the noble Lord, I shall call it that—is properly in? We need to know so many things. I shall not go through them because they have already been dealt with, except perhaps to mention the special needs situation and how pupils are faring there, which is of particular importance, and also whether new provision is effectively being created. I gather that evidence for the latter is not at the moment very encouraging.

19
In the matter of educational reforms over the past 16 years there has sometimes been a tendency to legislate first and do the thinking afterwards. Not surprisingly, that has had some fairly unhappy results. We have already heard the key one in the area of the national curriculum and testing, which the noble Lord highlighted, as well as others in the local management of schools, arrangements for schools opting out and so on. Why must we rush yet another reform? Let us for once have a proper evaluation before going ahead with a plan which will shake up the whole approach to nursery education.
I said that I used to be in the educational field. I now find myself dealing rather more with health care matters. In the medical world professionals try to advance on the basis of discovered fact. They do not always succeed but at least evidence based medicine is a laudable aim. I believe that it is time for some evidence based education. For that reason I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Young: I too want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for writing to me about the purpose of his amendments. I read his letter with great interest. However, I must tell him that I cannot support these amendments. In effect, he and his colleagues are saying that they want to delay the introduction of the scheme for a year. They have adduced a number of arguments for doing so. But, although my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that this amendment is not a wrecking amendment, anybody reading the amendments and those which follow from them subsequently will recognise that that is exactly what it is.
I find it absolutely astonishing. I believe I can honestly say that I have taken part in every single education Bill that has come before this Chamber, certainly since 1979, if not since 1971 when I first entered this Chamber. There has hardly been a time when there has not been a plea for nursery education. from all parts of the Chamber. There has been no need—as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said—for all kinds of evidence to tell us that it is a good thing. Everybody has agreed that it is a good thing. What prevented it being done, by either my own party or the Labour Party when the Labour Government were in office in the 1970s, was the cost of the scheme. That is what prevented it. Nobody disagreed with the principle.
Now there is a scheme before us which will provide nursery education. But, instead of an acceptance that it is something which will help thousands of children from one end of the country to another, there is a proposal to delay it. We are told that we should find out more information about what is going on, as though somehow there were not any nursery schools in the country at large either in the maintained or the independent sector. But of course they have been in existence in most education authorities for years and operating very successfully.
I find the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, extraordinary in that, were there to be a Labour Government, they would support the four pilot
20
schemes that have already been started, but would not have any more. Either one believes in these things or one does not. I suspect that what lies behind this series of amendments is the fact that, despite all the fine words, neither a Labour nor a Liberal Democrat authority has been prepared to try it out.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I should perhaps state that I did not say precisely what she said I said. I said that, in the event of a Labour Government coming to power, we would honour the existing issued vouchers, but we would issue no more. That does not mean that in the four pilot boroughs the scheme would go on for ever; we would simply issue no more vouchers.
Baroness Young: I apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood him and of course I withdraw my remarks. The fact remains that, even though the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, says that today, we all know that the Labour Party—I believe he is speaking for New Labour—has changed its mind on virtually every single educational issue and it will only be a matter of time before it changes its mind on this.
I never thought that I would live to see the day when the Leader of the Labour Party would support streaming and setting in schools. I find that an astonishing statement, as someone who served on a local education authority and has been an education Minister. It has changed its mind on many other matters and it will change its mind on this one.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I must once again correct the noble Baroness. The Labour Party has not supported streaming; it has supported setting. They are entirely different things, as anyone who has either experienced them or taught in schools will know. The difference between them is distinct. What is more, the noble Baroness is right in saying that a lot of this has gone on for some time. Setting is something which my children went through between the ages of seven and 11, and that was a very long time ago.
Baroness Warnock: I should like to say something which is not as political as the arguments so far put forward.
Lord Henley: Is the noble Baroness intervening in my noble friend's speech? I do not believe that my noble friend has finished her remarks. Or is the noble Baroness making her own intervention now?
Baroness Warnock: I put my name to this amendment and was supporting it for its own sake. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has not finished speaking, I shall of course sit down.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I had not finished speaking. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I am delighted that his children were in classes that were set. I have no doubt that they did extremely well in school and they will be grateful for something of which he can be justly proud.

21
However, the noble Lord knows as well as I do—I know the difference between streaming and setting—that the problem arises when one has to decide in a school who is to be set and what are the criteria. Like so many things said by New Labour, all the small print is left unsaid and people are left with a vague idea that the kind of things they have wanted for a long time will come to pass.
To return to the Bill, it is extraordinary that all those who for so long supported nursery education should be against this Bill. Nursery vouchers give responsibility to the parents. That is something I thought we all wanted to see—people taking a greater interest in their children's education; parents taking part in the decision-making. What is so immensely encouraging about the four schemes in operation is that 80 per cent. of the parents in the four areas have now applied for vouchers. That is a tremendous proportion of parents seeking vouchers. We all accept that not every parent wants their child to go to a nursery, and that is their free choice. It shows that the scheme is immensely popular.
We also heard from the Pre-School Learning Alliance that over 94 per cent. of pre-schools have registered for vouchers and 80 per cent. believe that parents value the vouchers. I am sure that those facts are right. It is an opportunity, as a parent, to choose with the voucher where one will send one's child for nursery education. It is an opportunity for there to be an expansion of nursery education, which we all want to see and which I should have thought would be widely welcomed.
I received a letter, as I am sure did many other noble Lords, from the leader of Wandsworth council making it quite clear that this particular scheme is extremely popular with parents. It has been widely accepted, with a great many schools, including voluntary-aided Church schools, now considering adding nursery departments to their schools. I should have thought that all that was to be welcomed. What would be gained by putting the scheme off for a year? We have the information. It is not as though we are deciding to introduce nursery schools for the first time.
Lord Ogmore: Perhaps I can interrupt the noble Baroness and make a point about universal acclamation for nursery vouchers. I received correspondence through the post from various constituents throughout the country and from Wales who are adamant about the nursery voucher scheme. They want at least to delay it or want a pilot scheme before going into it. They are concerned at the detrimental effect it will have on very young children.
Baroness Young: The noble Lord is raising a point which comes up on a subsequent amendment in relation to elections for those schools. I will give the noble Lord an opportunity to come back if he would like to, but I should like to answer his question.
The whole point is that, as we discovered with grant-maintained schools, which are immensely popular with parents, many people—I regret to say within the educational establishment and educational authorities—have moved heaven and earth to prevent parents voting for their schools to go grant-maintained. I could quote
22
chapter and verse on that. I have not the slightest doubt that the same would apply with nursery vouchers. Many people in principle are against vouchers, against parental choice, against giving parents the opportunity to choose what they want for their children's education. They would come forward; they would be articulate; they would frighten parents; and the scheme would be dropped. That is what will happen. We must recognise that.
I received a great deal of briefing and it is easy to see from where it all came. We must recognise that where the schemes are in operation, 80 per cent. of parents are taking up the offer of vouchers. That should make everybody think. I have been a long time in politics. If I thought that every policy had the support of 80 per cent. of the people, I would be extremely pleased, as would anybody in politics. That is a very good measure.
With this series of amendments we put at risk—I do not doubt the sincerity of those supporting them—delaying the scheme for a year for no measurable value. We shall find out something from the way in which the scheme is operating and in the course of time, as my noble friend Lord Campbell pointed out, changes will be made to make it more effective and more responsive. Nothing is perfect first time round. I have no doubt that we shall learn from the four pilot schemes. The idea of waiting for another year for something of which we have a great deal of experience seems to me to be a terrible waste of time.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can say whether or not she agrees with me that parents have taken up the nursery vouchers because they have no choice. If they do not take up the vouchers, their children will not in future obtain the nursery education they are currently receiving. The whole scheme is simply a means of recycling money. If the parents do not take up the offer of the voucher, their children will not receive the education. What else can they do?
Baroness Young: The short answer is that it is not a scheme of recycling; a lot of new money is going into it. By using the voucher parents can choose to which type of nursery school to send their child. It is freedom of choice. I happen to believe that that is important and we would like to see it extended. I thought New Labour wanted to see that also, but I am mistaken. We are back at old Labour, which believes in telling everyone where they should send their children to school.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I am reluctant to prolong this debate, but I am astonished by the noble Baroness's astonishment. Surely she is able to distinguish between nursery education per se, which is what we are all in favour of, and this scheme, which has a lot of question marks over it and which we think needs to be evaluated.
Baroness Young: Curious as it may seem to some Members of the Committee, I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between nursery education per se, with which we are all agreed, and this scheme. This is a way of getting more money into nursery education, getting

23
more children into nursery schools, giving freedom of choice to parents and, much more, encouraging parental responsibility. I stand by all those four principles. I am sorry that the noble Earl does not.
Baroness Warnock: I support Amendment No. 2 to which I have put my name. I do so because the pilot scheme needs to be properly evaluated. I say that because the areas where the scheme is now working have their own characteristics which are not shared by most of the country. We are all in favour of more nursery education—I certainly am strongly in favour of it—but, given a shortage of resources overall, we very much want nursery education to be targeted or to be able to be targeted at those areas where it is most crucial that there should be nursery education; namely, where there are deprived children, not necessarily with special educational needs, who suffer from disability through lack of care and attention to education at home.
The present scheme is working in areas where it is difficult to tell whether that will happen. In the case of rural areas, especially in counties like Norfolk, which is enormous, there is no doubt that the use of vouchers will suppress certain small playgroups which work very well in isolated villages and where the resources simply do not exist, even with the use of vouchers, to upgrade those playgroups into nursery schools with trained nursery teachers. In any case, there will not be a large use of vouchers for these playgroups because they are too isolated. The whole idea of what is happening, on the one hand, to small village-based playgroups or even schools and, on the other hand, to what is happening with the LEA and its funding needs to be rethought before we try to introduce this scheme over the whole country.
At the other end of the scale I know from my contacts with the Girls Public Day School Trust that parents who had already decided to send their children to nursery school—the trust's schools are opening nursery schools quite frequently at the moment—and to spend money on doing so are eagerly running forward now to take up their vouchers. Those are the people who for the large part are thinking, "Oh good, we can save some money". That is admirable, and I do not begrudge it, but I do not think those are the children for whom nursery education is most valuable. It may be, but those are children who would have had it anyway. It is the children who would not have had it and whom we want to target about whom we want far more evidence to tell whether they are taking up their vouchers and, if so, whether they are getting the education they actually deserve.
Finally, we want to know whether the local education authorities, which in many places provide adequate and good nursery education, are finding that they are unable to do so because of the cost to them of the vouchers. Those are my reasons for wanting a proper evaluation and not the surreptitious turning of the pilot into a phase-one scheme.
Baroness O'Cathain: I have spoken to a headteacher of a first school in Norfolk who said that the pilot is a process of constant evaluation. She said that there were
24
natural concerns among the education sector in Norfolk about the financial effects of the scheme on individual schools but that they are talking about it and evaluating it as they go along. The monitoring of the quality of provision for four year-olds is another issue, as is the logistics of dealing with the paperwork. I suppose that a pilot does put a lot of stress on these teachers, but they feel very much part of it because they are utterly committed to giving greater nursery education to children.
The headteacher of the first school said that she has had the same concern as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, about the difficulties concerning playgroups and how they will be affected by the provision of nursery education. She said:
"I have been working very closely with a playgroup to ensure that children's education is not adversely affected by these changes and we have been quite bold in our planning for the future".
If that is what is happening on the ground with headteachers of first schools in the provision of the first level of education, I should have thought that it does not necessarily need a whole board of people at the end of the pilot period to sit back, stop the schemes and spend a year or more evaluating them. The momentum will have gone into the ground and the system will have to start from scratch all over again. We should give the people in the education sector the benefit of the doubt. They are not nine-to-three o'clockers and they are working very hard to ensure that any problems in the scheme for nursery education are ironed out during the operation of pilots so that lessons can be learnt.
To mirror what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, flexibility is the issue. We are talking about intelligent teachers who are flexible and who will be able to talk to the education departments and say, "These are really not working", or, "Perhaps we should do it in a different way". We do not want people becoming enthusiastic—a lot of people have become enthusiastic about this nursery schooling—and then have to say to them, "Stop, the pilots are over, you must now wait". That would be disastrous for the long-term future of nursery education.
Lord Monkswell: We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who pointed out the breadth of Clause 1, which effectively gives the Minister enormous powers to disburse grants for nursery education in whatever manner he sees fit to whoever he sees fit. One of the difficulties we have is in terms of how the Secretary of State will use those powers. I think I heard my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris right when he said in opening the debate that, if the Government could give us assurances, then in the spirit of this House we would accept those assurances and we would not have to go ahead with the amendments in this grouping.
Part of my reason for speaking in the debate is that I have been a little concerned about what I detect is a partisan positioning of people on different sides of the Committee. I come to the debate as a parent. When our children were young we were initially living in an area where there was no local education authority nursery provision and we then moved into an area where there

25
was LEA nursery provision. We have, as a family, had experience of both sides. I have also been a member of a local education authority education committee and a governor of primary schools with nursery provision and of a high school. During that period when I was involved in the exercise of my responsibilities, the education system was subjected to quite a large degree of change because of legislation pushed through by this Government. One of the predominant features of those changes was the paucity of consultation.
Perhaps I may explain. One of the difficulties that we had was that consultation papers tended to be issued about July with responses required by September or October. Bearing in mind that most people in education have a long summer break during that period, those most involved in the subject were away on holiday and were therefore unable to talk among themselves in order to provide fully thought-out responses.
The other matter is that we tended to get what I may describe as "national schemes" without any pilot programme to evaluate the effect of such changes. These national changes were laid on us with very little time to make the changes.
It is worth pointing out that when the change to comprehensive education came about that was taking "best practice" by a Conservative local education authority in Leicester. The Labour Government said that it was a good idea and advocated a best practice approach across the country. But the Government did not require every local education authority to implement reorganisation into comprehensive education within one or two years. Each LEA was asked to come forward with a plan to show how it was going to be brought about in its area. Over a period of time, just about the whole country went comprehensive, but there were a few areas that held out. The Labour Government did not force them into it.
4 p.m.
Baroness Young: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord when he is advancing his argument so closely. Those of us who follow educational debate remember very clearly the circular put out by Mr. Crosland. I believe it was numbered 10/65—I know that it had a very familiar ring. I was in a local education authority when great pressure was put on it to introduce comprehensive education.
Lord Monkswell: I do not argue that great pressure may have been put on, but the fact is that there was no legal requirement.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: It cannot be described as "great pressure": it was an order. Mr. Crosland said himself, "I want to get three Cs; comprehensive schools, a common examination at 16 and common sixth forms. You have two of them and the third is to be worked for". I can assure the noble Lord that it was an order because I have read it.
Lord Monkswell: We obviously operate in a slightly different context. Perhaps I may point out that the local education authority for Trafford, which is next door to
26
Manchester where I live, still has selective education even today. Therefore, an order may have been issued by the Labour Government education secretary in the 1960s, but it has still not been adopted by a Conservative local education authority.
What would be the situation now if a Labour local education authority, in response to an order from this Conservative Government, said, "We are not going to implement it"? All hell would break loose. The Government would send in the commissioners. It would be totally illegal. The local authority would not be allowed to do it in that way. What is suggested is that as regards education Labour governments operate rather differently from this Conservative Government.
I have given a little background to this matter because we have the opportunity now, with this measure in front of us, to do things a little differently. We have the opportunity of a pilot scheme which will enable us to look at what is happening and the changes that the nursery voucher scheme engenders in three local authority areas. They are different and they will give a clue as to what might happen in other parts of the country. The pilot project should be allowed to run long enough for it to be evaluated sensibly. The Government should allow the project to be evaluated sensibly and then make a decision on how the scheme will be implemented throughout the country; whether it should be modified or not implemented at all.
One of the other advantages of this series of amendments is that it enables Parliament to be involved in the decision-making process. As I suggested earlier, we accept assurances given by government Ministers. I hope that the Government can give us an assurance that these pilot schemes will be allowed to run long enough and then for there to be a period of searching valuation. There will inevitably be teething troubles and that occurs with any new scheme. If we can have an assurance from the Government that those teething troubles will be addressed; that there will be a full analysis and review of the pilot schemes and that that review will be available for parliamentary discussion and debate, I am sure that we can allow the Bill to go forward as it is at present.
That is what we are asking for and that is what I ask for, in trying to take out party political debate from this subject. It does politicians no good to have party political divisions on such an important subject as education and to force something through without proper evaluation. It has been said on all sides of the Chamber already this afternoon that we all agree that nursery education is so important for the development of our young people that we should aim to see how best we can develop it. That is the plea that I make to the Government to try to take politics out of this particular debate. If the Government insist on putting forward a party political slant on the matter, as a number of speakers on the government Benches have done so far, I hope that the rest of the Committee will support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: After that speech. I suggest respectfully to the Committee that we shall

27
only do justice to the importance of this amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, by constructive and short speeches directed to the important issues of the amendment. While I am on my feet, for my part I wholly accept the sincerity of the noble Lord when he said that this is not intended to be a wrecking amendment. I hope that we may proceed in a more sensible fashion.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I shall be both brief and historical. I want to refer directly to the business of having to wait a year to carry through this very important educational change. Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to three of the greatest changes ever made in English education. I refer first to the Elementary Education Act 1870, which introduced state primary education for the first time. Mr. Gladstone's Government did not ask for a year's pilot scheme. They relied on the existing models of primary teaching in Church schools.
I refer secondly to grammar schools and to the Education Act 1902, which was the first time that the English state took it upon itself to provide secondary education. The government of the day did not rely on a year's pilot scheme, but looked to the existing endowed secondary schools and to the practice in Germany.
I turn thirdly to the disputed change to comprehensive schooling, possibly the most profound change made in English education since the 1902 Act. Circular 10/65 stated that every local authority had to come forward with a scheme for comprehensive education. It is true that some doughty Tory councils delayed—and have delayed to this day—but it was not the intention of Mr. Crosland that they should.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of another great change in English education when a noble Baroness, who sits in this House on a different Bench but is not here today, abolished direct grant schools. No one said that there needed to be a year's evaluation.
There are many nursery schools in this country. We do not need a year to study this. I say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that when my pupils quoted Latin tags I often feared the argument that followed.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Many of your Lordships will have received a great deal of material on this Bill. What has intrigued me has been the number of letters that I have received from private individuals—far more than I have received on any other issue since first becoming a Member of your Lordships' House 12 years ago. Some of the letters are simply signed circular letters, but many are individually written and refer not only to a particular school but, more importantly, to particular children, to the children for whom the parents are responsible. In almost every case, the writers state that they are looking for high quality nursery education which is locally accessible.
We all support the intention of providing nursery education on a wider basis—I certainly support that—but as has already been said, the question is whether this Bill will facilitate that. I am by no means opposed to
28
the Bill, but I accept that many people in our society have grave hesitations about it simply on the grounds of what it will do to their child's nursery education. For them, it is not a political matter; it is entirely a family and personal matter.
As I said at Second Reading, I have taken the trouble to consult two of the diocesan boards of education which were involved in the pilot project. I have received comments from both about their hesitations which mirror the hesitations of many parents. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to her talks with a primary head teacher in Norfolk. My information is that there are many models—four are spelled out in the paper that I have—for working to provide nursery education in Norfolk, of which the model mentioned by the noble Baroness is one. That seems to make the point that some sharing of experience and reflection on what is actually happening is essential.
Much of this work took place even before the nursery voucher scheme was proposed. Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the demand from Church schools for nursery provision was strongly in evidence even before the Bill emerged. Surely what we need is an opportunity for the kind of on-going evaluation which has been mentioned, but for that to be brought together in a reflective way so that there can be some sharing of experience. I do not see that that means that the existing pilot schemes must be halted, but I do think that it means that the scheme must be properly grounded. There needs to be an opportunity to share both the difficulties and the strengths of what is happening.
Clearly, the two boards of education which I consulted had very different views. One, in the rural area of Norfolk, was particularly concerned about a matter that has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I refer to the need for local provision. That board is by no means clear that the voucher system will make available more local provision in rural areas. The concerns are different in urban areas and relate mainly to ethnic minorities and the need to ensure that information is available in a variety of languages. Clearly, such matters can be dealt with, but, if the scheme is to be properly founded, I believe that a certain amount of reflection on the experience gained from the pilots would be extremely valuable.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Parry: I begin by apologising to the Committee for my absence from earlier discussions on this matter. I have been handicapped and unable to come to the House. I am here now not because of the quantity of my postbag on this, but because of its quality. I am here not because of the organised circular letters to which the right reverend Prelate referred, but because of the friends who have asked me to be here this afternoon specifically to win a stay in what they consider to be progress towards implementing a scheme which may contain valuable provisions, but which they feel threatens the existing provision of nursery education.

29
I make a short but passionate intervention on behalf of those teachers who have written to make precisely the opposite comments to those made uncharacteristically vehemently by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whom I have faced in your Lordships' House in discussions over many years. I know of her concern for education, but what we have heard this afternoon has been the authoritative voice of government dictating to people who have concerns rather than listening to what they are saying.
We have heard it said that only those who support the Government's case are worth listening to in the staff rooms and classrooms of Britain. However, that is not borne out by the facts. There are many teachers of great experience who care about this matter as much as anyone. From this side of the House I have never questioned the care of those on the other side of the House. However, this afternoon I have heard history rewritten from that side of the House in authoritative and ringing terms, declaring that things that never happened in the history of education in Britain happened under the administration of the governments that I have always supported.
The teachers in the classrooms of Britain and the parents who work with them in parent-teacher associations do not like the scheme at the moment. They want it to be re-examined carefully. As was said by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that is implicit. My noble friend made it perfectly clear that he is not seeking to halt the scheme, but to improve it. He is seeking to bring into the discussion the voices of those teachers who will work with the scheme. For heaven's sake, why don't we listen to them?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 31, which stands in my name. It states that the Secretary of State should annually review,
"the educational, financial and administrative consequences of arrangements made under section 1 and following consultation may revise those arrangements".
The argument is similar to that which we have heard in relation to reviewing the pilot scheme, but it is not identical. We are talking here about a new way of providing education. People have grave doubts about whether over the long term the Bill will achieve the objectives that have been set out for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, spoke about the need to target funds. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on Second Reading. When the Secretary of State comes to review the financial consequences of this legislation, one of the things that he could consider is whether this additional provision—if additional provision is made—is being made where it is most needed. That would be extremely useful.
We are talking also about the quality of education. People are worried because there is no provision in the Bill as it stands—later amendments seek to address this—for there to be trained nursery teachers in every nursery class. That goes straight to the heart of the quality of the education which the children will receive. If the Bill is enacted, an annual review of the
30
educational results of the operation of its provisions could enable the Secretary of State, where necessary, to amend the way in which the scheme is being operated.
I speak briefly, following the gentle hint given by a previous speaker. I believe that something as new as this must be looked at on an ongoing basis to ensure that it achieves its objectives; namely, the extension of good quality nursery education to those children covered by the Act at a financial cost which the Act determines, particularly in those places where it is most needed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The amendment of the noble Baroness has caused me the greatest concern. Does she know of any precedent in any other form of legislation for this type of clause?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am not at all sure that I do, but this is an unprecedented way in which to provide education. The world in which I am more accustomed to play a role is that of local government. When one has tight resources directed to specific objectives one tries to monitor whether they are effectively deployed. I suggest that the Government ought to do the same.
Baroness Seccombe: I did not intend to speak. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to complaints it occurred to me that I also had had complaints, but from parents who were furious that their councils had not taken up the opportunity to participate in the pilot scheme. They asked when that opportunity would be available to them. We have heard about the success in Wandsworth and how popular the scheme is with parents. It widens choice and gives parents responsibilities with a variety of provision. I cannot support the amendments. I believe that evaluation should be ongoing, but I see the Bill as seeking an extension of quality education for all children.
Lord Sewel: I seek to justify the double-take objective of the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has referred. I believe that the argument is relatively simple. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Bill as it stands at present, not because of the policy objective of widening access to nursery education—which I do not believe divides Members of this Committee—but because of the introduction of a new principle of public policy. For the first time a major public service is to be provided by means of a voucher scheme. That is a totally new departure. A case has never arisen where a major public social service—nursery education—is to be provided by the voucher method.
One thing that is certain about this legislation is that unforeseen and unintended consequences will arise. When major changes like this are made it is virtually certain that matters will arise at the implementation stage which were not even dreamed of when the scheme was put together. For those reasons, the amendments that are now being discussed are important and valuable. They provide an opportunity to see how a voucher scheme impacts on educational experience, on access, particularly access by differentiated social groups, and

31
the level of provision of nursery education throughout the country and in different areas. There is an absolutely unanswerable case for having a decent period in which consideration can be given to the effects of the scheme and an opportunity for reflection and modification. Otherwise, we stand the risk of introducing a totally new basis upon which public services are to be provided, and in a way which, to be quite honest, completely ignores the need for proper scrutiny when such a major change is contemplated.
Lord Dormand of Easington: When the Minister replies, will he say whether there is any part of the scheme which will not be subject to examination in the four pilot areas?
Lord Dixon-Smith: One of the joys that I have experienced in being a Member of the House is that from time to time I hear a speech delivered with such fluency and plausibility that, even though the argument is fundamentally flawed, I am enormously tempted to go along with it. One heard such an example this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
I have spent a large proportion of my life in the indirect administration of education as a member of a county council. I have spent a great deal of time battling with my LEA. On many occasions I have battled for my LEA. For a small proportion of the time I have found myself in the same situation on a national basis. I have battled with LEAs and, on many occasions, for them. I hesitate to indulge in this argument because there are a great number of black pots and kettles rattling round in this Chamber this afternoon. However, I may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
Curiously enough, the fundamental issue that lies behind the Bill is subsidiarity. Of course, at national level we know what it means. If a decision can more appropriately be taken in Westminster than Brussels that is subsidiarity, and we are all for it. I have witnessed a slight change in the scene. LEAs argue about subsidiarity. Very properly, they have argued with Westminster and Whitehall over the years that decisions which can better be taken locally should be taken locally and not nationally. The argument goes on. One sees the same congruence of view here between an LEA and Whitehall. If a decision can better be taken by an individual that is where the decision should properly lie, and the purpose of this particular Bill is to aid and facilitate ordinary people so that they have greater power over their children's education from the start.
Throughout the whole of my experience in education there has been a consistent congruence of view—I hesitate to call it an alliance because I do not believe that it will ever be that—between the Labour Party, the teachers' unions and some LEAs in favour of the collective view over the individual view. That may be an uncomfortable fact. The evidence is entirely circumstantial but it is based upon long experience.
The next question is whether one is to wait for sufficient evidence to have certainty in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has already provided the
32
answer. The great reforms are undertaken based upon something that has already happened and they have been put in, as far as possible, across the country. If one is to wait for evidence for the success of the scheme how long a period will it be? At what point does one know that the scheme is a success? Does one measure it when children pass out of primary school? Surely not. One could not then be certain of the effect and impact. Does one measure it when they leave secondary school, or perhaps university? How many cohorts of children does one need to provide solid evidence? This presents a very real problem. We cannot wait that long. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, spoke to a series of amendments. They address a way of delaying the implementation which goes against the principle of giving individuals the power to take decisions in this area of education. I cannot support the amendments because they will delay that possibility, and I think that is wrong.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 31, to which my name has been added, in the light of earlier contributions made in the debate.
There may be, although I have yet to receive any evidence from any source, including debates and letters I have received in relation to the Bill, parents who since 1977 have been offered local education authority nursery education who would rather opt to take a voucher that would provide less than half-time nursery education funding and spend it elsewhere. I have no evidence of anyone in that position.
However, I know of people whose children receive no nursery education who may, if offered the opportunity, wish to avail themselves of the new money the Government offer to supplement full or part-time nursery education or to buy less than half-time nursery education.
The Bill includes two issues. It includes the Government's calculation of additional resources to be made available to provide nursery education where none exists and where there is no choice and availability.
The Government could say that all parents, whether or not they are offered a place by the local education authority in a voluntary aided school nursery, for example, could choose to go down another route. They could choose to take a nursery voucher and move their child from the maintained sector to some other form of nursery education. The Government could use the new money to ensure that those for whom a place was not available or those who preferred the private sector could purchase a place using that money. That situation would have been clear, and then the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, may have been valid.
I have dealt with local government finance at the sharp end, facing Government Ministers, since 1977. The Government have chosen to remove the money currently spent by local education authorities on the education of children in local authority schools, and say that parents who wish to continue to use that provision will have to apply for a voucher. They will have to fill

33
in a form and write to a private company which will assess the matter, and it will have to be collected by the school.
The Government state that they will remove the right amount of money for the children who are in the maintained sector and provide it through a voucher, and that the local education authority will get back that amount of money, if everything continues as it is now. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I have spent many years looking at the way in which local government finance works. If that degree of precision were to occur, it would be the first time in the history of local government finance.
The Government owe it not to us, but to parents, to explain why a sum of money may have to go through eight different channels to get back to where it started, involving huge bureaucratic costs, and causing trouble to Church schools, nursery schools, and everybody else.
If the Government have new money and want to target people who want to use it in that way, why do they not do so? Why do we have to have this process? There may then be a case for saying no to delaying evaluation. I am suspicious as to whether the Government's facts are financially accurate.
Lord Henley: I hope that neither the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nor the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, wants to add to the contributions from the Opposition Front Bench. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for writing to my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Campbell of Alloway. I have no doubt that he wrote to other noble Lords and will write to me. I look forward with interest to receiving his billets.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I wrote to them because I feared that they might not be here but I knew that the noble Lord would be here.
Lord Henley: I am grateful for the noble Lord's consideration. Ignoring what the noble Lord's noble friend has just said, the amendments broadly fall into two groups: first, those seeking more regulation on the face of the Bill and less of what the noble Lord referred to as arrangements; and, secondly, the major part of the group of amendments (Amendments Nos. 2, 6 and 13) which deal with evaluation. I shall deal with them separately and in that order.
The Bill sets out the broad framework, and the necessary legal underpinning for the grant, and its functions; for example, allowing the use of the child benefit database, defining the inspection regime, and so on.
Amendments made to the Bill in another place provided that two key elements of the grant arrangements should be set out in regulations. Those two elements are the type of institution which can be eligible for grant, and the description of children in respect of whose education grant can be paid.
As the noble Lord will be aware, later we shall be discussing a further government amendment (Amendment No. 21) which provides for a third key element of the grant arrangements to be contained in
34
regulations. That element is the way in which the grant will be calculated. Those three issues are key policy issues, and should therefore be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The grant arrangements themselves will include the administrative detail. It is clearly not sensible to make all that the subject of legislation, be it primary or secondary. Time-consuming amendments would then be needed for the slightest change, which would be absurd. It would also limit the flexibility of grant which will be paid to a range of types of institution.
All the grant arrangements will be clearly set out and published. Key aspects will be in regulations, and the usual arrangements for accounting to Parliament for public expenditure will apply.
Those are convincing arguments for what I refer to as the first part of the group of amendments. I hope the noble Lord will feel that it is not necessary to press those amendments whatever he may feel about those relating to evaluation. However, in support of my case for rejecting, I need have done no more than point to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's report on the Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord was dismissive of the committee's report because I believe that the committee, which we set up to deal with exactly such questions, performed its job very well on this occasion. It held considerable discussion with my honourable and right honourable friends within the department to ensure that its concerns were allayed.
The committee reported that, subject to the method of calculating grant being contained in regulations—hence the further amendment—
"the delegated powers in the Bill will be subject to appropriate parliamentary control".
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the amendments, which are based on Amendment No. 1, are not necessary because the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee dealt with those concerns.
I turn to the question of evaluation. I accept the word of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that the amendment is not a wrecking amendment. The noble Lord knows how restrained I am on these occasions and I should be the last to say that it was a wrecking amendment. However, I must say to him that it is partially a wrecking amendment because the scheme, if it could not go forward, would be wrecked for the parents of children aged four in 1997. I am the first to declare an interest because I shall be the father of a four year-old late in 1997. As regards that group, this is certainly a wrecking amendment. I do not believe that it is necessary to delay the introduction of the new measures for a year or more, as the noble Lord suggests.
The amendments would have the effect of delaying the introduction of nationwide implementation of the scheme. There would have to be an evaluation of Phase 1 in the four LEA areas over 12 months; that is, up to the middle of April next year. A report would then have to be made to Parliament and the arrangements for Phase 2 could not be made until that had been done. Phase 2 could not, as a result, come into force in April 1997, as planned.

35
Amendment No. 31 would cause further delays year on year as the grant-making arrangements were reviewed annually and consultation undertaken. It would, in addition, cause considerable uncertainty for nursery education providers in all sectors about future funding arrangements. The additional choice offered to parents by the scheme, the new arrangements for quality assurance, and the availability of new resources through the vouchers for expansion would be delayed. There is no need to deny those benefits to children and their parents up and down the country, and the Government have no intention of doing so.
Obviously, we shall monitor the operational arrangements for Phase 1 by drawing on data on the issue and redemption of vouchers provided by the voucher agent and by surveys of parents and providers. I can give an assurance that initial results will be placed in the Library of each House as they become available, with an overall assessment in the autumn. The first inspection reports under the new quality assurance regime will also be available in the autumn. Ofsted envisages publishing an overview report of early inspection findings in January next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked which parts of the scheme would not be evaluated. Obviously, there are some elements of the scheme which we cannot evaluate fully until we embark on Phase 2. I do not believe that the beneficial effects of yet wider choice and greater participation will be seen overnight. However, as we move on to Phase 2 we shall begin to see those benefits and we shall be able to inspect and evaluate them as they arise.
As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith made clear, it is not always possible to see all the benefits of every new reform overnight. One only has to look at the national curriculum, which most people now accept. We shall not see the benefits of children having studied science since the age of five until the end of the century because the full cohort of those starting to study science at the age of five will not have reached the end of the national curriculum until the end of the century. However, that should not be an excuse for delaying the introduction of such a beneficial new measure.
Baroness Hayman: Does the Minister agree that perhaps a pilot scheme with a proper evaluation of SATs for seven year-olds might have proved extremely valuable rather than having to change the whole scheme for everyone, which is what we faced?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: I would be the first to accept that we did not get the national curriculum right first time. I would be the first to accept that broadly we have got it right now. That is why last year we said that we did not envisage further changes for another five years. That was broadly welcomed throughout the educational world.
The noble Baroness will be aware that we have in place a pilot scheme in order to examine some of its advantages. We have a chance to evaluate the scheme,
36
which is what I am arguing today, but we do not believe that evaluating over a longer period has any advantages. It simply delays the advantages to those who are missing out on them at the moment.
Baroness Hayman: My point to the Minister was simply that everyone nationally had to go through the pain of getting it wrong first time in SATs and that that ought to make us extremely cautious about evaluating properly the pilot scheme here.
Lord Henley: We have a pilot scheme and we are evaluating properly. The noble Baroness and her party are suggesting that we should delay the scheme even further so that no one other than those in the four areas can benefit from its advantages.
I have said a great deal about the evaluation that we shall be undertaking and the detail that we shall be making available to the House. We believe that the various data and the findings will provide a good basis for deciding in the coming months whether any changes are needed in the operational arrangements for Phase 2. They will allow us to settle for this autumn the Phase 2 voucher administration contract; our plans for publicity and information; the briefing of the LEAs, the schools and other providers; and other operational arrangements. Those must be settled this autumn if there is to be a smooth introduction of the scheme nationwide next year, as many parents and providers expect.
Let us remember what is new in the scheme. Basically, it is the funding of some nursery education via vouchers and the inspection of private and voluntary providers. It is unlikely that a full year's evaluation of Phase 1, proposed in the amendment, would add significantly to the initial findings from the monitoring and assessment that we plan. As I made clear, it will take time for the major effects of the voucher scheme to be seen. Our evaluation plans provide over the medium-term for surveys to compare the provision and use of places for three and four year-olds. Over the longer term, they provide for longitudinal research into the effects of pre-school education to at least Key Stage 1.
We are committed to the proper monitoring, assessment and evaluation of the voucher scheme at all the appropriate stages in its development. The necessary plans for Phase 1 are in place and the results will be made available to this House and to Parliament as a whole. The alternative versions proposed in the amendments are unnecessary and would disadvantage the many parents and providers who are looking forward to the start of Phase 2 next April. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am sorry to say that I find the Government's reply less than totally satisfactory. Obviously, they are determined to concede absolutely nothing. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, quoted a letter in support from Wandsworth. That is the only letter in support that I have heard until today. Most of us have received hundreds of letters from parents,

37
governors, LEAs, children, teachers and headteachers who are root and branch against nursery vouchers and all they stand for.
Lord Northbourne: I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that today I received 26 letters from playschool groups supporting the voucher scheme.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I believe that my total is 32 against and therefore on today's play I claim a victory. I may be slightly wrong on that because I have not opened all of them, but this very day I received a pile of nearly 50 letters.
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord has not opened his letters, how does he know which way they are pressing him? The noble Lord ought to be able to answer that question.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: As I said, there are at least 50 letters there, and I have opened only 32 of them.
However, I should like to clear up a few misconceptions. It is not a wrecking amendment because such an amendment would wreck the Bill. If the amendment were accepted, it would not wreck the Bill; indeed, it would simply delay the operation of one part of it. Therefore, in my submission, it is not a wrecking amendment.
I should like now to take up the point on the 80 per cent. take-up made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I should point out that in Kensington and Chelsea there is barely any new provision and the vouchers merely reflect what is already there. In that case, 80 per cent. is not good: it is inefficient. On the other hand, in Norfolk almost all the new provision is by the LEA; in other words, giving the extra money to the LEA directly rather than taking it away, shuffling it around and then pushing it back would have produced an even better expansion.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, pointed out that there would be a 12-month period of evaluation, as indeed did other Members of the Committee. But that is not necessarily so. Indeed, the Minister made it clear—I should like to underline this—that the main scheme could, I believe, start in September 1997 if the amendment were accepted. As I said, the amendment would simply delay the implementation of the arrangements until the evaluation is done to some point after 1st April 1997.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Assuming that the Bill receives Royal Assent in July, I am not sure whether the noble Lord referred to September 1997—I imagine that I may have misheard him—for full implementation. Is that correct?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Yes.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: But that is a year ahead.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Surely it was only going to be April 1997 in the first place.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I may have misunderstood.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Perhaps we can discuss the matter at a later point.
38
I yield to no one in my admiration for the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee with whose members I have had several discussions. They were deeply concerned until The Next Steps pamphlet came out and had been discussed, as I understand it, between themselves and the Minister. In the light of what has been said, I beg the Committee's leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1. However, in doing so, I give notice that I shall move Amendment No. 2 and ask Members of the Committee to express an opinion on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, after ("may") insert ("by, or in accordance with, an order").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Annan, L.

Haskel, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hollick, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Birk, B.

Hooson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hylton, L.

Borrie, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Judd, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kennet, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kintore, E.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Desai, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Diamond, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNair, L.

Dubs, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Eatwell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ezra, L.

Mayhew, L.

Falkender, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Parry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Halsbury, E.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

39

Ripon, Bp.

Taverne, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rochester, L.

Tenby, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Seear, B.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Tordoff, L.

Sewel, L.

Varley, L.

Shannon, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shepherd, L.

Warnock, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Weatherill, L.

Southwell, Bp.

White, B.

Stallard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Addison, V.

Hooper, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Howe, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Ilchester, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inglewood, L.

Balfour, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Birdwood, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Leigh, L.

Bowness, L.

Lindsay, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lyell, L.

Brentford, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

McConnell, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Butterworth, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Camock, L.

Manton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Marlesford, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mersey, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Milverton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monson, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Courtown, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mottistone, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L.

Munster, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Nelson, E.

Downshire, M.

Newall, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Northbourne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Erroll, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Palmer, L.

Flather, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peel, E.

Gage, V.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Quinton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harlech, L.

Renwick, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Romney, E.

Harrowby, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hayhoe, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Holderness, L.

Seccombe, B.

40

Selbome, E.

Swinfen, L.

Sharples, B.

Teviot, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Slim, V.

Trumpington, B.

Stewartby, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Swansea, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("except in any area of a local education authority within which a majority of parents of children with places in maintained nursery schools, voting in a ballot organised in accordance with regulations, has voted that arrangements under this Act should not be applicable to that area").
The noble Baroness said: Opting out has been a theme of government policy since the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988. That Act was intended to give parents the opportunity to vote to establish a different system of governance in their children's school, with funding direct from the Government. Later, an element of selection was introduced.
This amendment follows precisely that logic in providing that parents should determine whether vouchers should be introduced in their area. In many parts of the country, most notably Solihull in the West Midlands—an authority under Conservative control where provision was made available for all parents of four year-olds who wished their children to avail themselves of that provision—local parents are clear that the mechanism of the voucher scheme, as enshrined in this Bill, will bring no benefits to their area. In areas with a high level of provision such as Solihull the removal or raiding of local authority finances to provide the base of the funding for the scheme is imperilling existing provision in an area where the local authority has made that provision widely available and where it is widely used. Parents in Solihull are increasingly puzzled as to why vouchers are necessary. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
In the debate on the previous group of amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the level of success as being measurable by the number of parents who claim their vouchers. However, that is the only way that parents who are satisfied with what they have now, and with the resources that are available to the local authority, can ensure that the system may continue. However, the huge bureaucratic nightmare of red tape and the cost involved in those parents in Solihull and elsewhere having to claim the money through a different route is bewildering to those parents and to most people involved in the education service in England and Wales, and in Scotland where the Government can hardly claim that their proposals have met with universal welcome. Parents ask why, if they are satisfied with provision now, they should have to claim vouchers through this costly, bureaucratic, red-tape nightmare in order to continue to receive what they now have.
These are not assertions or criticisms of the legislation. This amendment accepts that the Bill will proceed, but provides that it should do so as a measure empowering parents rather than imposing a scheme upon them. It would require the Government to bring forward regulations to set up a system of balloting, not dissimilar to the system established by the Government under the 1988 Act (and revised in 1993) for opted-out schools. Where a majority of parents with places in maintained nurseries voted that arrangements should not apply within that LEA area, they would be exempted from the voucher paper chase.
The Government claim that the system they propose to introduce is universally popular. I can find no evidence of that. People in areas such as Solihull can find no one to speak in support of the scheme. Surely the Government ought to judge the legislation they propose on the basis of their past philosophy and logic. If the Government believe that there ought to be parental choice, why cannot those parents collectively express that choice? Why on earth should we waste public money to ensure that parents apply to obtain what they have now, and why should we have to pay for seven, eight, or ultimately even nine bureaucratic hoops? I have seen the Government's statements about the cost of the scheme. I remain totally unconvinced on that point. We on these Benches believe that if the Government are being consistent they will support this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I also support this amendment. Parental choice is an important principle, and the Government do not have a monopoly on it. The difficulty has sometimes been in persuading them to apply it in cases where the result might not be to their liking. The classic example of this was in our debates three years ago (I was re-reading some of them last night) over the rights of parents to opt back in from grant-maintained status if circumstances later changed—a right which the Government were not prepared to grant. That was apparently a choice too far.
Here we have a situation where it is clear from our postbags that in certain areas, notably those where nursery education is already thriving, parents see real problems in the patchwork arrangements this Bill seeks to impose. They should be able to opt out if that is their majority wish. There is no reason in logic or practice why a scheme of balloting should not be devised which gives effect to such a choice. I would urge the Government to look favourably on this amendment.
Lord Tope: I rise briefly to support this amendment, which is also tabled in my name. The points have been well made by the two previous speakers. In my experience—I speak as a leader of a local education authority and our party's Front Bench spokesperson—not only have I not received a single letter from anyone supporting this scheme so far, and certainly no letter from anyone castigating my authority for not taking part in the pilot schemes, but the overwhelming majority of letters have been from parents who simply do not understand why, when they already have good provision for their four year-old child, they will have to go through this enormous paper chase and great
42
bureaucratic tangle. They do not understand why we shall have to spend, by the Government's estimation, £20 million—although some of us suspect it will be rather more than that—administering a hugely bureaucratic process which simply takes them back in the end to where they are now, or something worse. It must be entirely consistent with the Government's education policy over the years not to impose a national scheme on parents who do not wish it, but to allow them the choice to opt out if they so wish. That seems entirely consistent with government policy and practice. I find myself a little uncomfortable in supporting it, but on this occasion I believe that it is right to allow the opt-out. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Bowness: I am sorry that I was not present for the whole of the Second Reading debate. I am even sorrier in many ways to find myself not in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. They are local authority colleagues of many years' standing, albeit from the other side.
I understand entirely that Members of the Committee opposite may approach the question from a point of view and direction different from that of the Government. Indeed, as a former leader of a local authority I can understand some of the problems and worries expressed about the paperwork involved. I have no doubt that the Minister will consider whether, in the light of experience, the process can be streamlined in some way.
However, in the context of this Bill, I find the amendment incomprehensible. The proposal goes further than that urged upon us by local authority associations in their briefing to Members of the Committee. The amendment does not even propose a scheme to be adopted at the discretion of individual local education authorities. It proposes a vote among those people who currently have a benefit in a particular sector as to whether or not a similar benefit should be extended to those who currently do not enjoy it.
There is no proposal to seek the views of those parents who do not enjoy the benefit. During the course of this afternoon's debate, there has been an assumption that all parents who put their children into nursery education in the private sector can do so without hardship. Yet I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will know from their local authority experience that local authority leaders are frequently told that if the provision of nursery education is inadequate in their area, for whatever reason, it causes many people considerable hardship. But those parents suffer financial hardship in order to put their children into nursery education in the private sector, either because they believe passionately in nursery education, or because it is necessary to have some kind of childcare to enable a parent to go to work.
The ability of an education authority to provide nursery places is not limited solely by the question of resources. It relates to the physical constraints, the location where places can be made available, the size of the sites and the suitability of the schools. To say that the amendment carries forward the principles of opt-out proposed in previous legislation for grant-maintained

43
schools is not true. There one consults the parents in one school at a specific time about the future of that school. That does not deprive other parents within the area of the opportunity to put their children into local authority maintained schools. If parents were against grant-maintained status, and a ballot goes against them it does not prevent those parents putting their children into local authority maintained schools.
However if the amendment were agreed, it would enable parents with a vested interest at the time the vote was taken—those with children in maintained nursery schools—to prevent the proposals in the Bill being made available to other parents.
While the question presumably would be prescribed by the regulations referred to in the amendment, who will explain to the parents concerned the implications of voting yea or nay? I do not believe that one can draw a parallel with this proposal. It is not appropriate to go to one small sector of the community—parents who happen to have their children in maintained nursery places—to decide whether or not other parents can take advantage of a national scheme which is put forward to increase the number of places available. I oppose the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David: The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said that some people will be put at a disadvantage by the amendment. But the parents of those already in nursery schools will be the major part of the electorate who will be involved in the scheme. No doubt in areas such as Sollihul, with about 95 per cent. of children in nursery schools, the major part of the electorate of that area will be affected. I am strongly in support of the amendment. I believe that it follows the case of grant-maintained schools where parents have the choice. I do not see why parents should not have the choice as regards this scheme. I have received a vast number of letters asking for this amendment to be put forward. Since the Government make such a thing about parental choice, I believe that those voices should be listened to. I hope very much that the Government will look kindly on this amendment. I strongly support it.
Lord Monkswell: In a previous debate, our noble colleague from Essex—I regret that I forget his name—
Lord Henley: I believe that the noble Lord refers to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested that the nursery voucher scheme was an example of subsidiarity. A rather better example of subsidiarity is the mechanism put forward by this amendment. We need to recognise that while there may be some advantages for individuals receiving nursery vouchers, there will be disadvantages in terms of the withdrawal from local education authorities of funding which is currently spent on nursery provision. We need to recognise that factor. We need to recognise, too that local people should be able to judge the balance of advantage and disadvantage.
44
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of everyone wanting to become grant-maintained but being prevented from doing so by adverse propaganda, pressure and so on. I do not believe that anything could be further from the truth. I suggest that one of the reasons why there have been no opt-outs in, for example, Manchester, is that the local population has considered the balance of advantage and disadvantage and made a judgment locally that it is better off within the local education authority provision rather than opting out. To argue that it has been coerced is absolute nonsense. People make a judgment locally.
While the Government provide the facility for individual schools to opt-out of local education authority administration within the area—effectively going from LEA administration to national administration—it is surely only right that the local community should be able to make that judgment about the provision of nursery education within its area—whether it should be funded and provided through the LEA or through the voucher scheme. Surely it is only right that the Government should allow that sort of local discretion. It would enable the local community to accommodate the situation that will pertain in the local area.
Perhaps I may give two examples of how that situation might be variable. At one end of the spectrum a local education authority, having received the revenue support grant funding for nursery provision which the Government are intent on withdrawing, may make up that funding from other areas within the budget: from the council tax or by diverting funds from other areas of revenue support grant. At the other end of the spectrum the perspective could be completely different. Not only will the situation vary from one local education authority to another; it will also vary over time. Among other provisions, this amendment would enable those who will be subjected to the regime to make a decision, probably year by year, which on balance will be to their advantage. I hope the Committee will recognise that as a very sensible and logical provision to make within the Bill.
Baroness Hayman: I support the amendment. I see it as a way of limiting, at least in some cases where parents participate in these ballots, the transaction costs that worry me in relation to the implementation of the scheme. I share some of the concerns expressed on the Benches opposite in relation to ballots of parents; namely, that a particular group of parents at a particular time will shape policy in their area for the future. This issue has been of particular concern in relation to grant-maintained status. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, said, there is the difficulty of going back when perhaps a different group of parents concerned with the same school take a different view about how they want the school organised.
My anxieties about the transaction costs involved in the nursery voucher scheme are such that I believe we ought to take any opportunity to limit those costs. As I said at Second Reading, I have had the bitter experience of working in the health service, and seeing the introduction of markets and pseudo-markets in the provision of a public service. I have seen the costs that

45
come with that. I have two concerns in relation to this particular scheme. The first was argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. It relates to the number of layers of transaction costs that will be involved in recycling the money back into the local education system where the majority of nursery education is being provided. I should much prefer to see a scheme whereby local education authorities were able simply to provide, with targets set for them, the most suitable and necessary education in their particular areas through whatever providers—voluntary, public or private. It is a waste of public money to enter into the sort of transaction costs that are proposed.
The other issue is whether schools and local education authority nursery schools will be able to reclaim the money owed to them, as it were, for the pupils whom they already have on their books. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to the difficulties involved.
We underwent a similar exercise in the National Health Service, when we changed from funding provider units directly to a system of capitation funding through purchasers. It was called the "template" exercise. The object was to look at what hospitals were doing, see where the patients came from, see what every treatment cost, and then divide up our budgets. The money would then be reallocated to all the purchasing authorities for them to provide a purchase service on behalf of patients and come back to the hospitals through a different route. That was to be called "steady state"; and there was to be no difference in the funding. Seven years on, we are still arguing about the inaccuracies in the template as it was first set up. It makes me extremely wary that this scheme will simply plough back to those already providing the service the funds necessary to do so. For those reasons, I very much support this amendment.
Lord Sewel: The Bill and the amendments provide an interesting example of the tensions between individual decision-making and collective decision-making. It could be reasonably argued that individual decision-making is an appropriate form of decision-making where there is a clear alternative, and collective decision-making relates to either something or nothing at all.
In the scheme before us, people do not have the opportunity anywhere in the elaborate decision-making process into which they are almost entrapped, of saying, "No, we don't want a voucher scheme". They can make a choice as to whether to go down the public or the private route thereafter. But that choice is already open to them, and will remain open to them under any circumstances. The difficulty is that the Bill does not give the individual a choice in terms of saying yes or no to the voucher scheme per se. My noble friend's amendment tries to achieve an opportunity for parents to say, "No, we don't want a voucher scheme. We will exercise our choice between different forms of nursery provision, completely separate from a discussion about provision through vouchers".
Lord Tope: Before the Minister replies, I wish to comment briefly on the points made by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in suggesting that under this amendment the electorate is perhaps drawn a little
46
too narrowly. As I am sure he knows, the basis of the electorate mentioned in this amendment is exactly the same as that currently used for grant-maintained schools. If he wishes to argue that the electorate for a ballot to opt out and assume grant-maintained status should include prospective parents, particularly from feeder primary schools in the case of a secondary school, and from neighbouring schools that would be affected if the school were to opt out, I should have much more sympathy for his argument.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to base the electorate on the same basis as that chosen by the Government in dealing with primary and secondary schools that wish to opt out of the system. That is the point. In addition, in this case we are talking about parents and schools having a change imposed upon them which they may feel they do not wish to accept. We are saying that they should be given an opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to adopt this scheme. In other words, we give them freedom of choice.
Lord Bowness: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord on that point. Clearly, he did not understand the difference between the ballot for the opting out of a grant-maintained school and the proposal in the amendment. If parents vote to take the school out of the direct control of the local education authority into the grant-maintained system, free education still exists, whether in the grant-maintained sector or the local authority maintained sector. Parents within the area of the local education authority can put their children, if they feel so strongly about it, into a local education authority directly maintained school.
In this situation, however, if the amendment were carried, parents who could not get their children into local authority maintained nursery education would be denied the right to the voucher, which they might find particularly useful, given that for a number of reasons, not just to do with resources as I outlined in my previous remarks, there may not be sufficient places. Such a vote by such a closed community would deprive a larger number of people of the benefits of a national scheme. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, there is a significant difference.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Bowness for making that point. I had intended to assure the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that he was wrong. I shall come to that in due course.
I find this the most extraordinary amendment in many ways, first because we now see the party opposite espousing opt-outs. I seem to remember the one-time Opposition education spokesman in another place, Mrs. Ann Taylor, telling a Labour Party conference, "We oppose opt-outs in principle because it is wrong", but we have seen further changes today.
The reason I find the amendment totally extraordinary is its wording and its wholly defective nature: first, because it does not do what the noble Baroness is setting out to do; and, secondly, because of its extraordinary

47
lack of precision or definition. First, the amendment draws absolutely no boundaries for the areas which might opt out of the scheme, merely referring to:
"any area of the local authority".
How would that be defined? Would that be the parish? Would it be a parliamentary constituency? Could it simply be one borough within the LEA or one district? The matter is not defined at all. Secondly, the amendment specifies that only parents of children attending maintained nursery schools—I emphasise that, and that is what the amendment says—would be eligible to vote in such a ballot. As I think the noble Baroness will be aware, there are some 550 maintained nursery schools in England, but they are not spread evenly throughout the country. There are a number of LEAs with no maintained nursery schools at all. In those LEAs all the maintained nursery provision is made in nursery classes attached to primary schools or in reception classes. They are excluded from the noble Baroness's amendment.
I shall give the noble Baroness a few examples which will be close to home for her and for the others who put their names to this amendment. Lancashire, which the noble Baroness knows well, has more maintained nursery schools than any other English LEA. I am advised that in January 1996 there were 39 maintained nursery schools. Sutton, which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, knows as well as the noble Baroness knows Lancashire, had only two maintained nursery schools in January 1996, although Sutton does make extensive provision for children under five, but in nursery classes, not in nursery schools. Perhaps I can turn to Oxfordshire, although I see that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, is not in his place. I regret I do not have the figures for Leicestershire, with which he also has connections. Oxfordshire has some 18 nursery schools but has a relatively low overall participation rate for the under fives. A final interesting example would obviously be Solihull, which the noble Baroness mentioned, and there was much debate in another place, as the noble Baroness will be aware, about that particular LEA. Solihull has no nursery schools at all, so there would be no parents eligible to take part in the ballot because their provision is made not by means of nursery schools but by nursery classes or reception classes.
Thirdly, one has to look at who is being asked to take part in that ballot. I merely ask why parents of children in maintained nursery schools should be able to determine whether or not all other parents in an area should be able to benefit from the new grant arrangements. That certainly is the effect of the amendment as it stands.
We want to give parents of all four year-olds the opportunity to choose the type and nature of the nursery education which best suits their child. When we say "all", we mean all of them and not only those currently fortunate enough to have secured a nursery education place. That is why we believe very strongly in parental choice, and the voucher effectively allows every parent to express his or her view about local provision across the board. If that local provision
48
satisfies the parents' needs, the maintained schools and LEAs have nothing to fear and will lose nothing whatsoever. We also want to offer opportunities to those who have not yet secured a place for their children or who would prefer a different sort of place. Let us be quite clear that if a local education authority wants to continue to provide the same number of places to the same children, it will be absolutely free to do so and will not lose out. If an LEA continues to recruit the same number of children in the same pattern, it will be no worse off. I have heard no allegations from the noble Baroness or others that the kind of provision which local authorities are making is not satisfactory and that individuals will not wish to make use of it. Good provision, from whichever sector, that is meeting the needs of the parents has absolutely nothing to fear, and I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister, in his response to the debate, appeared to indicate that were certain phrases or words in the amendment not to be used the Government would be quite happy. He appeared to imply that if the wording of the amendment were to ensure that parents of children in nursery units and classes and reception classes in Solihull were also able to vote, the Government would be happy to satisfy that request. The Minister appeared to be saying that if the franchise were to be widened he would recognise that too.
The objections that have been raised by the Minister to the drafting of the amendment appear to be of more concern to him than the principle. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to finding a way to simplify the system. Surely the simplest way to make the system easier is for those who are satisfied now to be able to opt-out of having to have a voucher. It is a very strange comment from a Conservative Minister that, on top of the wasteful, bureaucratic cost of paying for what parents already have (and which is funded through the revenue support grant, Government income, the national non-domestic rate, the local council tax, redistribution and the allocation of grant) the Government want to add a procedure whereby, the LEAs have to get the money back through eight different systems, in order that parents continue to have the provision they already have and with which they are satisfied. The Minister says it is perfectly all right: the Government are finding the money from somewhere else. I am sorry. My experience of the people of Solihull and the way they view local government expenditure is that they will not be satisfied by the Government saying that it is perfectly OK, they will make sure that the additional bureaucratic costs come from somewhere else. My experience of parents is that they look at the size of the primary school classes and say, "Thank you very much, Government. We would rather spend the money on teachers than on jumping through eight new bureaucratic hoops".
The amendment enfranchises only parents with places in the current system. That is the Government's comment. But these are the parents who are most

49
concerned about what they have now being imperilled as a result of the vouchers being imposed. The electorate is exactly the same as that which would apply in the case of a GM ballot. The Government seem to say: "There are parents, parents and parents. When it suits us we will take only the parents of children in a school. When it does not, we will not." Obviously, if the Government were able to support the principle of the amendment and take it away and look at it, we from this side would be prepared to withdraw the amendment at this stage and await the Government meeting the request of parents for parental choice. I see the noble Lord the Minister shake his head against that, and therefore I have no alternative but to seek the opinion of the Committee.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Borrie, L.

McNally, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Meston, L.

Desai, L.

Methuen, L

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

MonsksWell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of castle Morris, L.

Dubs, L.

EatWell, L.

Nicol, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Palmer, L.

Falkender, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falkland, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Geraint, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Sewel, L.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollick, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tope, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Varley, L.

Jay or Paddington, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Longford, E.

Winston, L.

50

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Addison, V.

Kimball, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Leigh, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour, E.

Lucas, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Brentford, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burnham, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cadman, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Munster, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.)

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Norrie, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Northbourne, L.

Coleridge, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Downshire, M.

Rawlings, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Romney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Feldman, L.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Flather, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Gage, V.

Stewartby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harrowby, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Ullswater, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Howe, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("except where any such arrangements would have the effect of reducing the resources available to any local education authority in the first or subsequent financial years of the operation of those arrangements by comparison with the last financial year before such operation").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 86 are grouped together. For the convenience and, I hope, intelligibility of this group, I shall move

51
Amendment No. 4 and leave Amendment No. 5 to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with the certain knowledge that my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies will be able to enlighten the Committee on Amendment No. 86.
The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to prevent the loss of resources to authorities with high levels of provision through the system of financing vouchers chosen by the Government. It is intended to press the Government on their justification for imperilling existing provision in a number of areas. The issue was raised at several stages in another place, notably and strongly by the Conservative Member Mr. lain Mills on behalf of his authority of Solihull.
I have this day received a letter which was wrapped around a large box. I cannot, of course, exhibit the box in any way, but it is a marvellous box and I believe that it is in order for me to refer to it. It contained 1,200 (give or take a few) hand prints from children in the schools in Solihull that would be affected by the Bill. Although I cannot exhibit anything in the Chamber, if at any time Members of the Committee would like to see the kind of artwork that takes place in those marvellous schools—there are some wonderful ones in Solihull—the box is available for their inspection in my room.
The letter is addressed to,
"Dear All Lords and Ladies, re. nursery vouchers".
It says that they are sending the 1,200 sets of handprints from the children of Solihull, because in Solihull they have an excellent education system for pre-school children which has taken them a long time to build up and which would take only a short time to destroy if the nursery voucher scheme were to be implemented as compulsory. They beg us to consider giving Solihull and many other authorities the chance to opt out of the scheme and continue with their excellent provision. The box was presented to me just after midday today by a lady acting on behalf of the Solihull Parent Action Group. I thought it might lighten the proceedings a little if I were to refer to it.
The method by which the Government propose to fund the larger part of the voucher scheme is, in our view, flawed and of great concern to a wide number of people. Most of the finance will be taken from local authorities in a way which will affect them very differently, and that is the point. Some of the highest providers will lose not only what they spend on four year-olds, but also a great deal of what they spend on three year-olds. In other words, the introduction of vouchers will not only place existing provision for four year-olds in doubt it will impede progress towards expanding nursery education for three year-olds.
In biblical terms it is a case not so much of "Unto him that hath shall be given", but of "From him that hath shall be taken away everything that he hath, especially if he has got rather a lot". Or, to use another parable, the wise virgins are going to be punished and the foolish virgins are going to be given a considerable handout.
The reason that could occur is that the majority of the funding for the scheme is to be deducted from local education authorities and under the Bill redirected to the making of grants equivalent to the value of the voucher.
52
The problem is that the amounts to be deducted per child bear no relation to the actual cost of providing a place in a specific area. The largest deductions will be made from those LEAs with the highest provision.
The Government will claim that the money lost will simply be regained if parents with vouchers again choose the LEA schools. But that is a simplistic attitude to the problem. We have already heard from my noble friend Lady Farrington of the paperchase—the way in which the vouchers money will go from one end of the LEA to the other and back to where it started in an extremely difficult bureaucratic scheme. It also ignores the impossibility of planning and budgeting for services for which the funding is wholly uncertain until after the start of the financial year.
I hope the Committee will agree that we are not running a corner shop. We are running more than 106 LEAs, and they are running a highly complex and difficult financial operation. Not to be able to plan forward—to have one's forward planning vitiated in this way is extremely serious. The financing method threatens to destabilise existing nursery provision at the price of expansion in areas with fewer places. Not only is that unfair, a more logical system would better deliver expansion in nursery education: if the additional resources which are being created were simply made available to LEAs for the expansion of the public and private sectors in partnership.
Of the £750 million intended to be spent on the voucher scheme in 1997–98, £565 million will be deducted in advance from the revenue support grant payable to local education authorities. Thus £165 million will be new money. The money deducted from LEAs represents over half of the £1 billion which the Government consider authorities should spend on nursery education. But in the case of the high providers such as Solihull, with high levels of provision for both four year-olds and three year-olds, 95 per cent. of the money which the Government consider they ought to spend will be removed to fund vouchers in this circular system. It may or may not end up back with them. What a way to run a railway!
The system is inefficient because the process of passing vouchers from hand to hand involves administrative costs which the Government have conservatively estimated at £20 million of the total. There is no provision in that for the training of staff, or for capital spending on buildings and equipment. Therefore, before the expansion has started, resources are being frittered away for the sake of this ideological experiment. Nor is this experiment one that has been followed through in practice since already in the inner city pilot areas, authorities, we are told, have waived the distinction between children whose parents do and those who do not actually produce a voucher. That must be done apparently in order to cope with the number of parents whose first language is not English and the number of deprived families in the areas concerned. Otherwise we just penalise the children.
In practice therefore the money is not following the voucher-bearing child, calling into question the need for the associated bureaucracy and for vouchers at all. A

53
more sensible Bill would enable providers to claim grants on the basis of the numbers of four year-olds for whom they provide, without having to present all over the place bits of paper which some parents, for good reasons, cannot produce.
The core difficulty with the mechanism which the Government need to explain is that the deductions will be made according to the number of four year-old children in part or in full-time education in the area rather than the total number of children in the area. That sounds technical. It is. But that technical requirement leads automatically to the highest deductions in the highest providing areas, and that is unfair. The Government need to explain—please, will they do so—why deductions are not based on the number of four year-olds in the population of each area. For example, in Wales the deduction is to be made on precisely that basis, so it is not impossible.
The Government will argue that there is a distinction in that in Wales individual authorities do not have a standard spending assessment for education. That is a technical smokescreen, since the SSA for education authorities in England is drawn up on the basis of four year-olds in the population, and it would be quite straightforward to make the deductions on the same basis. It would produce a proportionate burden all round and avoid removing grant which is being spent on provision for three year-olds.
This is not the easiest thing in the world to follow, which is why I read carefully from my brief. It is important that we understand it and get it right. What it all adds up to is that the Government need to explain the difference between the position in England and in Wales. Further, they need to recognise that a more effective way to expand nursery provision would be to start from the existing base, using LEAs to secure extra places in both the public and private sectors. The new moneys available should be allocated directly to expansion with a strong lead to LEAs being given in national guidance. There should be no bureaucratic or other wastage of scarce additional resources in this very crucial area. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: The noble Lord, Lord Moms of Castle Moms, indicated that I would speak, in particular, upon Amendment No. 5. I shall do as he suggested. However, we support fully what he said in regard to Amendments Nos. 4 and 86 which we believe to be extremely important.
In the Second Reading debate I expressed some anxiety about the effects of a flat-rate voucher scheme, currently suggested as £1,100. That was intended to cover capital costs as well where appropriate, and certainly no separate provision has been made. If, as stated, one of the principal aims of the scheme is to expand nursery provision as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, it is particularly important that we attempt to target resources on those areas which currently have less or low provision.
If we are to see an expansion, then, by definition, it will not come in those areas which are already well provided for and where the need for additional capital expenditure will be less. If we are to see an expansion,
54
it will come in areas of low provision where there will inevitably be considerable capital costs both in terms of premises and in terms of new equipment in order to run the nursery provision. The purpose of this amendment is to try to draw that out and to enable a scheme to be set up which can target resources where a high level of capital expenditure will be necessary in order to achieve that expanded provision.
I have an additional concern that the present approach will disadvantage local authority providers as compared to providers in the private sector. Local authorities are subject to stringent capital expenditure controls imposed by central government, whereas private providers will be free to borrow to finance capital expenditure, presumably on the security of the expanded provision they will then be able to provide and the income they will get in order to resource their debt.
The purpose of the amendment is to try directly to target any new resources on areas where expansion is necessary and thus to make better use of scarce resources to achieve the object of the Bill, which is the expansion of nursery education.
6 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: The purpose of the amendment is to prevent any local authority losing resources but the purpose of the Bill is that local authorities should lose resources if the pre-school provision they provide is not approved of by parents. That is precisely what is meant by freedom of choice. There will be £150 million of new money going into this provision in the first year. All of it, minus administration costs, will go to local authorities if parents decide that it is to local authority schools they wish to send their children. How one can complain about that and say that the Bill will deprive local authorities of resources I do not know. If they are doing the job that parents want them to do, that will not happen. If we believe in freedom of choice, as do noble Lords on this side of the Committee, and we accept that local authorities which are not efficient in providing what parents want should lose resources and others which are efficient should gain resources, the total effect will be the expansion of pre-school provision. But we do not believe that local authorities should have a monopoly of that provision irrespective of the standard of service they provide. This is a wrecking amendment because it cuts out the primary purpose of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may deal briefly with Amendment No. 86 which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I have little to add to what my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris said in his speech in favour of the other two amendments. The purpose of Amendment No. 86 is to clarify and make explicit in the revenue support grant settlement for local authorities each year the basis on which deductions will be made to fund the voucher scheme. It also draws attention to the different methods being used for England and Wales, but I am comfortable with the situation in Wales as far as the methodology is concerned.
As I understand it, in England the deduction, as my noble friend Lord Morris indicated, will be calculated in each local authority area according to the number of

55
four year-olds in nursery places rather than in the population. On the other hand, the basis of deduction in Wales will be the number of four year-olds in the population. The Government claim that this is for a technical reason: that Welsh authorities, unlike English ones, do not have a separate standard spending assessment for nursery education. However, I am glad to acknowledge that a fairer basis of deduction has been positively adopted in Wales.
I would refer in particular to the Welsh Office document entitled Pre-school education: Implementation of the voucher scheme, which was published on 8th July last year. In that document the Welsh Office examined both options and concluded that the first option—the deduction by the number of four year-olds in the population—appeared more equitable since it would not penalise those authorities that had traditionally made a particularly high level of investment in pre-school provision. The nursery SSA for English authorities is calculated on the basis of numbers of four year-olds in the population and therefore it can be argued that the deductions consistent with that should be on the same basis.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out in the RSG report laid before Parliament each year the basis of the grant deduction and the effect on the distribution to each authority through the SSA mechanism. That would enable Parliament to decide whether it considered that the basis was fair and consistent between the authorities and, I suppose, between England and Wales.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I should like to add my voice to Amendment No. 5, with some slight surprise that it is linked with Amendment No. 4 because we seem to be slightly jumping between topics here, and reinforce the point about some of the problems there might be. I saw today in my post from the Pre-school Learning Alliance, which has done a study of the four pilot areas, quite strong evidence that there will be a problem among its members on the capital element of expanding provision. As has already been noted, if there is a problem on the private side, there will be even more of a problem on the LEA side. So this business of capital costs, which it is hard to see will be satisfied within the £1,100 flat rate, looks like being a real problem.
Lord Henley: I offer my apologies to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, if he thinks that the grouping of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 is not appropriate. I can assure him that myself and my team and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and his team, went to considerable trouble to try to get the grouping right. It is always a difficult matter but it probably assists the work of the Committee, or of the House at Report stage, if we can group as much as possible in order to try to speed up the process of debate and try to bring together matters that ought to be brought together. I think that we can have a perfectly useful discussion on these three amendments even though they are all on slightly different subjects. I hope the Committee will therefore bear with me if I go through the three amendments in much the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, suggested we should, first
56
dealing with Amendment No. 4, then going on to Amendment No. 86 and then coming back to Amendment No. 5.
Perhaps I may deal with a couple of misconceptions of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. First, he said that what is proposed is likely to affect provision for three year-olds. I must remind the Committee that no deduction will be made in respect of three year-olds. Only the voucher value in respect of four year-olds already in maintained schools, all of which can be regained if recruitment of four year-olds remains the same, will be deducted. Three year-olds will not be affected in any way. If parents choose the maintained places, as they do now, maintained schools need have nothing to fear.
Secondly, he made the point, which again I do not accept, that it will be virtually impossible for the LEAs to plan forward. Again I would have to say, as others have said on previous occasions, that that is not the case and that they are in no different a position from either the private or the voluntary sector.
The essential principle behind the voucher scheme is that grant should follow the pupils. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Morris, nor myself would want the LEAs providing good quality provision—I am grateful for the stress that my noble friend Lord Skidelsky placed on that—to be financially disadvantaged. But under the funding mechanism proposed for the voucher scheme such LEAs will not be disadvantaged. We have already been told just how good much of the LEA provision is. No LEA, both high and low providers alike, will lose funding if they continue to recruit the same number of four year-olds. So the only LEA provision that is threatened by the voucher provision, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, made clear, is poor provision and provision to which parents do not choose to send their children. To me, that suggests that those who talk about schools of their acquaintance losing funding have relatively little faith in the quality of those schools.
But why should LEAs have their existing level of funding guaranteed even if the quality of their provision is poor? I refuse to limit parental choice, which that would do, and remove incentives to improve quality by providing a guarantee in primary legislation that the LEAs cannot lose no matter what they do.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, also asked why deductions are not based on population rather than provision. Deductions from the SSA are made for four year-olds with places to ensure that each LEA can regain its funding, as I have said three times, by recruiting as many four year-olds as they do now. If they do that no LEA will lose out whether a high or low provider.
Noble Lords spoke about the different SSA deduction mechanism in Wales and asked why we had gone down a different route when comparing England with Wales. Overall, there is a higher provision for four year-olds in Wales and less variation between the LEAs as to what the provision is. Therefore, the effect of the "top slice" deduction will be much more evenly balanced than would be the case in England. Moreover, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made clear, local

57
government funding in Wales is somewhat different to that in England in that there is no specific education budget. I hope that both noble Lords will accept that as a reason for that difference.
I now turn to Amendment No. 86, to which, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke. The amendment seeks to adjust the presentation of two local government finance procedures—the Secretary of State for the Environment's determination of revenue support grant, and local government finance reports. The amendment is based on a misapprehension of the technical workings of the revenue support grant and standard spending assessment processes. However, I am confident that the effect the amendment seeks will be achieved in other ways. Every step will be taken to ensure that the effect of the voucher scheme on local authority funding allocations is transparent.
In summary, the Government will discuss fully with the local authority associations the way in which the SSAs take account of the introduction of nursery vouchers. Individual local authorities will have the opportunity to make representations about the pupil numbers on which their own proposed SSA reduction is based before it is finalised. The effect of the reduction on the final distribution formula for RSG will be notified to each local eduction authority as for 1996–97; and the Secretary of State for the Environment's determination of revenue support grant will show the amount of revenue support grant which local authorities will receive taking into account the reduction in SSA. As usual, the distribution of revenue support grant and so, by implication, SSAs, must come under parliamentary scrutiny. I accept that that is necessarily complicated. I hope that the noble Lords concerned will at least read what I have said in due course before taking matters further.
I now turn to Amendment No. 5, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke. It deals with capital expenditure. Clause 1 as presently drafted does not preclude the payment of grant for specific capital purposes to providers in any sector; nor does it prevent providers from using voucher income for capital purposes. The amendment seeks to provide a separate stream of capital funding for nursery education.
We expect the voucher scheme to lead, over time, to an expansion of places. In some cases expansion will not entail capital expenditure because new premises can be leased. In other cases, premises can be converted at limited cost. Where appreciable capital expenditure is required, we envisage equal, but different, treatment for all providers. The private and voluntary sectors will be able to borrow on the strength of voucher income, as is common business practice. LEAs can set their own priorities for capital expenditure and, subject to the passage of this Bill, grant-maintained schools will be able to borrow commercially. Total allocations to LEAs for county and voluntary controlled schools this year will be £458 million, a rise of 7 per cent. on the current year.
Many LEAs have already made nursery education a priority within their own capital programmes. Annual capital guidelines do not represent spending limits on
58
school buildings. LEAs are also able to invest capital receipts and transfer from their revenue budgets if they choose. The maintained sector can also enter into partnerships with the private sector under the new freedoms offered by the private finance initiative. That will bring private sector investment and expertise into the public sector. I suspect that both the public and private sectors will benefit.
Within the department we are currently working with a number of local education authorities to develop pathfinder PFI projects. Although none of the more advanced schemes is in the nursery sector, the department is aware of interest in the PFI approach to nursery proposals. Phase 1 of the voucher scheme I hope will provide an opportunity to develop the potential of PFI in nursery education.
I appreciate that we have taken together three amendments of some complexity. I hope that that explanation will be sufficient and that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: As the Minister said, this is a technical matter. Among the papers that have been showering on me like confetti the Committee may like to know that I have just received another petition against this entire Bill from a primary school in Haringey. The petition is signed by between 180 and 200 parents, saying they are not happy about it. I do not know where the paper has come from or why it is here. But I put that forward as an example of the way in which we are being deluged with concern from people everywhere about nursery vouchers.
Perhaps I may take up a few matters in an attempt to throw some light on what is obviously a difficult situation. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, makes. I shall want to study and think about it. I say to him that what we are proposing here is not in any way a wrecking amendment because it uses the Welsh model to fund expansion; it does not in any way deny that deductions should take place. We are rather more concerned about the way in which those deductions are taking place.
If the highest provision is in Wales, to me that only underlines the need not to imperil high provision in England. The fact that there is no Welsh SSA is not relevant. The English SSA, the grant to the LEAs, is calculated by population. The grant from the LEAs will be by the numbers of four year-olds. It could easily be done in the same way as it is done in Wales as far as we can see. But it is, I agree, a complicated situation. We would all do well to think about it at greater length and come back to the matter at Report stage when we have had time to talk to each other.
Perhaps I may take just a few minutes to put before the Committee a theoretical example which has been presented to us which I think throws a certain amount of light on the way in which the scheme might work at individual local authority level. Let us imagine two local authorities—this is taking me back to what I like doing, which is teaching—authority A and authority B. The SSA for nursery education for authority A is £4 million.

59
The number of four year-olds in LEA nursery places in authority A is 2,700. The number of three year-olds in LEA nursery places is 1,000. The deduction from SSA will be £1,100 multiplied by 2,700 which is £2.97 million. The amount remaining in the SSA of authority A is therefore £1.03 million. Let us compare that with our imagined authority B, which has an SSA for nursery education of £4 million, which is exactly the same as that of authority A. The number of four year-olds in LEA nursery places is only 750 and the number of three year-olds in LEA nursery places is just 50. The deduction from SSA is £1,100 multiplied by 750 which is £0.825 million and the amount remaining in the SSA is £3.175 million. There is a tremendous difference between the two.
On the basis of the figures given for authorities A and B, if it is assumed that all children currently in LEA nursery places redeem their voucher (so the income from vouchers is equal to the deduction from SSAs)—a reasonable supposition—authority A will have an SSA of £1.03 million for making provision for 1,000 three year-olds and for extra provision for special educational needs. It may also have to cope with the financial consequences of providing any new places for four year-olds if the £1,100 voucher income does not cover the full cost of the new places. Authority B will have an SSA of £3.175 million for making provision for 50 three year-olds and for extra provision for special educational needs.
The Government argue that the practical effect of their proposals is that if all the four year-olds currently in local authority schools stay in those schools and redeem their vouchers, deductions will be equal to income and there will be no net effect. However, the difficulty with that argument is that deductions based on actual numbers of children and based on an actual amount (£1,100) are being made from notional indicators of need. These notional indicators of need (SSAs) are related in a very complex way to the amount of grant a local authority actually receives from the Government and is allowed to raise through the council tax by the Government. There is a theoretical possibility that if the Government proceed on this basis, some high-providing authorities could actually end up with negative SSAs for nursery education.
It is clear that authorities will suffer highly differential effects by this operation. Those which are already committed to high levels of provision will, we believe, suffer a financial consequence which will place current provision in a great deal of doubt. That is why we felt that this group of amendments was well worth considering. We agreed to the grouping—I believe that the Government were content—of Amendment No. 4 with Amendment No. 86 because the position in Wales seems so much clearer, granted that provision in Wales is, as the Minister said, much more even because the spread of high providers and low providers is so much less.
We should like to return to this matter on Report. We have now got our point on the record, so let us see what happens when we start to think about it. This is a technical and important point and I do not want to bandy
60
figures across the Dispatch Box with the Minister. Having put this on the record, let us think about it before the next stage. That might be a better way to proceed than arguing the toss.
We think that it might be better if something close to the Welsh scheme were adopted in place of what seems to be proposed to cover a situation where there is a wide spread of provision. Having said that, I do not feel that this is an issue on which we should ask the Committee to express an opinion now—not least because several Members of the Committee might not feel that they have total command of all the detail, such as the Minister and I—and obviously several other noble Lords—have had to attain by a process of black coffee and wrapping wet towels around the head for a considerable period of time. I hope that the Committee will agree to return to this on Report. Perhaps we can make some progress with it then rather than now. If that is the feeling of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The power contained in subsection (1) above shall be exercised in pursuance of the duty imposed by section (Nursery education duty) below.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I should like to speak to some of the amendments in this group and I am aware that other noble Lords would like to speak to others.
The aim of Amendment No. 7 is to require the power to make arrangements for nursery vouchers to be exercised in pursuance of a general duty on local authorities to secure the provision of nursery education. The amendment proposes a new duty on local authorities in relation to nursery education. A previous "duty" on local education authorities to provide nursery education was replaced by a "power" in the Education Act 1980. Nursery education has been expanded (within tight constraints) in recent years, but the creation of a clear statutory duty would strengthen the position.
It is a tragedy to think of the thousands of children who were denied education before it became clear that under the 1944 Act there was a duty, not a power, on local authorities. Sadly, the right of children to have nursery education as a result of a duty being imposed on a local education authority was removed by the Government as soon as it became apparent that it was a legal duty.
The amendments suggest a new context in which nursery education should be pursued within the framework of the Bill. The creation of a voucher scheme should go hand in hand with the restoration of a clear lead in this area so that there is a strong public responsibility for the further promotion and expansion of nursery provision.
Under this amendment, local authorities would have a duty to secure, rather than solely to provide, nursery education. Their duty would thus be to promote the mixed economy in nursery provision which already

61
exists and which the Bill seeks, through vouchers, to promote. The local authorities would be the local leaders of partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors, bringing together the many elements of education, care and recreation which meet the needs of the under-five age group. Local authorities are ideally placed to do that and to take forward the development of nursery education in the future.
There is clearly a role for local authorities and local government in various areas of social policy. I cite only one other example. The Morgan Report asked the Government to place a duty on local authorities with regard to tackling crime in their localities. The Government may say that everything can be left to the free market, that eventually the balance will settle in the right order and that even co-operative partnership planning across the private, voluntary and local authority sectors is unnecessary. It is the experience of almost all in local government that haphazard market forces alone can leave areas lacking provision. Ingenuity, innovation and initiative are required to ensure that children in the most remote localities have access to nursery education. I know of cases where there has been, not wilful, but deep deprivation of children in rural communities. I take the case of a child of three. It was discovered that the child was not speaking. His mother lived alone most of the time in an isolated environment and was depressed and nobody ever spoke to the child. It is that kind of planning to meet real needs which is important. I also cite the example of those children for whom provision is perhaps the most difficult because of behavioural problems. Sadly, one hears of many cases of young children who appear to suffer from deep-seated behavioural problems. Any proper planning of provision must ensure that, while condemning the circumstances in which these children find themselves nowadays, provision is made to meet their needs and something is done about such deep-seated problems. We can all criticise; that is easy.
I believe that perhaps the greatest problem in our society today is what I term "grandfather deprivation". When families were less mobile many small children, particularly boys, spent weekends with their grandfathers. Families are now fractured and often children have little or no contact with adult men and their behaviour may become difficult.
I make no apology for citing these examples. They are precisely those where the needs of individual children may fall through the net of the voluntary, private and local authority provision if no attempt is made, on a consensual basis, to bring together all the partners. It is my experience in the county of which I am a county councilor—Lancashire—that there are many good projects that are improved by widespread co-operation. In tackling the problems it is important to bring in different faiths and partners in the voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled schools sector and to bring together those in urban and rural communities. Amendment No. 7 is a big step in ensuring that those needs are met.
Amendment No. 19 seeks to remedy a weakness in the existing arrangements. Every LEA would be required to say how in future it would go about making
62
provision available to all three and four year-olds. I should like to make absolutely plain that we on this side of the Chamber do not see nursery education becoming a feature of statutory schooling where parents are informed that the only pre-statutory schooling provision that should be available to meet the need is in the nursery education sector. However, it is clear that there is need for a commitment to prepare development plans in order to see how parents' needs can be met. The voluntary and private sectors have embraced development planning. In considering this Bill, it is important that we respond, for example, to the majority of the Early Childhood Education Forum who feel that this kind of future development planning is important.
There are other amendments in this group, and I know that other Members of the Committee will seek to speak to them. I have pleasure in moving Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I have put down my name in support of Amendment No. 53, which is part of the present group. That amendment seeks to amend that part of Schedule 1 which concerns the general functions of the chief inspector. The first duty is recited in paragraph 3:
"The Chief Inspector has the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about—

(a) the quality and standards of funded nursery education, and

(b) the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children for whom funded nursery education is provided".

My amendment seeks to add sub-paragraph (c):
"the availability in England and Wales of nursery education to children aged three and four whose parents wish their children to receive such education".
Therefore, under the amendment the chief inspector has to inform the Secretary of State as to the availability of nursery education for three and four year-olds. I believe that it is a follow-up to what my noble friend has just said. If the amendment is passed the chief inspector will have to report on the quantity of nursery education available to three and four year-olds in addition to the responsibilities imposed by subparagraphs 3(a) and (b) and on whether or not it meets the demand. The reference to three year-olds will significantly alter the requirement on the chief inspector.
The Government have stated that the main rationale for the nursery voucher scheme is universal nursery provision for four year-olds and the extension of that commitment to three year-olds. However, the voucher scheme under the proposed legislative arrangements does not guarantee any increase in nursery places. The amendment will go at least some way towards ensuring that the Government are made aware of the true availability of places for four year-olds. The requirement on the chief inspector to report on the availability of places for three year-olds may go some way to safeguard existing three year-old provision. A great many people are very worried that the three year-old provision may be pushed out. There are grave concerns with regard to three year-old provision. Anecdotal reports from areas outside the four Phase 2 LEAs appear to justify those concerns. For example,

63
Hounslow LEA, where every primary or infants school has a nursery class, stands to lose —3.1 million from its education budget when the scheme is fully implemented. The CEO has stated that where the majority of places in nursery classes are occupied by three year-olds they will be forced to close. There are anxieties about this matter. I hope that the general need for nursery education for four and three year-olds will be addressed in this Bill, which is concerned with nursery education. I strongly support my noble friend.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I wish to address largely Amendment No. 19 in regard to the question of development plans. I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady David, about attention to the needs of three year-olds which many people believe are important. Amendment No. 19 also includes a reference to three year-olds.
It is important to remember also that the local education authorities should have a duty, as proposed in Amendment No. 28, to put forward a plan for providing nursery education in their areas. That idea is welcomed by the voluntary and private sectors. There is a consensus that an expansion of places should build on the good practice that has already been developed in many local authorities in partnership with the voluntary and private sectors.
A plan for providing nursery education would assist the Government to use the money where it was most required. The education authority would not have to provide nursery education, but would have a plain duty to analyse the gaps in provision.
The Government have stated that their main objective is the expansion of availability of nursery education. It is extremely important to know where the expansion is required. It is not enough to say that individuals can use their voucher to secure education: in some areas the likely effect will be no expansion of education because all those children are already provided for in some way; in other areas it will merely assist some parents who are paying for nursery education because they will pay slightly less. The provision will not necessarily be expanded because a number of people may escape through the net, and the money will not be directed to where it is most needed. That is a point I made earlier this afternoon.
If local authorities had the duty to ensure that everyone had access to local authority education, they could tackle another problem with the Bill, which is the lack of provision for capital investment or for any support of teacher training. Those matters will be debated later, but they are scooped up in these amendments, because I am trying to explain that the duties placed on a local authority would lead to a better analysis of gaps and a better ability to support provision with capital and additional training for new staff.
A large number of local authorities is doing precisely what the amendment suggests. Those authorities are spread across the country and view the matter from different political angles. In Buckinghamshire the nursery class provision programme has been reinstated, and large numbers of nursery classes are being opened.
64
It is hoped that that programme, subject to budget availability, will continue next year. That is one local authority which plans to increase provision.
Bradford, which is a totally different kind of authority, is planning to increase provision in areas of greatest deprivation. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, addressed that point and stressed the need to ensure that the money goes where it is most needed for expansion of provision.
Hampshire and Shropshire authorities, which are different from each other and different from the two I have mentioned are both working with the voluntary and private sectors to increase the availability of nursery education to everyone who wants it. Shropshire is one of the most rural of our local authorities. There is a long list of other authorities, ranging from Richmond-upon-Thames to Salford, which have different approaches but where our recommendation is already in place.
It would be ridiculous to interrupt a programme of expanding nursery provision, in many cases undertaken by local authorities with the co-operation of the voluntary and private sectors—a deliberate attempt by local authorities to use non-statutory providers to satisfy a local need—by providing the funds in a totally different way.
The amendment contains some very useful ideas. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. It attempts to do precisely what he has declared to be one of the main objectives of the Bill. It does not attempt to do so entirely or even principally by local authority provision, but through the co-ordinating powers of a local authority with respect to statutory, voluntary and private provision.
Lord Monkswell: I support my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton on this amendment. I shall speak to Amendment No. 19 which deals with a local education authority making development plans in conjunction with the Funding Agency for Schools, which is the government national arm for funding the grant-maintained sector, and with other providers.
According to the Government's plans, there will be a precipitate injection of demand into the system by the issuing of vouchers next April. There will not necessarily be an equal and balancing provision of supply. There will be a need for staff and premises and for entrepreneurial activity by the local authority or private providers. There will also be a requirement to obtain planning permission for the physical provision of the facilities that will hopefully emerge as a result of that demand.
The provision of supply to balance that demand will not be available at once everywhere. There will be a patchiness. Where there is a lack of entrepreneurial culture in the local community, private sector providers will not spring up overnight. Even if they did, there would be a requirement for those providers to obtain planning permission for premises that complied with the planning laws and relevant regulations.
Given that scenario, rather than a range of people trying to meet the precipitate demand there should be a sense of co-ordination and bringing together of people.

65
The local authority planning department and planning committee should recognise the likely pattern of demand in its area. That is what will happen next April, according to the Government's plans. Perhaps I may go beyond that and look at the way in which the scheme will develop over time. I am sure that the Government will not argue that the whole Bill is aimed merely at putting £1,000 in the pockets of the relevant parents next April. There will be a longer term perspective on the arrangement for nursery provision which will change as communities and the number of three and four year-olds in a geographical area change. Inevitably, in some localities there will be a decline in the demand for nursery provision and an emerging demand in others. Therefore, we must consider how the private sector and public sector provision will develop over time.
It is sensible to ensure that that changing provision is accommodated and recognised and that there is a mechanism by which people can come together and say that a nursery school in a particular area may have to close because of lack of demand but that it is necessary to open one in another area as a result of increasing demand. I believe that Amendment No. 19 provides a mechanism under which sensible co-ordination and planning can be established. I am not speaking in the rigid sense of centralised planning but, in terms of co-ordination and provision, of ensuring that a gap in one area is filled perhaps by asking a private provider to make provision or for the local authority to expand a local school in order to make provision available.
I hope that, in the spirit of non-partisanship and with a view to providing long-term continuity and a sense of progression, the Government will look sympathetically at Amendment No. 19.
Lord Skidelsky: I wish to tease out the meaning of the curious new nursery education duty, which is the subject of Amendment No. 28. It provides:
"A local authority shall secure the provision of nursery education within the meaning of section 1(2) above for children within its area".
Which children are they? Are they children whose parents want such education for them; children who are deemed to need such education; or all children, whether their parents want it for them or whether they need it? If the duty of the LEA is to provide education for all children in its area, that is simply a way of extending compulsory education.
I am asking some questions and trying to tease out the answers. If it referred all children, that would be compulsory education under a different guise. If the provision related to children who need education in its area, who is to determine their needs? If it relates to children whose parents want education for them, that is already an entitlement of the Bill and therefore the provision is completely irrelevant.
Am I wrong in detecting the cloven hoof of compulsion; that the object of this group of amendments is to force children into pre-school education, whether
66
they need it or whether their parents want it? If not, what is the new nursery education duty which is not already contained in the Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hoped that I had made it clear when I said that it was not the position of those supporting the amendments to change statutory schooling. However, nursery education should be available to all parents who wish it for children of three and four. That is the aim of this group of amendments.
Within the legislation as proposed by the Government, while there is an availability of nursery vouchers, the planning or the provision to meet the needs of parents—a freely exercised choice by parents—does not fall on anyone. Therefore, this group of amendments seeks to put in place a planning framework in which the more difficult or intractable problems of provision can be met. I draw on my experience of Lancashire where there are tiny village schools. As a result of the nature of the Lancashire communities and because of parental preference over decades, if not centuries, we have tiny Catholic and Anglican village schools. There is a need to make provision in those circumstances.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that none of the amendments is about forcing parents to accept anything. It is my experience that at a meeting about nursery education I have yet to hear an angry parent say, "You are trying to make me have something I do not want". People know that they are not forced to have something they do not want. The amendment is tabled in order to ensure that parents have a range of choices, whatever the circumstances.
Lord Skidelsky: In that case, why does not the amendment provide that the duty relates to children whose parents want education? The duty is to provide education for children and the noble Baroness and others constantly talked about needs. They started talking about wants and preferences only when I asked the question.
Lord Henley: I can explain to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky that I suspect that the thrust behind a number of these amendments is about putting local authorities back in the driving seat in the provision of nursery education. That is why the noble Baroness talked about a "planning framework" and used other such expressions long loved by socialists. The amendments clearly set out two different ways of achieving that but, in essence, both approaches are about preserving the place of local authorities and denying the chance for a real diversity of provision to grow up in response to parents' needs. I cannot say often enough how much the issue of parental choice is our theme. I believe that by introducing parental choice and nursery vouchers we will, over time, stimulate new places to come on stream. Those places will need to respond to parental advance as, under our voucher arrangements, parents will be in the driving seat.
Perhaps I may take the two approaches in turn. First, Amendments Nos. 7 and 28, linked to Amendment No. 92, would place a new duty on LEAs to secure the provision of nursery education for those children within the age range defined by the Bill in their area. In

67
pursuance of that duty, the Secretary of State would be required to make grants in respect of nursery education under the provisions of the Bill. As I said, those amendments would put local authorities in the driving seat; in other words, the duty to provide places would rest with local authorities. While the amendment gives the Secretary of State the scope to issue guidance about how this duty might be fulfilled, it would be local authorities which determine precisely how to fulfil their duty.
Amendment No. 19 places an unnecessary additional requirement on local authorities but does not give them any new powers. Any local education authority can put together a development plan for a particular element of its provision and in doing so can consult interested parties. As there is already legislation ensuring that the provision within an area is being looked at and nothing to prevent an LEA putting together a development plan of any description to inform its own actions and to help parents understand its plans more clearly, the amendment is not necessary.
There is no need for the Bill to require LEAs to draw up a development plan and, indeed, in many ways that would be undesirable. We would not want parents to be discouraged from choosing a provider which satisfied the relevant quality assurance requirements and met their needs and those of their children simply because the LEA had not happened to mention that provider in a development plan. As I said, Her Majesty's Government believe that the manner of the expansion of nursery education should be determined by parental choice and not by the LEAs.
I should now like to say a few words about Amendment No. 53, to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke. As I understand it, the amendment seeks to place on the chief inspector a requirement to report on the number of places that are available for three year-olds. That is how the amendment is worded on the Marshalled List, but I assume it to be a misprint. I see that the noble Baroness shakes her head. I imagine that the noble Baroness meant it to refer to three and four year-olds. However, the point is immaterial and I merely make it for the sake of the record.
I believe that it would be inappropriate to ask Her Majesty's chief inspector to report on the availability of places for just three year-olds or, indeed, three and four year-olds. It goes very much beyond his remit as a guardian of education standards. Rather, we should look at the effect of the scheme on the number and type of places available for both three and four year-olds as part of the evaluation. We have in mind a special survey of parents to take that forward, but I would expect any such effect to be discernable over a longer time-scale than Phase 1.
As we are now on the subject of Her Majesty's chief inspector and as there are official spokesmen for the Opposition sitting opposite me, one of whom will no doubt reply to the debate, perhaps I may take this opportunity to invite them to deny the allegations that were reported in the Mail on Sunday yesterday; namely, that the current Chief Inspector of Schools, Mr. Chris Woodhead, would be sacked by an incoming
68
Labour Government. I believe that to be a quite reprehensible suggestion, especially as it applies to a public servant who has provided the most excellent leadership in the world of education and who is doing much to see that standards are raised. When the noble Baroness winds up the debate, I hope that she will be able to deny the report that such allegations have been made. I also hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I should like to begin by reminding the Minister that I have been in local government for too long, first, to believe everything that I read in newspapers. Secondly, I believe slightly less of anything that I read in The Mail on Sunday.
Lord Henley: Do I take it that the noble Baroness is denying that report?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Thirdly, I should point out to the Minister that my experience in local government has taught me that it is unwise ever to refer to an individual public employee by name in public; and, indeed, to rely on someone else's account. I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister is being scrupulously fair in the prét he has given me of the article. However, I cannot be 100 per cent. sure that he read it clearly and carefully. Even the Observer some three or four weeks ago described my honourable friend in another place, Peter Mandelson, as a "former spin-doctor". Therefore, I cannot comment further.
I return now to the issue under discussion.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I wonder whether she agrees with me on my following point. The next election will probably not take place for another nine or ten months yet. Are we really going to have electioneering in the debates on every Bill that goes through this Chamber? It is taking an enormous amount of time and it is extremely boring. Could we not have an agreement to cut such electioneering until at least three months before the election is due?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I bow to the greater experience and distinguished record of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I shall seek to do as she suggested. Indeed, I shall be delighted if the noble Baroness can tell me exactly when three months before the next election will be.
I am afraid that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, inhabit a different world from the world of local government in which it has been my pleasure and honour to work and from which I have derived my experience. I do not know where the parents are who are told what it is that they require. However, my experience is that none of them lives in Lancashire. From the experience of colleagues across the political spectrum—whether it is the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, or the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—I know that parents are not backward in coming forward. The idea that a local education authority could gather together the voluntary

69
sector, the Churches and everyone else and thereby instruct parents as to what they should say they want for their three and four year-old children is a nonsense.
Planning is not a dirty word; indeed, it is not just a socialist word. It is a word that Conservatives in local government have used to secure adequate places to meet the needs of rural communities. I shall read the Minister's response most carefully. I do not propose to divide the Committee on this issue at this stage. I merely say that I do not know from where the Government receive their information regarding the behaviour of the public or of local government. But, in my experience, it certainly does not come from my neck of the woods in Lancashire. We work together and parents say what they want. We actually endeavour to plan to ensure that no child slips through the net. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the amendment is formally withdrawn, I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 53 which the Minister included in his response. I really want clarification on something that the Minister said. He referred at least once to standards, but the thrust of the amendment is availability. I believe that the Minister will agree that one of the functions of the inspectorate is to draw the Government's attention to, say, bottlenecks, or the short supply or over supply of certain items; for example, the number of playing fields in schools or, perhaps, the shortage of science teachers. All those matters are part of the normal function of HMIs.
I should have thought that "availability" as referred to in my noble friend's amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has attached his name, ought to be drawing the attention of the Government to what might be a shortage of nursery education for children aged three whose parents wish their children to receive such education. I believe that to be an absolutely normal function and, as it happens, a most important one especially in the context of this Bill. It is possible that the Minister meant to refer to availability, but he actually referred to standards. I should like to emphasise the fact that the amendment is not primarily concerned with standards: it is concerned with availability.
Lord Henley: I am afraid that the noble Lord misheard what I said. I was trying to make clear the fact that I believe that looking at the availability of places goes beyond the actual remit of Her Majesty's chief inspector, as that is not his proper role. However, as regards the availability of playing fields, and so on, I look forward to debating that matter with the noble Lord some time later this week. I was simply making clear that the number of places available for three and four year-olds was not appropriate to HMI's remit, but that there are other ways that we can look at the numbers. I promised that the department will look into the matter.
Lord Dormand of Easington: In that case, what are the "other ways" to which the Minister referred?
Lord Henley: Again, I thought that I had made it clear that we would look at, say, a survey of parents to examine availability. I do not believe that Her Majesty's
70
chief inspector is the appropriate person to look at the numbers of three and four-year olds. That is what I was trying to make clear.
Amendment No. 7, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1996
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 8th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is but a short time since we had a detailed discussion of the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, about the serious problems facing fishing fleets, not just in the European Community but worldwide. We learnt that many of the stocks on which UK fishermen are critically dependent are at risk of biological collapse and that urgent action needs to be taken to reduce the pressure of overfishing. Those warnings have been given even more force in the past few days by news of the North Sea herring stock. We also heard a deal of criticism of the Government's efforts to respond, in particular in terms of removing capacity from the UK fleet.
In answer to those comments, I assured the House that we were in full earnest in the measures we were taking and that we already had a substantial decommissioning programme amounting to over £50 million to the end of next year. I know that there are suggestions that this is too little and too late. But, as I also explained to the House, the problems of overfishing have to be tackled on a common basis by all who fish the same stocks. Quite apart from the financial burden of acting alone―and the economic impact on our fishermen and their communities―such sacrifices would simply not have the desired effect if others continue to fish without the same controls and restraint. That indeed is the basic rationale for our staying in the common fisheries policy and making it work.
It is therefore with some sadness that I have to tell the House that the Commission's ideas for the next series of multi-annual guidance programmes, which were announced at a press conference in Brussels on 29th May and which are designed to address this whole problem of over capacity, are simply not acceptable in their present form. First, as my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place has already said, UK fishermen cannot be expected to contemplate further cutbacks as long as there is no satisfactory progress with sorting out the problem of quota hoppers.

71
But, in addition, it is clear that there are a large number of inconsistencies and shortcomings in the Commission's underlying approach, most blatantly in respect of its failure to make any recommendation about the level of industrial fishing. At the Council of Ministers meeting on 10th June, I am pleased to say that many of our concerns were echoed by a number of other member states. It is therefore clear that much further work needs to be done before conclusions can be reached. Given the more narrow purpose of the debate tonight, I do not think that we should attempt to go further into these aspects now. I was, however, anxious to give your Lordships a full and frank explanation of the background before moving on to the detail of the draft order itself, which is a much more limited measure designed to deal with our existing commitments to reduce fishing capacity and to meet targets due to expire at the end of this year.
There is much confusion over the rate of UK progress towards these objectives, resulting largely from the Commission's use of different figures and different units of measurement from those reported to Brussels by the UK and indeed other member states. On the basis of gross registered tonnes (GRT) in which our multi-annual guidance programme targets were set, the UK fleet now stands at approximately 207,000 tonnes. Compared with our original target, this is still uncomfortably high. But a number of new factors have come to light about the historical data on which this assessment was based. We are pursuing these with the Commission in an effort to get the figures corrected. If we are successful, the remaining percentage gap will be in single figures and well within the scope of the decommissioning programme which we have been successfully pursuing for the past three years. The question of what more needs to be done to address future targets is, as I said, for another day. In the meantime I wish to elaborate on various improvements we are making to the present decommissioning scheme, notably in the light of a consultation exercise with the industry held earlier this year.
I am happy to tell the House that it has been possible to meet most of the concerns raised in the consultation exercise and significantly to expand the 1996 scheme to make it more attractive and better value for money. I shall therefore conclude by outlining those changes and the principal features of the measure before the House today. In essence the changes relate to the eligibility criteria, which we have widened considerably. In particular we have reduced the number of qualifying days spent fishing from 100 to 75. This will enable a number of vessels that failed to meet the previous 100-day requirement to apply and will maximise the amount of EU funding available to us. We have also removed the restrictions on licence type to allow any licensed vessel over 10 metres in registered length to apply. This will allow applications from shellfishermen and from vessels in the Nephrops and distant water segments.
The exclusion of Nephrops vessels last year was controversial. The Government have listened to those who pointed out that fleet segments are volatile. It is
72
true that a large proportion of demersal vessels fish for Nephrops and vice versa. To that extent the segmentation is an artificial construct which we will be seeking to change in the forthcoming MAGP negotiations. I believe that this change to the scheme rules will be widely welcomed. We have, however, retained the exclusion for vessels under 10 metres. With finite funding available we wish to target that part of the industry which has the highest impact on stocks.
In the decommissioning consultation exercise we suggested the possibility of allowing vessel owners to retain or dispose separately of their decommissioned vessels' track record. This was intended to increase the incentive to submit lower bids for applications. The response demonstrated little support for such arrangements on the part of the industry. Again we have listened to the industry and have not proceeded with the suggestion. Finally, in response to a number of concerns, we have introduced a greater degree of flexibility to permit historic vessels to be preserved afloat. This can be done while safeguarding public funds by allowing such vessels to be placed with registered museums. I very much hope that this will enable a valuable part of our maritime heritage to be retained for future generations.
The scheme provides, as it did in 1993, flexibility for Ministers to set deadlines for the scheme. The scheme was launched on 9th May. It has already been announced that applications must be submitted before 25th June and that those that are accepted must decommission their vessels by 31st October 1996. Except for the significant changes I have mentioned, the 1996–97 scheme is similar to its predecessors in that vessels must be over 10 years old, be seaworthy and hold a valid fishing licence and, if accepted, vessels must proceed to decommission or be excluded from future schemes.
As in previous years we will be paying particular attention to the value for money of bids received. If, for whatever reason, funds remain unspent from the current round the timing this year will enable a second tender to be held in the autumn should this prove necessary. To sum up, the 1996 decommissioning scheme is an important part of our strategy to ensure that the UK fleet can remain viable in the face of reduced fishing opportunities and go on to contribute to the renewal of the resources on which so many livelihoods depend. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 8th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committed].— (Baroness Trumpington).
7.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her excellent outline of the 1996 scheme and for telling us of the latest state of the British fishing fleet. We are returning to a subject on which we have had two major debates in this House already this year. I refer to the debate on 14th February on the common fisheries policy; and to that on 16th April on the need for a worldwide reduction of fishing effort. There was also my more recent Starred Question on 15th May to

73
which the reply came that, if treaty changes were needed, the Government would seek improvements in the CFP at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. I aim to go on from there and not to repeat what I said on those occasions.
The scheme for 1996 is a further instalment following agreement between the British Government and the European Union on a reduction in tonnage of about 19 per cent. in the United Kingdom fleet from 1993 to 1996. I should add that tonnage by itself is not an appropriate measure. I am sure that that is one of the points to which my noble friend referred as being a difference between ourselves and the Commission. The effective catching power is the realistic statistic for fair comparisons.
Responsible and experienced fishermen's leaders accept that conservation is essential and that fishing effort has to be reduced. They are, rightly, very concerned that this must be carried out fairly between fishing nations, and particularly within the European Union.
The key point in this decommissioning scheme is that about 20 per cent. of the registered British fishery fleet consists of foreign boats—mostly Spanish and Dutch—masquerading as British. They are described as the quota hoppers. Not only do they qualify to fish for UK quotas, but presumably they also inflate the figure for the total British fleet and thus distort the targets for decommissioning.
We have discussed in the past the history and reasons for this extraordinary paradox. I sum up the situation in this way. There is a lamentable contradiction between the European Union laws on establishment of businesses within member countries' jurisdictions and the European Union system of fishing quotas which is based entirely upon the different nationalities of member states. It is not difficult for foreigners to set up offices in this country, as the Spanish have done, and to reorganise their boats to pose and to pass as British.
The European Court of Justice, presented with the task of interpretation of laws on establishment, has ruled that such vessels are British and entitled to be on our register. The Court's interpretation is no doubt correct. Its effect has been to demonstrate that the EU law is incongruous in this field and that sea fisheries were most unlikely to have been in mind when that part of EU law was being drafted and accepted. If Spanish, Dutch and other foreign boats are included in the tonnage total and in the provision of grants, that would be the main objection to our schemes for decommissioning.
We cannot do anything about that this evening except to register protests. I have been registering protests in this House for several years from well before our Merchant Shipping Act was passed changing the qualifications for our register. That Act still did not meet EU law on establishment, according to the Court's later ruling. I trust that the British Government will now be able to secure a resolution of this quota hopping aberration at the IGC.
74
Before I leave the subject, clarification is needed on a letter which appeared in The Times of 5th June from a Mr. Wood. I gave notice to MAFF last week that I should raise this matter. The letter stated that the Spanish and Dutch,
"got their quota from the British skippers who owned it",
and went on to describe this as selling one's birthright to the highest bidder. Can my noble friend comment? Does she know whether any British skippers or boat owners were selling their part of the British quota? They may have made some financial transactions with Spanish companies or Spanish fishermen to help them operate from British ports, but the suggestion that individual parts of the British quota were on sale from British skippers should be confirmed or denied. If necessary, a correcting letter in The Times is required. (I am not sure whether The Times would accept a letter from me as it printed one of mine only the day before yesterday. However, that was on a quite different subject—football and inappropriate theme tunes).
The 1996 scheme is broadly acceptable to the main British fishermen's organisations. It enables fishermen to leave their occupation on a voluntary basis with compensation, and with changes from previous schemes which they welcome. My noble friend mentioned some of those.
However, two of their criticisms should be noted. British fishermen are not to be eligible for a decommissioning grant if their vessels are disposed of outside the EU for fishing purposes, or inside the EU for non-fishing use. However, that grant is available to other EU members in those circumstances.
Another source of EU finance which is not available to British fishermen, although it is to others, promotes joint enterprises with parties from third countries. This could help to reduce fishing effort less painfully, with financial contributions from the Commission. Why not bring British fishermen into such schemes, with EU financial help on offer?
Looking ahead to the immediate future, the British Government should be working for radical changes to the CFP. Can my noble friend tell us when the CFP review group, established by our Government, will report with its recommendations, if it has not done so already? Preparations are necessary, too, for the fourth EU multi-annual guidance programme covering three years starting 1st January 1997 and now being negotiated. Matters to be settled are predictions on fish stocks and the extent of proposed fleet reductions.
Further ahead, there has been the latest statement from the EU Commission that there should be a 40 per cent. reduction in fleets from present levels by the end of the year 2002. That can be acceptable only if it relates to the bona fide British fleet and not to the 20 per cent. of foreign quota hoppers; and provided that all the other EU members are carrying out the same or greater reductions, and that the process is being reliably monitored. Reduction will affect fishing communities, many of them small, around our coasts, where sea fisheries have been the chief industry which has provided virtually all the employment, with associated services.

75
I reiterate the proposals that I made in the debate on 16th April. I believe that I was the only speaker who touched on this subject. There should be accompanying measures to help provide alternative employment. Fishermen will no longer be certain that their sons can follow them in the same occupation. There will be fewer fishermen in future and there will be some distress in the smaller fishing communities.
The scheme before us is needed. Much work is also necessary for the development which is to be expected in the immediately following years.
7.29 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this debate to our attention. The Minister referred to the government response to your Lordships' Select Committee. That committee found that we were behind schedule in decommissioning and called for more radical targets to be set. I do not know whether there is a confusion in the figure of 407,000 tonnes for the British fleet mentioned by the noble Baroness. It indicates that there may have been some confusion in the mind of the Select Committee. It only goes to show how bewildering and differing constructions can be put on all the directives of the European Union. I am delighted to hear that the reduction proposed by Brussels has been totally rejected by the Government. I should like to know what the decommissioning figure will be: what percentage, what it will cost, and by what number boats are expected to be reduced.
The licences to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred are to be returned on decommissioning. Can we be assured that the licences will be reissued only to UK fishermen; and that a licence will be issued on the basis that the Government have an option for first refusal on any sale at a fixed price? That may get round the problem presented by the European Court of Justice. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to comment on that.
At the risk of rehearsing previous debates, there are alternatives to decommissioning that we ought to consider. They have all been considered before, but there is the opportunity to limit the use of beam trawlers, which are having a devastating effect on the sea-bed and its biota. Ironically, they were a British invention, a post-war design to maximise production and efficiency regardless of the environmental effect. It is another example of the compulsive urge towards intensive methods of production which pervades all our food production activities. We know what dire effects that can have. Perhaps those trawlers could be redesigned in a more environmentally sensitive manner.
Secondly, there is the vexed question of discards. Can we not unilaterally declare that all discards should be optional? Let all the fish caught by our fishermen be used in either retail or commercial markets. It is important to eliminate the disgraceful waste which is abhorrent to all and which mystifies the general public. It is another example of Brussels madness. Incidentally, it gives rise to yet another environmental disaster on the sea-bed.
76
The Select Committee also recommended further trials of the successful rigid sorting grids that were clearly illustrated by MAFF at a recent seminar. There is good news in relation to the square mesh, and especially about the inserts and escape panels. However, I am sorry to hear that the rigid grids are considered too cumbersome for UK boats. Perhaps new boat construction could incorporate this extremely successful and useful system. It is vital for the needs of conservation.
There is one further point. Members of the industry were receptive to the idea of the temporary closure of areas where a high proportion of juvenile fish were known to congregate. In response to the report the Government said that they would look upon that suggestion favourably. I wonder whether anything has been done about it since. With those remarks, I commend the scheme to the House.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am glad to be taking part in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, slid out of it with great ease and quickness when she discovered I was to be here. The debate is important, not because of the rather miserable measure we are discussing but because of the extraordinarily serious situation in fishing of which all of us are aware. We know that something has to be done.
I understand that we said we should spend £53 million. We have spent £26 million; £13 million is on offer now for 1996 and a further £l3 million in 1997. It may be that the £13 million will not be taken up. It appears that we are not very successful in getting people to decommission their boats. Possibly we make it too difficult; there are too many regulations. The Government have done something in regard to prawners. They have widened the scope. But they are still not getting fishermen to decommission their boats. On my figures, we still have to remove 15.8 per cent. by the end of this period if we are to achieve the 19 per cent. that is promised. The Government may try to have the figures manipulated, but the fact is that we shall be extremely short of the target.
The general position is that the Lassen committee of scientists advises a 40 per cent. reduction. It may well be right. Our experience in the North Sea—we had to close the sea for herring fishing for years before the stocks recovered—is that it is very easy to destroy stocks. Now, not only herring but cod, haddock, mackerel, whiting and practically every fish caught in the North Sea is under threat. Something has to be done. We need not blame flags of convenience.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has great experience and who knows the situation better than most, should wonder whether the letter in The Times was true. There is no other method by which the quota can go except by fishermen selling it. I criticise the whole of the quota system, including that for milk. It is the same sort of thing. Farms are worth less in some cases than is their actual quota in milk. That must be rubbish. A quota is of no advantage to the farmer. It is a thing granted by a bureaucratic

77
body. To let it have a value and be traded in this country is bad enough. It keeps young people out of milk production. In this case, in Europe, the quotas can be traded on a European basis. Again, I am told, it is totally common for the quota to be of more value than the boat itself.
The faults must lie with the system. If a British fisherman cannot get a decent decommissioning grant from the Government, he will take the best money that he can from elsewhere. That is why we are in this ridiculous situation. It is very difficult now, but I suggest that the Government try to keep the value where it belongs—in the hands of the licensing authority—instead of letting it accrue to people who have done nothing for it except to be in the business before others were. That keeps new entrants out of fishing.
Again, the Government must surely be to blame for the fact that the Scottish fleet is old, ageing and not up to scratch. There is a scheme on the Continent whereby, if the government of the country concerned put up the money, the EC will add to it for the modernisation of boats, and that is at present being taken up.
The whole question of fishery policy needs to be examined. Norway is a very good example of how to proceed. It has a policy of the discards coming back to port. Also, very sensibly, all forecasts of the fish in the quotas and the amount to be caught are decided in collaboration by the fishermen and the scientists. In Europe generally we do not have that form of collaboration, which can at least make the fishermen believe in the truth of the recommendations. At present fishermen are extremely doubtful as to whether the scientists have a grip on the situation. That is one thing that could happen. Of course it is no good saying that Britain should come out and control her own fishing in the way that Norway does because Norway depends on the European Union producing a sensible policy and preserving the fish. The fish do not confine themselves to one country's area.
A good deal of black fish is being landed in this country today. That appears to me to be ludicrous and dangerous; it means that our supervision is not sufficient. It also means that information on fish landed in Spain, with less than a quarter of the number of inspectors we have in Britain and a bigger fleet, must be, to say the least, somewhat doubtful.
The question of the communities, mentioned by Lord Campbell of Croy, is very important. Something has to be done if we are to reduce, as we must, the number of fishermen employed with the new methods. The Highlands and Islands board has done a great deal to raise employment in the fishing areas and of course that must continue. The late Lord Thurso said that small ports could survive if they were allowed to fish freely with the long lines. I well remember going out in a boat with a long line when I was a candidate in Angus long ago. We took the long lines, baited by the wives with mussels, ran them out over a mile and then descended into the cabin, drank tea and smoked. If a political person was on the boat the idea was to keep him there long enough to make him sick. In my case they just
78
failed. Afterwards, the fish were taken off and the small fish thrown back. The fish would command in Arbroath a considerable premium in price over net caught fish. It is possible that no fisherman wants to go back to line fishing, but it could keep the population in the small areas going to some extent. The suggestion may be impractical but it is worth studying. It is essential to get the right answer. Without control in European and world waters there will not be any fish.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for giving as usual a lucid explanation on this order, which deals with a very important subject. I say at once from this side of the House that we welcome some parts of the Government's attitude towards the fisheries policy. The inclusion of Nethrops is right, and as a more flexible approach to the multiannual guidance programme, the MAGP, is sensible. We particularly welcome the proposal in Article 8(4)(b), which allows boats with an historic interest to go to trusts or museums. Perhaps I may repeat a question I have asked a number of times before, and I know has been asked by other people. If decommissioned boats can be given to museums, why can they not be used as part of development aid for third world countries? They could not come back into the European fleet because they would have no licence. I understand that this option is available to the other member states. It would be interesting to know why we are not allowed to take advantage of it in this country.
We agree entirely with the Government that the 40 per cent. reduction figure which has been floated around by Mrs. Bonino, the Fisheries Commissioner, is completely unacceptable and should be sunk. What we are talking about is effort control. This is something more than a reduction in fleet size. I believe there has been a number of proposals from the fisheries organisations for the use of technical and conservation gear. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what is the Government's response to those proposals, which seem to us to be eminently sensible and to approach the problem from the point of view of effort control and not just a reduction in fleet size.
We agree also with the Government that the omission of industrial fishing from the Commission proposals is quite extraordinary. As we know, industrial fishing can cause grave ecological damage. We are at one with the Government in their reaction to that submission. Industrial fishing must be brought back into the calculation.
I turn now to quota hopping. That has always seemed to me a rather strange phrase: it sounds like some curious form of disco dancing. What firm proposals do the Government have to deal with that problem? I have on a number of occasions seen the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his place. He knows that I have raised the point that Mrs. Bonino has made certain proposals which suggested that within the existing rules it would be possible to deal to some extent with the problem of quota hopping. The answer we always get is that her suggestions are unworkable, but we are not told why. It would be helpful if the Minister could say why the hints

79
or suggestions she has given cannot be followed through. If her suggestions are unworkable, have we any ideas of our own to put forward?
Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Tony Baldry, have said that we intend to deal with flag vessels. The simple question is how? The Government have said that a number of times. We are still waiting to hear what the proposals are and how they intend to deal with it. It has been suggested, rather unkindly, that the Government decided to kick the whole problem into touch in the IGC. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the Prime Minister and the Minister of State meant when they said that we intend to deal with flag vessels. Exactly how do they propose to go about it?
From these Opposition Benches, and indeed from other places, there have been a number of suggestions, not major but ones which would help if they could be adopted; for example, proposals regarding the national insurance contributions from the crews of fishing vessels, a requirement for British officers to captain vessels which have been fishing in British waters, and also the proposals for the proportionate use of UK ports to make it uneconomic in some degree for the quota hopping vessels to operate.
Why are those proposals not workable? If they are not workable, could the Government tell us what their alternatives are? It is clear—we can all agree about this—that we cannot ask UK fishermen to decommission their vessels in order to make way for vessels of other member states. That was made clear by my noble friend, Mr. Gavin Strang, the Opposition spokesman on agriculture and fisheries, speaking in the other place on 19th December 1995. He said:
"It is unacceptable that we should be decommissioning vessels to facilitate additional fishing opportunities in waters around the UK for the fishing industry of one of our European partners—in this case Spain".— [Official Report, Commons. 19/12/95; col. 1358.]
It is clear that we are not able to accept or agree with it. We are at one with the Government on that.
Perhaps I may offer the Minister an analogy. I was minded to try it when I heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about milk quota. Let us suppose that a farmer in the north of France decided to buy a dairy farm in Kent which had quota. He paid the money for the quota and when the cows were milked, he put the milk in a tanker, transported it through the Channel Tunnel and delivered it to a dairy in France. I think I am correct in saying that that delivery would be quoted against the French milk quota. The French farmer would have paid for the English quota, so the English farmer would have benefited, and would have done a favour to other British dairy farmers because he would not be delivering against our quota. The delivery of that milk on the other side of the water—which would not be completely impossible if the two farms were close to either end of the Channel Tunnel—would, I believe, be quoted against the French milk quota. It is perhaps unfair to spring the question on the Minister but, if that is the case, why cannot that be done in a similar way to deal with the problem of the quota hopper when it comes to fish?
80
There have been proposals for scrap and build. It would be interesting to know where we stand with that proposal and how the Government regard it. In common with most member states, the UK fleet is too large in relation to available fish stocks. We all agree with that. The decommissioning scheme has been effective in reducing the size of the fleet. If it has not been as effective as we might have hoped, it is a start. As we all know, it has the advantage of being voluntary. No fisherman is forced out of business.
The British fleet is suffering from the legacy of the late 1980s, when the present Government refused to introduce a decommissioning scheme while the rest of the European Union operated such a scheme to some effect. The main disadvantage of the decommissioning scheme is that, although it is effective in reducing fleet capacity, it does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problem of an ageing and unprofitable fleet. With very few exceptions, the British fleet is now increasingly inefficient in comparison with many of our continental and Scandinavian competitors.
What is required is a mechanism that can achieve the twin objectives of fleet reduction and fleet renewal. At first sight, those objectives might appear to be contradictory. As I said, the possibility of scrap and build offers an alternative. Through a combination of public funding and capacity aggregation, it would be possible to encourage fishermen to modernise and/or rebuild their vessels while at the same time reducing overall capacity. In return for obtaining public funding for modernising and/or building a new vessel, the applicant would be required to take out and scrap a number of existing vessels. In that way the dual objective of fleet reduction and fleet modernisation could be achieved for the same cost as a decommissioning scheme. That would seem to me to be an extremely sensible approach. It would be interesting to know why the Government seemed to reject it. With that in mind, would it be possible to bring forward any part of the decommissioning money for future years and speed up the process?
We have our criticisms, but we have no objection to the order. It is a start, although, as I said, we wish that it were part of a policy to go much farther and much faster.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I did not expect this to be a dull occasion and I have not been disappointed. I am only too well aware of the concern of your Lordships' House for the conservation issues underlying the present state of marine resources and for the welfare and livelihood of the fishermen who depend on them. They are all most difficult and sensitive issues and it is right that we should examine them rigorously and critically. There are no easy ways of producing the virtuous circle which gives more fish tomorrow for those prepared to take less today. Economic and political realities inevitably mean that balance and compromise have to be found.
My first point is that we do not have unlimited financial resources. Decommissioning is an expensive policy and will become more expensive as the efficient

81
vessels are taken out. It cannot be the only instrument for reducing fishing effort. Certainly, it could not deal with cuts on anything like the scale that the Commission is pressing for, even if they were acceptable on other fronts.
The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned that the fleet is increasingly out of date and uncompetitive and suggested that we should operate a scrap and build policy instead of decommissioning. I agree that a scrap and build policy is more positive than decommissioning but it is even more—much more—expensive. Funds are limited. We must therefore concentrate on the most pressing objective of removing capacity. Once we have a better balance between the number of vessels and the amount of fish, it should be easier for the industry itself to finance investment for modernisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said that the Government were not paying out enough for decommissioning. The rate of grant is set by competitive tender. The Government do not set a maximum limit, provided the bids represent value for money. Unfortunately, quotas are a necessary means of rationing a scarce resource.
Let me answer the various questions from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Carter, on the subject of quota hopping. There are currently some 150 quota hoppers on the UK fishing vessel register which are fully or partly owned by overseas interests, mainly from Spain and the Netherlands. Of those vessels, around 40 joined the UK register in the early 1980s, prior to the operation of EU quotas and licensing restrictions. Since the mid-1980s the UK has operated a restrictive licensing scheme, which has meant that it has only been possible to bring a new vessel into the UK fleet or take up commercial fishing activity by acquiring a licence from an existing vessel owner.
It is perfectly true that British fishermen have sold their fishing licences and access to UK quotas to agents or others acting on behalf of Spanish or Dutch fishing interests. In some instances those selling licences would not have been aware of the eventual destination. There have been no restrictions on such activity and the rules of the marketplace have operated.
British fishermen cannot be blamed for the advent of quota hopping. The system of national quotas agreed as part of the common fisheries policy in 1983 was designed to safeguard the interests of the fishing communities of each member state. That has been undermined by the practice of quota hopping: foreign-owned, foreign-based and foreign-crewed vessels, fishing against our quotas and landing their catches abroad. The Government took positive steps to deregister such vessels in 1989, but action was subsequently overturned by the European Court in the Factortame judgment. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, the present situation cannot be allowed to continue. That is why the Government are raising the matter through the IGC. We must be able to ensure that our fishing communities derive real benefits from national quotas allocated under the CFP.
82
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether Commissioner Bonino had put forward effective measures to regulate quota hopping. Let me put the record straight. Commissioner Bonino has agreed to re-examine with her legal experts the scope for imposing controls on quota hoppers. MAFF and Commission officials are discussing options. But we remain to be convinced that there are effective measures which can be taken within the existing framework of Community law.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked when the Government would present their proposals on quota hopping to the IGC and what those proposals would be. My answer is that we expect to put those proposals in due course and we shall keep the House informed.
As already explained, we have notified the IGC, the Commission and other member states that we shall be tabling proposals to deal with the problem of quota hopping and envisage that they will take the form of a protocol to the treaty which recognises that national quotas allocated under the common fisheries policy are intended for the benefit of national fishing communities and that, notwithstanding the treaty, individual member states may adopt appropriate measures which ensure that there are real economic links between their fishing communities and the vessels which fish their quotas.
It may be necessary to look again at limiting the time at sea. But we can only contemplate that if reductions apply to vessels of all member states operating in the same areas. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, it is difficult to quantify the level of blackfish landings with any precision since such landings are by their nature clandestine. However, it is clear that such illegal activity undermines the efforts to conserve fish stocks and threatens the future viability of the fishing industry. The scale of any additional reductions is clearly a matter for debate, which has a long way to go. It would not be appropriate to go into the detail of that now other than to reiterate that we must have progress on sorting out the quota hopper problem before any decisions are reached. We must also have measures which seem to be necessary, fair and workable which command the confidence of the industry itself.
We are certainly not dismissive of the scientists or their warnings. But there are real doubts about parts of the so-called Lassen Report on which the Commission's current thinking is based. Those relate to issues like industrial fishing and to assessment in areas like the Irish Sea where new evidence is about to be available and the relationship between the different fisheries is unclear. The Lassen Group also recognised shortcomings in some of its data and inconsistencies in the quality of member states' catch reports and their evaluations of their own fishing effort.
It is simplistic to assume that reductions in fishing mortality can necessarily be achieved by simple cuts in fleet tonnage. The relationship between effort and catches is much more complex and needs to be addressed in some detail before decisions can be reached. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that we are pressing for factors like the age of the UK fleet to be taken into consideration.

83
The measurement of tonnage and the need to replace that with catching power was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I agree that tonnage alone is a crude measure of fishing efficiency. That is one of the points that we shall be pursuing in the forthcoming negotiations.
In order to allow decommissioned vessels to be given as aid to third countries, under EU rules member states are obliged to ensure that decommissioned vessels are permanently excluded from fishing in Community waters. Normal practice is therefore to require that any vessel be scrapped before grant is paid. We looked carefully at the possibility of allowing vessels to be exported as opposed to being scrapped. We have been unable to devise arrangements which offer the necessary guarantees that vessels will never return to the EU fleet.
I know that the present decommissioning scheme has its critics and that it cannot solve all problems—it is not meant to. It is simply the latest instalment of our current policy designed to meet existing MAGP targets. Effective conservation depends on a wide range of factors, including catch controls and technical measures. My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam referred to the UK fleet as now standing—I believe he said—at 407,000 tonnes. Actually what I said was 207,000 tonnes. I felt that I should set the record straight.
Decommissioning has proved successful. In the three schemes so far, 6.6 per cent. of the fleet has been removed at a total cost of £26.2 million. I can break that down into years, but I will write to my noble friend. He indicates that he does not want it, which is a great relief.
A great deal of confusion has been caused by the Commission quoting figures on a different basis from those supplied by the UK and because of a number of technical factors. We are in discussion with the Commission on the detail. If all the adjustments we identified as necessary are taken into account, we estimate that we may now be only 5 per cent. short of our end of 1996 targets. The Commission's latest figures, on which I have already commented, reveal that eight member states still have to meet some or all of their current MAGP targets and the UK is by no means the worst offender.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about decommissioning allowing in Spanish boats. My answer is no. When a vessel is decommissioned any fishing licences held in respect of that vessel must be surrendered. Under the Western Waters Agreement, which is an entirely separate issue, the UK's fishing quotas are unchanged and our industry's ability to take their quotas is fully protected. We will not lose any fish to the Spanish.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked what the EU is doing about industrial fishing. The total allowable catch is based on scientific advice, except for industrial fisheries such as sprat and Norway pout. In December 1993, at the request of the UK, the Commission established a working group of marine ecologists with fisheries biologists on sustainable fisheries and on industrial fisheries in particular. Last year a working group was set up with Norway to address the problem
84
of herring by-catchers in the sprat fishery. That work is continuing in 1996. My honourable friend Mr. Baldry, the Minister in another place, drew attention at the Fisheries Council to the magnitude of the industrial fisheries in the North Sea urging a cautious approach to their management.
It is clear that technical conservation methods have an important role to play in preserving fish stocks. The Commission does not view them as part of its structural policy but it is right that we take their effectiveness into account in assessing what needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be interested that the fisheries conservation group set up by the Government earlier this year has just produced a report which makes an important contribution in that regard. We are pressing the Commission to reflect its conclusions in its proposals. I commend the scheme to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
8.9 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("(1A) No arrangements for the issue of vouchers in respect of nursery education (in this subsection called a voucher scheme) shall be made under this section in relation to Wales, other than arrangements for experimental voucher schemes, until the conditions set out in subsection (1B) have been met.
(1B) The conditions referred to in subsection (1A) are that—

(a) experimental voucher schemes shall have been in operation for a period of I year throughout the area of at least two local education authorities in Wales; and

(b) the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on the operation of those experimental voucher schemes, and of voucher schemes in England, which in particular shall include an assessment of the likely effects of voucher schemes upon the provision of nursery education in Wales.

(1C) An experimental voucher scheme under this section shall not remain in operation for more than one year.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may first of all apologise for not being present for the Second Reading debate. I was acting in pursuance of my duties on behalf of the Government, promoting their Welsh language policy. That has some relevance to what I want to speak about today.
I have a major problem with the Bill because it is a piece of primary legislation which applies to England and Wales together. The normal practice in this place is to have separate Bills where there is a major difference of policy or timing, such as in local government or in language policy, or, where it is a major Bill which has relevance to both countries, it is taken with specific Welsh clauses. I would instance the Environment Bill which had specific clauses relevant to policies or practices that were to be pursued in Wales. In all education legislation, certainly post-war, there are relevant clauses which have applied specifically to the

85
Secretary of State for Wales since 1964, and before that to the Secretary of State for Education through the Education Department and the Ministers who were responsible for Wales.
One of the areas of devolution in this kingdom which has probably gone on longer than most—certainly in the context of Wales—is education. Yet this Bill does not do that. The Bill provides for no devolution of policy and no devolution of administration. The whole structure of the Bill is centralist. It behaves as if England and Wales were a unitary state and as if the Welsh Office did not exist. Your Lordships may have views about whether the Welsh Office should or not exist. I am strongly in favour of it because it pays my salary for two days a week. However, since it is not paying my salary this evening or perhaps it is, I feel free to criticise—in fact I feel it is my duty to criticise—the Welsh Office in this case. I try not to criticise a department for which I work on a part-time basis, generally in areas of policy which coincide with my work for the Welsh Language Board, but in this case I believe that I have the support not only of the Welsh Language Board, which put forward a memorandum to the Welsh Select Committee in another place which looked at this issue, but also of the overwhelming majority of educationists and of parents throughout Wales in moving this amendment, which would have the effect of placing on the face of the Bill a statutory equivalent of a Welsh pilot scheme.
I say that because, like so many Members of the Committee, I have received genuine correspondence—letters written by real people who expressed real concerns. I have also personally received a number of petitions in all my capacities on this issue. Those petitions will be forwarded to the Welsh Office in the appropriate interval between this debate, depending on what happens to the amendment, and Report stage. I promise that we shall turn to the issue of the relationship between education and nursery education in Wales at all further stages of the Bill until we receive a clearer understanding of the position from the Government.
What we are doing in the Bill so far as concerns Wales is legislating for provision which already exists. I find that a complete legislative anomaly. I can understand the Government saying, "Yes, there are certain education authorities which do not deliver a service and therefore we need to provide diversity of provision there". But the case in Wales is over the top. On one calculation, with double counting, the old county of Clwyd has 101 per cent. of four year-olds in school. We do not all reach Clwyd proportions but even Gwynedd, which for historical reasons is at a lower level, is at 77 per cent. of its four year-olds in school at January 1995. The overall Wales average is 92 per cent. The figure for three year-olds in nursery, primary or special schools in Clwyd at the same date was 65 per cent. while the figure for Wales as a whole is more than 50 per cent.
So when the Prime Minister made his commitment about the introduction of nursery education, he was making a commitment which I am sure was relevant to large parts of England but was not as relevant to Wales as provision already existed. I take rather a dim view
86
of a piece of legislation which works to undermine the consensus of operation which we have established within the Principality in the way that the Welsh Office, the inspectorate, the local education authorities, the Welsh Joint Education Committee and the voluntary sectors, both Mudiad Ysgalion Meithrin and Wales PP have worked together over the years to develop this level of provision and the commitment that we have. I find myself in agreement not for the first time with John Ellis, the now retired Director of Education for Dyfed, who gave evidence to the Select Committee in another place on behalf of Cvmdeithas Cyfarwyddwyr Cymru, the Association of Directors of Education Wales, in which the scheme was described as an imposition on Wales of a solution designed to meet the significantly lower levels of provision in England. Whereas I would be in favour of schemes imposed on Wales to improve the level of provision to that of England in a number of areas, that is probably not the case in education. Therefore, I think we need to look at ways in which we can, as it were, rescue the Welsh Office from its willingness to go along on this matter with the Department for Education and Employment.
A letter was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which indicates quite clearly that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has consulted his departmental colleagues in the Welsh Office on this issue, but it is not a convincing letter. It does not go much further than information which we already had. Therefore, I still believe that the evidence given to the Select Committee in another place and the response subsequently from the Welsh Office to that evidence is still the benchmark for the implementation of this policy and it will be as far as I am concerned—I am sure that other colleagues will speak on this issue in a similar way—until we are convinced that this is a cost-effective scheme in terms of Welsh Office funding, local government funding and LEA funding and indeed in terms of the voluntary sector.
What is the administrative cost of devising a scheme which provides for, at best, two-thirds of the cost of a place, which top-slices that funding away from the all Wales local authority budget and then puts it back, allegedly through the operation of the voucher scheme? At the same time the individual parent will have to apply for the voucher scheme to the private contractor. I have no objections to private contractors provided they are delivering a service which is more efficient than that delivered in the public sector. In this case I am not convinced that that is happening. This whole bureaucratic structure will exist apparently to create choice and diversity. Where is this choice and diversity in deepest Powys where a parent seeks to ensure nursery provision for a child? There may be the small development of voluntary groups in the area, but if that child is already in the reception class or in the nursery class of the local primary school, surely there is no way in which that parent in deepest Powys in that rural context can exercise a choice. That position is replicated throughout the Principality in different ways.
We do not know, because we are not yet privy to the PES round for next year, how much new money, if any, will be added to this scheme. But I think it would be

87
helpful if we could have an indication of any parameters of possible new money. It seems to me that the present design of the scheme creates a situation whereby the local authority service is to be denuded of resources in order to create an appearance of choice which in real terms it is not possible to deliver and to create the appearance of choice where already there is such a high level of public provision. Therefore, I say to the Government and to the Welsh Office Ministers who went along with the scheme in Wales and did not take a Welsh Office option for a different policy structure, which I shall come to in two minutes, that this Bill is seen in Wales as being deeply ideological. That is why there has been such a sharp response across the board from a whole range of bodies—I shall not repeat the list—which gave evidence to the Select Committee.
The Government will argue that the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has, in its inspection, identified areas where standards need to be raised. Of course, there are areas throughout both the voluntary and maintained provision where standards can be raised, but the way to do that is to target additional resources where they are most required. The Prime Minister should have gone to the Conservative Party Conference at Porthcawl—from my observation in the Gallery of the other place today during Welsh Questions, Ministers were quite tanned and fit after being in Porthcawl—and announced the introduction of a nursery voucher scheme for three year-olds in Wales, because that would have been the logic of his position. I am not arguing for that. But if the Government are interested in extending choice and providing diversity of provision in Wales, they should have set up a voucher scheme in that area where there is not yet full provision, and not interfered with the level of provision that all the players in the complex scene of under-five education have established in that structure.
So what has the department succeeded in doing, and the Welsh Office on its coat tails? They have succeeded in antagonising a whole section of Welsh educationalists and parents. In 20 years of representative politics I have never seen such a big, genuine postbag as I have seen on this issue. I am sure that that applies to my other colleagues here as well.
There is a simple way out. The Minister has still the opportunity to speak with his new colleague in the department. Perhaps I may say en passant that I regret the way in which his previous colleague in the department was forced to resign. I do not believe that it is helpful to public life in this country that people's personal lives should make profits for newspapers and that Ministers are removed from office in that way. I say that en passant for the record.
With a new Minister in the department with responsibility for education, there is now an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to talk with Mr. Jonathan Evans in another place and to reassess the relationship of the Bill to Welsh education and nursery education and the particular role of the Welsh Office, and to provide for a very simple resolution of this issue. The Secretary of State for Wales is the Secretary of State and, as the noble Lord, Lord Walker, once told me
88
when he came to that position, he is able to do anything within his devolved responsibility. So there is no reason why the Welsh Office cannot undertake policy changes in this area even at this late stage.
The Government simply need to move their own amendment at Report or Third Reading. I shall give them the wording if they would like it. I could take it from a series of measures on education that apply to Wales and to grant-maintained schools. There exists on statute something called the Schools Funding Council for Wales. I am not aware that it has even met because so few schools decided to opt out that the power resides with the Welsh Office, the department funds it and there is no such body. But that body could exist by order of the Secretary of State. Similarly, with this scheme, the Welsh Office, and Mr. Evans in particular, can recognise the strength of the opposition to the scheme and its redundant nature in Wales as regards four year-olds. They could recognise that even at this late stage. The Government could draft a clause which would ensure that the nursery voucher scheme for four year-olds in Wales will proceed only by order of the Secretary of State. That would give the department and the Government the opportunity to proceed with the scheme if there appeared to be a consensus in favour of it following the proposal on the face of the Bill for a pilot scheme. If that is not the case, the Government would be going with the grain of education and parental opinion in the Principality.
This is my final point. This is a very important constitutional issue. When legislating in this House and in another place on primary legislation for Wales, it is important that any government must go with the grain of opinion in that country, otherwise there will be an increasingly legitimate demand for primary legislation for Wales to be removed to Wales itself. The Labour Party has such a policy for Scotland and the Liberal Democratic Party has such a policy for Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the Government must realise that when they play around with Welsh education and try to run Welsh education through unitary primary legislation, they are digging their own grave. If they are interested in maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom they have to recognise that that unity is in diversity. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I very much support this amendment although, left to my own devices, I would have gone for a much stronger one. As I listened to the enthusiastic speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on an earlier amendment today, it occurred to me that she obviously believes that the intention of the Bill is to improve access to nursery education in the country generally. But its effect as far as Wales is concerned will be entirely retrograde.
I do not normally intervene in debates on education, but in my 17 years in Parliament I have never had such a postbag as I have had on this issue. I have stripped it of all the enclosures. Many of the letters are hand written and have been very carefully drafted by parents

89
and concerned people in Wales. For example, I had considerable correspondence on the subject of BSE, but that pales into insignificance beside this subject.
People representing all shades of political opinion have written to me about this matter because they are tremendously concerned about education generally or education for their own children. There was an absence of ideology in most of the letters I received, with people taking an entirely pragmatic view. I suggest, therefore, that this matter should be probed very carefully with a view to the Government thinking again.
The position of nursery education in Wales reflects priorities held by people of all political opinions, including parents and education authorities. Do the Government accept that, on the figures provided by the 1994 review which are the latest figures available to us, 92 per cent. of four year-olds to five year-olds in Wales receive nursery education, which is 92 per cent. of those available to take it? Do they also accept that 73 per cent. have full-time education and only 18 per cent. part-time education? As a matter of interest, on my calculations, whereas the LEA schools take the vast majority of these students, only 545 are in private schools. Do the Government equally accept that on the same figures the majority of three to four year-olds in Wales receive part-time education? Of the total number of children in that age group of just over 38,000, 51 per cent. go to school, of whom 13 per cent. are in full-time education while 38 per cent. are in part-time education. So, in so far as it affects Wales, the Government's scheme is a backward step.
The more that I have read those parents' letters, the more I am convinced that their fears are well founded. The solution that the Government have put forward for the country generally is a solution for areas of the country which are without a solid commitment to pre-five education. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred to the fact that in the old Flintshire there was 101 per cent. attendance by four to five year-olds. That is easily explained because children come over from Cheshire where there is little state provision of nursery education. That happens all along the Welsh border. As a number of my correspondents have pointed out, children come over from Herefordshire and Shropshire to have state nursery education in Wales.
The financial implications of the scheme are worrying an awful lot of people. As I understand the position—I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with this point in detail—the Welsh Office proposes to deduct from the local government revenue settlement most of what the LEAs now spend from their own resources on providing full-time education for all four year-olds in Wales. I understand that it is intended to redistribute that money, through a private company contracted for the purpose, to the parents of the same 38,000 or so children each year by means of vouchers with which they can purchase—I now quote the words of the consultation document:
"three terms at least of part-time, high quality pre-school education in the year before compulsory schooling begins".
Given the provision that is already made by LEAs in Wales, the proposed scheme is clearly a retrograde step. Most of the children are in full-time education, not
90
part-time education. How will vouchers pay for that, even with the preference given to Wales in the allocation per head under the formula that was dealt with in Amendment No. 86?
Parents in Wales are very content with state nursery education at the moment, but all that is being threatened by the Government's scheme. It appears to me that the Government are abandoning their obligation to give children in Wales full-time education from the age of four and part-time nursery education from the age of three, and are shifting their responsibility to a private, profit-making company. Nobody on the Government's side can lecture me on the benefits of private enterprise because I happen to have been chairman of two of the most successful private enterprise companies connected with Wales. However, there is a sphere for private enterprise, where the object is to have the maximum return on the money invested, and there is a sphere where that should not apply—and the prime motive here should be the well-being of the children.
When the Prime Minister made a public commitment to provide a pre-school place for every four year-old whose parents wished to take it up, he was expressing a sentiment with which we can all agree, but, even when it was made, that commitment had in Wales not only been fulfilled, but exceeded. It had been exceeded by a system almost wholly provided by the local education authorities. It seems to me that to go backwards and to abandon that pragmatic approach in favour of what seems to be an ideological approach is wrong. I hate people with excessively ideological approaches—whether in the Labour Party in the old days (I hope that the Opposition have grown out of that by now) or in the present Government who seem to be hooked entirely on their ideological approach. What possible justification is there for this Government to threaten a system of nursery education in Wales which is working well? If similar provisions existed in England, there would be much more opposition to the Bill. I do not pretend to be able to speak on the merits of the Bill so far as England is concerned, but I think that it is entirely unacceptable that the Government should take this course with regard to Wales.
I have supported the amendment because the very least that the Government could do, given the satisfactory nature of nursery education in Wales at present, is to have pilot schemes in Wales to see how the new scheme will affect the present set-up. No such scheme has been carried out in Wales, so why on earth should the people of Wales accept the system? If the Government do not do that, I think that they will be surprised at what some of their own supporters in Wales think about it. The Government would be very wise to have another look at this.
Lord Prys-Davies: It is relevant to raise the question of the application of this Bill to Wales as there is an enormous desire in the Principality that the present nursery provision should not be imperilled. I have today received a petition signed by 200 parents from Carmarthen expressing their strong opposition to the application of the Bill to Wales.

91
I do not propose to go over the ground which I covered on Second Reading, but would like to express my thanks to the Minister for his letter of 12th June commenting on the matters which I raised on Second Reading. Nevertheless, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is relying on the advice of the Welsh Office, that I am not satisfied with what the letter says—and neither are my colleagues from Wales who have seen it. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that the Minister or the Welsh Office advisers have understood the Welsh point of view as developed by the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Hooson, in this Committee.
First, the Minister claims in his letter that there is parental misunderstanding in Wales of the voucher scheme. That claim requires considerable amplification, if not correction. Although some parents and organisations may still be unclear about the issue and the redemption of the voucher—I can fully understand that—there is no misunderstanding of the adverse effects of the scheme.
In his letter the Minister acknowledges that Welsh LEAs have a good record in nursery education. Indeed, he said earlier that there was far higher provision in Wales and less variation than in England. Undoubtedly, there are areas in Wales (possibly some rural areas) where the LEAs may not as yet have achieved the 90 per cent. level of provision which is the Welsh average—just as there are other parts of Wales that have exceeded that 90 per cent. level. The Minister will be aware that there are transport difficulties in many isolated and remote villages.
The Minister claims that the quality of the provision could be improved in certain parts of Wales. The Welsh LEAs have always stressed the importance of improving the quality. It seems to me that the Minister has failed in his letter to provide good reasons for imposing in Wales an untested scheme which puts the whole nursery system, which is of good quality, at the risk of being seriously impaired.
For years we have been told repeatedly by this Government that additional resources, when available, should be targeted on those areas of greatest need. Wales is a small country. Surely it should be possible for the Welsh Office to address local problems in the provision of nursery education where they exist without the need for the extreme and potentially damaging solution proposed by the Bill.
I believe that the Government's principal aim in Wales is the expansion of parents' choice. That was one of the chief points raised by the Minister in his speech at Second Reading, and he returned to it repeatedly in his letter of 12th June. We have not been given evidence of dissatisfaction with the present system on the part of parents in Wales; we have not been given evidence of a demand for an alternative provision. Nor have we been given an estimate of how many parents are likely to opt-out of the LEA provision and how that might affect existing services. The Government simply insist on the principle that there must be room for choice. There is another principle which matters in a free society. The
92
exercise of choice by the few should not imperil existing provision for the many provided that provision works well. That is not a matter of fact but a matter of values. Our fear is that the Government under-estimate the capacity of the Bill to cause grave damage to existing nursery provision of high standard while they over-estimate its capacity to produce lasting benefits.
This is a simple amendment. This afternoon there was debate as to whether an amendment was a wrecking amendment. This is a compromise. If the compromise is acceptable to the Government it will go a long way to establish whether or not our fears are justified. It requires the Welsh Secretary to proceed carefully and to undertake the experimental scheme to evaluate the impact of the voucher scheme on existing provision. For all of the organisations and parents in Wales with a special interest in nursery education that evaluation is very important. It will show whether our fears are justified. If so, it will be hard for any government to ignore the warning.
I very much trust that the Minister will be open minded, take seriously on board the principle of the amendment and take it back to the Welsh Office and ask it to think further about its merits.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support this amendment, which is not a wrecking amendment. In its relevant part, it is a wrecking Bill. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Elis-Thomas, have pointed out, there is general satisfaction in Wales with the scheme as it is presently operated. Earlier I listened to the words of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. He said that it might be of benefit—I respectfully concur—if we proceeded in these matters on a substratum of measurable facts. We know the measurable facts. The noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Hooson, and I do not always agree on everything. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and I always agree on everything. The one thing that is known by everyone who has any connection with the education system in Wales is that at the moment the public provision is extremely popular. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that this was a marvellous scheme and it would prove to be immensely popular. We have an immensely popular scheme at the moment.
I am not normally the recipient of unsolicited correspondence, but I have had an enormous postbag of petitions and individual letters, which are not the usual mimeographed letters nor single letters written in red ink and underlined in green. They are sensible letters from people who know what they are talking about and who are passionately concerned about the nursery education of their children. The figures have been given by the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Hooson. They provide extremely powerful ammunition.
I regret to say that we are faced with the triumph of dogma, or a kind of unreconstructed Stalinism, which implies that the centre always knows best. This is not a party political argument. The fact is that there are six Conservative Members of Parliament in Wales at the moment who have majorities which range from 19 to

93
just over 6,000. There are very few local government councillors in Wales who bear the Tory flag. The overwhelming voice of public opinion in Wales indicates full confidence in the present system. That is not to say that the system cannot be improved. But this amendment will bring about such improvements as may be necessary by means of a measured and measurable scheme; in other words, we may have a reasonable substratum of measurable evidence.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We on these Benches support the amendment. I plead with the Minister to take away and consider the need to work with the brand new local education authorities in Wales. What better example can the Minister have of an opportunity to work co-operatively with those new authorities? The Minister referred to the fact that authorities had not come forward. There was an enormous upheaval in Wales. Why not extend the spirit of partnership and co-operation?
Lord Henley: I start by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that we keep in close touch with colleagues in the Welsh Office. Colleagues in the Welsh Office were actively involved in the Bill. The noble Lord will be aware that when the Bill was introduced in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales was one of those whose name was attached to that Bill. The Welsh dimension has always been important. I also assure the noble Lord that we will continue to discuss these matters very closely where they relate to Wales or to Welsh matters. I assure him that my right honourable and honourable friends in the Welsh Office will read very carefully all that has been said on this occasion and take note of it.
I do not argue that any of the amendments debated this afternoon have been wrecking amendments. I said that one was partially wrecking, and that it was only partially wrecking for those with children who would be four next year. Nor do I believe that this is a wrecking Bill. We have no desire whatever to damage good provision in any way. We very much hope that we will not damage good provision. We simply wish to extend choice. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I believe that we can extend choice without undermining the collective rights of those Who do not wish to make use of that choice.
What we have before us this evening in this amendment is a call for the scheme to operate in Wales on a trial basis first. The Welsh Affairs Committee made a similar recommendation. However, I do not believe that there is a need for this. The initial phase in four authorities in England is testing the mechanics and the administrative arrangements. There will be a full evaluation which will include consideration of the effectiveness of the operational arrangements and so on, as we discussed earlier this afternoon. Clearly, that evaluation will inform the scheme in Wales as well as the scheme in England. I believe that a separate experimental phase would only serve to duplicate. The Welsh Affairs Committee
94
acknowledged that, with regard to the mechanics of the scheme, the Welsh Office might be right in considering that it could learn enough from pilot studies in England. I said during Second Reading that there had been no volunteers in Wales for a Welsh pilot. The Welsh Office said that it would consider any interest put forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, stated, it has been through an upheaval as part of the local government organisation. However, the same is true in Scotland but volunteers still came forward for the pilot scheme there.
The Welsh Affairs Committee indicated that the absence of a Welsh pilot phase is seen by many as symptomatic of a lack of regard for the distinctiveness of education in Wales. As I stated in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davis, the Welsh dimension is not being ignored. Far from it. It will be taken fully into account. The Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales (ACAC) has given quite separate advice on desirable educational outcomes in Wales. Its advice is being considered by Welsh Ministers but the consultation document was well received. There will be bilingual vouchers and a specific helpline for parents in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked me to expand on the funding arrangements for deductions for local authorities in Wales. The total cost of the scheme in Wales is expected to be £43 million and will be funded from a mixture of additional provision and the deduction from local authorities. Final decisions on the level of funding and the amount of additional provision in Wales will be taken in the light of public expenditure discussions in Wales. Local authority funding arrangements are different in Wales and there is no hypothecation of resources to particular services as there is in England. There is no specific SSA for education in Wales. Accordingly and recognising the higher level of nursery provision in Wales, my colleagues in the Welsh Office have decided there will be a transfer from local authorities at the all-Wales level and before distribution of local revenue settlement to individual authorities.
It would be invidious now for the Welsh Office to hypothecate funding in respect of education for four year-olds and there is no justification for setting aside longstanding arrangements which have been agreed with local authorities. The authorities that responded to the consultation paper issued by the Welsh Office favoured the all-Wales approach. That approach should ensure that authorities with a high level of discretionary spending are not disadvantaged. The precise sums to be transferred have yet to be decided but colleagues in the Welsh Office have given an assurance that it will not exceed the value of a voucher for a four year-old in a maintained school and, therefore, they should not lose out.
Lord Hooson: I do not think that the noble Lord has allayed the fears of parents because the document sets out that the voucher would provide for high quality part-time education. As most children in this age group are in full-time high quality nursery education, how will the difference be provided for?
Lord Henley: I hope to be able to allay those fears. The Government will deduct from the local authority settlement in Wales no more than the number of four year-olds in the schools multiplied by the voucher value. That will not necessarily be all that the local authorities are currently spending. That will be left with the local authorities and they will be able to spend to provide full-time education if they wish.
I have acknowledged that there is a distinctiveness to the Welsh educational scene. However, it is difficult to envisage what gain could be expected from an experimental phase in at least two authorities in Wales and what aspects of the Welsh dimension it could cover that are not currently being considered. It would delay giving parents throughout the Principality the choice in the provision they want to make for their four year-olds and provision of at least half-time education for a full three terms. All parents in England, subject to Parliament, will have those benefits from April next year. We do not think it desirable to treat parents in Wales any less favourably. I hope that on this occasion therefore the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: If the Minister were trying to persuade me not to divide, he would not conclude on that note. The issue that concerns us is that where Wales has decided through its democratically elected local education authorities to make provision in a way which has consensus support, it is not for Parliament or Westminster to intervene, in a way which may be appropriate for some authorities in England, and to disrupt an established public sector scene in Wales which functions effectively and has popular support.
We shall return to this issue, maybe on stronger grounds, during later discussion of the Bill. We will take advantage of the opportunity between this debate and the final stages to talk to the Welsh Office again to give it, and particularly the new Minister, the opportunity to return to the issue.
I refer to a typical authority which, were it in England would no doubt be nearly under Conservative control, and that is Denbighshire. The new Denbighshire County Council has led Wales in campaigning on the issue of nursery vouchers. That has been done very ably by Mr. Edgar Lewis, director of education, who was previously working in Clwyd. That authority is made up in the following way. The largest group is the independent group which, in the English context, would probably be Conservative; the next largest group is the Labour group; and then there is the significant Plaid Cymru group. All the councillors in that authority, all the parents I have met at meetings and all the material I have received from parents, indicate complete support for what Denbighshire is providing, carrying on from what Clwyd is providing.
96
The Government are setting their faces against the consensus of nursery providers and parents in Wales. I warn the Government that they do that at their electoral peril. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
8.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 59.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lockwood, B.

Berkeley, L.

McNally, L.

Borrie, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Palmer, L.

Desai, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs,L.

Richard, L.

Elis-Thomas, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Serota, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sewel, L.

Geraint, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Greenway, L.

Tope, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hamwee, B.

Warnock, B.

Haskel, L.

White, B.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Balfour, E.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Bowness, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bridgeman, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Kingsland, L.

Burnham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsay, E.

Carnock, L.

Lucas, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L

Cochrane of Cults, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dean of Harptree, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Marlesford, L.

Downshire, M.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Feldman, L.

Northesk, E

Ferrers, E.

Gage, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

97

Rankeillour, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Rennell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Vivian, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Slim, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 8, after second ("education") insert ("that is appropriate to the age of the child and is").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 51 and 61. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the curriculum delivered in response to vouchers is of the right type for the children involved and that there is some legislative protection as to its quality. By definition, anything that is properly education will be conducted according to a curriculum, which is the sum total of experiences which contribute to the learning of an individual. It includes planned intervention by educators as well as the outcome of self-directed or guided activity on the part of the learner. An appropriate curriculum for the nursery phase of education was well described in the report, Starting with Quality, published in 1990 by the committee chaired by Angela Rumbold, the then Minister of State at the Home Office. I can do no better than commend that document to your Lordships in the hope that you will read it, mark it, learn it and inwardly digest it.
Currently, nursery education, as it is properly understood, covers the period from the third birthday to the entry into the reception class at rising five. In our view, the proposed nursery voucher scheme cuts across those arrangements by neglecting three year-olds but invading the funding of older children who are already moving beyond the true nursery phase. The aim of the amendment is an attempt to relocate the application of the Bill towards activity that can properly be understood as nursery education and provide legislative protection to the quality of provision which that term implies.
The amendment received a very cold wind from the Government in another place. We hope that noble Lords speaking for the Government today will give serious consideration to the appropriateness of education funded through vouchers.
Perhaps I may say a few words about Amendment No. 51. Its purpose is to bring the obligation on nursery providers in line with the Education Act 1988 by ensuring that the chief inspector has the duty to inform the Secretary of State on the "physical" and "intellectual" development of children as well as on their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. We prefer the word "intellectual" to the word "mental" from the Latin mentalis—mens mentis, the mind—meaning also "chin" or "pertaining to the chin" from the Latin mentum. I believe that the arguments which will follow any quotation from me in that learned tongue will be none the weaker for it. Therefore, for the purpose of the amendment, I prefer the word "intellectual".
A list of "desirable achievements" or "outcome statements" such as has been put forward in SCAA's document, Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning is not in our view an acceptable or adequate way of describing a nursery curriculum. While such a list facilitates the production of a simple check list for those children reaching statutory school age, it would dominate and narrow the curriculum for the under-fives. In addition, it is likely to ignore the development of individual children and their educational needs.
How much more appropriate the ACAC's "desirable outcome" consultation document for Wales which begins with Gerallt Lloyd Owen's opening lines of his epic poem "Afon":
"Pan feddwn dalent plentyn, I weld Ilais a chlywed Hun".
I shall translate that for your Lordships:
"When I had a child's talent to see a voice and hear an image".
That is what that kind of curriculum should introduce. I say it in all seriousness. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My name is attached to Amendment No. 12 and also to Amendment No. 61. I should, therefore, like to say a few words about them. As I understand it, the Government propose to define nursery education in accordance with the category of child, the type of institution and, in regulations, the way in which grants are calculated. I am not entirely sure that that is quite enough. Surely we want some mention of the kind of nursery education about which we are talking.
Nursery education could, perhaps under a different Minister and a different Secretary of State, mean almost anything from strict three Rs to the other extreme where, perhaps under pressure from single interest groups, it might become little more than childminding, so that it could be extended for longer periods; for example, to suit mothers who want to go to work.
Surely there should be three elements in nursery education. The first is the preparation for academic education; the second—and most important in my view—is the social development, because unless children have the necessary social development they will not fit into primary school and they will go down and down. The third, is language skills which are most important for those who do not have them so that, again, they can fit into primary school at a later stage. All those elements must be within the framework of children being well cared for.
Amendments Nos. 9, 12, and 51 suggest forms of wording for the Bill. Amendment No. 61 suggests a way of linking the Bill with the "desirable outcomes" mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. The Minister kindly wrote to me about the matter on 10th June, and said:
"All providers will he required to work towards the desirable outcomes for children's learning".
That is fine; but who says so? I absolutely accept the noble Lord's word that that is his intention. However, in a few years he may no longer be in that position as,

99
indeed, may well be the case with the Secretary of State. Surely we must have something written down as to Parliament's intention on these matters.
Baroness Seear: I, too, have attached my name to Amendment No. 12. I shall be very brief. I want to emphasise something to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred; namely, the important scope and range that nursery education should have. It should at least cover—it clearly should do so—both care of the youngster and his or her educational development. The point I should like to add is that if you are going to do that properly it will be expensive. There is very little chance that you will get the full range of care and education provision when people are thinking in terms of £1,100 a year. Indeed, proper, good nursery education as is being provided in some places at present in both the public and private sector costs a good deal more than that.
I know that the Minister will say that we are talking about additional money. However, once the figure has been named and people are allowed to take it and run their own schemes, there is surely a very real danger that what is provided will become narrower and less satisfactory; and, indeed, will not provide what is required on both the care and the educational front. That is a real danger. I hope that the Minister will take that fully into account.
Baroness Warnock: I, too, attached my name to Amendment No. 12. I believe that the effect of the voucher scheme will be to obscure the line between playgroup and nursery school. Therefore, it is all the more important that there should be some account on the face of the Bill of what nursery education actually should be. I also believe that the emphasis on language is extremely important. Language is the route by which the relation between a child and his world is formed. It is only through language that he can learn to communicate with other people; to accept conversation from other people, and to enter into dialogue with other people.
An enormous number of children enter playgroup or nursery school without the concept of conversation and dialogue. They think of grown-up people as people who do not want to talk to them and who put them in front of the television and want them out of the way. It is therefore incredibly important that teachers involved in all forms of nursery provision should be seen by children to be grown-up people who communicate. That is why I place such strong emphasis on language. As I say, that is all the more important if the dividing line between playgroup and nursery school is becoming somewhat fudged by the application of vouchers. I feel strongly about this amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: When the noble Lord, Lord Morris, introduced his amendment he said that in another place the Government poured cold water over these amendments. I hope that I shall not pour cold water over them but explain why I think they are unnecessary,
100
although we are sympathetic to much of what has been said, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on the importance of language and developments in that field.
As I said, we believe that these amendments are unnecessary. All providers need to agree to provide education appropriate to a set of desirable learning outcomes on entering compulsory education which has been developed by SCAA as a requirement of grant. This will ensure that all providers are offering education appropriate to the age of the child and of a consistently high standard.
The SCAA desirable outcomes break down into six areas of learning, one of which covers personal and social development. Another covers language and literacy. I believe that that more than covers Amendment No. 12, and for that matter Amendment No. 9. Inspectors will consider the extent to which providers are working towards each of the outcomes. Where provision is not satisfactory in a particular area of learning inspectors will highlight that in the inspection report and appropriate action—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I hope he can clarify something. As regards the suggestion that the inspector should add to his duties an inspection of the physical and intellectual progress of children, the Minister has more or less made the argument for including that on the face of the Bill, as that is one of the outcomes, some of which are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the schedule, and some of which are not. It seems rather curious that some of the outcomes are mentioned but not others.
Lord Henley: I do not believe that I am doing that. I was discussing Amendments Nos. 9 and 12; I had not yet moved on to the others. We do not believe that they are necessary because we can, by means of a requirement of grant, make sure that any of the voucher redeeming institutions work towards those desirable learning outcomes as developed by SCAA. It will be for inspectors to consider the extent to which providers are working towards each of those outcomes, as I said. That is a matter which can be dealt with in the appropriate way.
The provisions sought in Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 may be provided for as requirements of grant as the Bill stands. Indeed such requirements are already in place under the Phase I arrangements. I therefore see no particular value in prescribing such detail on the face of the Bill. That relates to some of the discussion we had on the first amendment that was before the Committee this afternoon. I also think it is unnecessary to prescribe the scope of the chief inspector's duty to report to the Secretary of State, or the scope of inspections, in any greater detail than the Bill already does. Paragraph 3 (a) of Schedule 1—I think that was what the noble Baroness referred to—requires the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about the quality and standards of funded nursery education.
Paragraph 7 requires inspectors to report on the quality and standards of nursery education provided. These provisions are the same as for the 1992 Act. They

101
will of course embrace the physical and intellectual development of children. Such aspects of quality, and many others, are already covered by the draft framework of inspection which is closely linked to the SCAA outcomes. The nursery education inspections will make sure that all early years staff and all institutions are offering the good quality education that we believe it is desirable to offer to all children. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will feel that on this occasion we have not poured cold water over his amendments but that they are unnecessary.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: On a warm evening like this, a little cold water might not be a bad thing.
"Desirable outcomes" are generally felt to be well below nursery education standard. Some people, doubtless of a sceptical persuasion, suspect that this is provided deliberately to attract low level providers from the private sector into entering into this area of education, which would lower the standards that pre-school education should set for itself. It is an unworthy thought, I have no doubt, but one which from time to time, like all sin, obtrudes into the human mind.
As regards the weight of responsibility to be placed on the chief inspector, at this stage we have stated our positions and we must be content to disagree. We can return to that matter at a later stage. I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("by a qualified teacher and other appropriately trained staff").
The noble Baroness said: The Title of the Bill refers to nursery education. All that the Government say with regard to the Bill is misleading unless it refers to a consistently high quality of provision.
This group of amendments deals with staff qualification and training. There is the appropriate training of staff as teachers and non-teaching staff. Those are complementary roles, and it is critically important that both sectors have had full benefit of the training.
We are dealing with educational provision for very young children, some of whom may have obvious, clearly defined, special educational needs. Others may have the more difficult to detect early signs of later difficulties; or they may have moderate learning difficulties. But help is needed if those learning difficulties are to be overcome and those children are to achieve the highest levels not only in their educational development but also in their social personal skills among their peer group. Amendment No. 10 refers to the importance of a qualified teacher. It is extremely important that this issue is taken seriously.
Among those who have had no contact with children with special needs, with very young children, or with different types of early years provision, there is a belief that any woman—usually the speaker is a man and the staff referred to are women—who has had children of her own can provide nursery education; after all, they
102
are mothers. A great many mothers pride themselves on their ability to work with very young children. Few would have the temerity to claim that they equal those qualified in nursery education, or provide the same background and environment for a child.
In the DFE publications on good quality and early years education the Government recognise the importance of nursery education scoring higher in level of support and in the opportunities that it offers to children than do other forms of education.
Before I am accused again by the Minister of seeking rigid, imposed, central planning, or a lack of choice for parents, perhaps I may say that some parents choose not to place their children in nursery education. Some parents choose not to be concerned about qualifications. Many, like myself, have children who benefited from pre-school education, the quality of and training for which is often of a consistently very high standard. There are different aspects of nursery education. I for one welcome an approach to verifying qualifications that includes a recognition of the value of Montessori training, to cite just one example. There are many aspects to providing high quality nursery education.
I am interested to see whether the Minister is even prepared to consider adopting a target, a phasing-in of a move, towards ensuring that all nursery education funded through public money will be provided by staff who are properly trained. It is extremely important. Children are very vulnerable, and we want the best for our children.
A recurring theme of this group of amendments is the complementary nature of different forms of training. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will be prepared to support clearly, publicly and openly the need for staff working with young children to have the proper qualifications and training. The Minister may argue that it is not possible to achieve that immediately. There would be enormous popularity in the Government setting a target date and co-operating with all parties concerned to try to ensure that nursery education is provided by those who have had full training. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I strongly support the amendment. It follows on from my remark a few moments ago in relation to Amendment No. 12. I referred to the very real danger of skimping on provision through lack of money. If we are to have properly qualified teachers, it will cost more. We have to face that. Without properly qualified teachers, we run the risk of developing a whole grade of sub-standard nursery education. At its worst that can be very much less good than no education at all.
Baroness David: I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, is absent tonight. He spoke at Second Reading. If the Minister is listening, I want to give one quotation from a document from the National Commission on Education, Learning to Succeed. The commission states:
"Teaching very young children is a complex task demanding a high level of skill and understanding. The committee supports graduate level training".

103
I totally support all the requests for qualified teachers and a great deal of teaching knowledge for such children. It is said over and over again how important this is. The Government should be prepared to agree to this very straightforward amendment in the very first clause of the Bill.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: As someone who spent some years in the classroom, I wish to reinforce the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. One might think that the children who are really difficult to cope with are those at scholarship level. In my experience, they are the easy ones. They simply sail away. You can put anything in front of them and they can more or less do it. The further down the scale you go, the more difficult it gets. It is therefore of prime importance that, in the earliest years of all, children have the highest qualified teachers to lead them into the national curriculum at the age of five and try to make, if possible, a seamless transition between nursery and primary education. At that stage, contrary to popular myth, it is extremely important to have highly qualified staff. I support the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I accept the importance of qualifications. I know about the deprived children and the seriously damaged and disadvantaged children. I hoped these amendments would not be used to squeeze out the participation and involvement of parents, or indeed what have been called "streetwise grannies", as supporters.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: I urge my noble friend the Minister to resist this set of amendments. They strike me as being much too prescriptive and every permissive clause is turned into a prescriptive clause. Running through the debate is a conflict of opinion. On one side—and that is the side I am on—we support maximum choice and minimum regulation. The other side seems to support maximum regulation and minimum choice. We counter that all the way through and I hope that my noble friend sticks to his guns.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I wish to make a few comments in support of these amendments. First, to start with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, this is not a question of regulation. It is a question of ensuring that the most vulnerable children in school are being looked after and their studies directed by somebody who is qualified to do both those things. That is the main point of this series of amendments: to ensure that people who are qualified recognise the child who has particular needs—particular learning needs, personality needs or gifts, and so on.
So often our primary schools are taking children who already, at the age of five, are desocialised, with whom it is almost impossible to deal. As a school governor, I have frequently come across this difficulty. We must ensure that those who guide the people in charge of classes are qualified teachers who have been trained to recognise these difficulties or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, a child's special gifts. If that happened
104
we would be making an important contribution to the quality of education of young children which, after all, as far as I am concerned, is the whole point of the Bill. We are talking about the prospects for young children. Experience and research in the United States showed that early years education made children higher achievers and better socialisers. That was one of the factors which was prayed in aid by the Minister when he introduced the Bill. So it is difficult to understand how that attitude ties in with a resistance to ensuring that there are qualified teachers. I do not think that anybody supporting these amendments has any wish to exclude parents from their proper role in this particular process.
I would like to emphasise the point about Montessori teachers. We are not talking necessarily of an identical qualification for every person who takes this lead role in a class. The Montessori Foundation has been involved in pre-school education for over 90 years, amd probably knows as much about it as anybody. I would certainly wish to ensure, through these amendments—and I rather hope the Minister will be able to respond on this matter—that its qualifications, which are very high and growing all the time, would be recognisable under the processes we are suggesting or even without those processes.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I would like to comment on Amendments Nos. 38 and 45. Amendment No. 38 has been the subject of advice which we have received from the Special Education Consortium and which I find particularly persuasive. They have very special knowledge and understanding of the needs of children with special educational needs. It is at that stage of the whole process of formal education that they perhaps should command our greatest weight of respect. Amendment No. 38 is there to ensure that levels of qualification that are acceptable are set out in regulations and that those regulations are regularly reviewed.
In the Next Steps document and the debates that we have had so far on this matter, there has been repeated insistence from the Government that the current proposals are indeed intended to promote the development of high quality education for four year-olds. But one question to which we seldom seem to address ourselves is the question of what quality really means. I have said before in this Chamber that in many respects the English language is degenerating rapidly. One can point to particular words of which that is true and "quality" is one.
"Quality" is a noun which has become an adjective and quality has become synonymous with good quality—high quality. It has become a hooray word and not a boo word. That is imprecise thinking and dangerously imprecise thinking in what we do. People talk now about quality goods, without saying whether they are high quality or low quality goods. But I must confess that the height of absurdity came when the Welsh Rugby Football Union, which in recent years has not been notably successful in producing teams which win matches, held a debate in which one famous Welsh three-quarter said that the trouble lay with the forwards because, "We backs cannot win if we don't get quality

105
ball." "Quality ball"—I invite the Committee to speculate on how that use of the language can possibly make sense. We know what it means but how can it make sense?
The Special Education Consortium believes that high quality education for young children with special educational needs means precisely this: it means being taught by staff who are themselves trained in curriculum, trained in child development, have an understanding of how children learn and can adapt curricula to meet those children's needs. A recent survey of provision in Wales compared provision for the under-fives in playgroups and in maintained schools. In schools, teachers observed, assessed and planned work for children in a way that matched the children's abilities and achievements; whereas playgroup staff, however willing they were, were not sufficiently well informed to recognise children's educational needs and abilities and make decisions about progression in learning. They themselves had not been taught that skill. They worked by instinct—flying by the seat of their pants. Without teachers, it is unlikely that young children with special educational needs could possibly receive an education appropriately matched to their needs.
The argument that the SEC has advanced to date is that significant additional money is going into playgroups, day nurseries and the private and voluntary sectors. The SEC feels that that money ought to be used to buy in trained teachers. However, it has become clear that the Government intend to proceed with the scheme without specifying qualifications and there would be a shortfall of teachers if all settings were to try to employ teachers.
I invite noble Lords opposite and the Minister in particular to speculate about a possible compromise, which, again, the SEC put forward. It is a pragmatic compromise. This amendment promotes an approach which would gradually increase the levels of training and qualifications expected within the voucher scheme. Ministers may say that it is not necessary to specify qualifications and that anyone who says that he can deliver the desirable outcomes in the SCAA document can be allowed to teach four year-olds. We profoundly doubt that. I need go no further than the reference that has been made to the Government's aim. Whereas we should not normally wish to suggest that one registered childminder would be capable of coming into this voucher scheme perfectly happily, if there were a small group of them who could get together and think out some kind of desirable scheme, we should certainly be willing to consider it. And then presumably we would accept what that group said on its self-assessment form without inspecting it before it began to accept vouchers—inspecting it any time up to one year after that. If that was a disastrous inspection result, we would give it nearly a year to mend its fences and its ways before it would be refused permission to continue. Where children with special educational needs are concerned that seems to us to be profoundly dangerous and undesirable.
106
While the amendment does not achieve what the Special Education Consortium would wish in the here and now, it provides a mechanism for achieving a more skilled and better qualified workforce in the longer term. I hope therefore that it will be considered appropriate on those grounds. It is a compromise.
I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive my devotion to the Holy scriptures; it is simply that with a good Welsh Baptist upbringing phrases keep returning to mind. An appropriate one in regard to Amendment No. 45 is that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over 90 and nine just men that need no repentance. The Minister may recall that in previous education Bills I was not convinced of the virtue of the Teacher Training Agency. I confess that I was extremely sceptical about it. I thought that it was a bad thing; that we should not have it; and that, in so far as we had it, we would regret it. I was wrong.
I visited the Teacher Training Agency at its request. I was taken round for the best part of a day and was allowed to ask questions of any of the people I met without their superiors being present—and I did. My mind was changed. Although the TTA has a long way to go and a great deal to do, it certainly proved the case that, young as it is, it is making a valuable contribution to the training of teachers. I just wish people would leave it alone.
The idea of reforming the TTA and getting it to do something else—to teach teachers about discipline and all that kind of thing—seems to me to be piling Pelion on Ossa. It is a good little outfit doing a good job. It is hardly out of the nursery stage, but it is doing something that universities cannot do. Amendment No. 45 seems to me sensible in that it introduces a requirement for the Teacher Training Agency to assess the qualifications and training needs of institutions prior to initial registration under the arrangements. I hope that the agency has been asked and I hope that it feels that it comes within its remit. It obviously asks for vastly more resources and a huge new grant from wherever the grant comes from, but if it can be persuaded, it would be very apt.
The amendment links the TTA properly into the Government's new initiative. It also introduces a new stage, prior to initial registration under the voucher scheme, of requiring the qualifications and training needs of the providers to be assessed. That gives much greater quality assurance for parents, which we consider to be an important part of the whole scheme, and a better guarantee of value for public money.
At present the arrangements we have heard described suggest that an unsuitable provider (let us call it a "cowboy") could be registered and, failing an inspection, operate for two or, in some cases, three years—I shall be grateful if the Minister can say how long it is—before being necessarily struck off; and, of course, a lot of children can have an impoverished opportunity in that time.
The arrangements under the Bill are for the provision of funded nursery education; not simply care, not simply training, but education. Many new or existing providers may not necessarily have "education" as their focus.

107
Under current arrangements providers have no guarantees that the experience and qualifications of their staff are sufficient to teach to the SCAA's "desirable outcomes", which to a lot of people sound rather like motherhood and apple pie and are very difficult to translate into any kind of practical application that can be described and quantified, let alone provide a broad and balanced curriculum appropriate to nursery age children. We think that providers should be required to take advice from the TTA both for their own benefit and for the security of parents.
In the absence of a requirement for new providers to be inspected prior to registration, this link with the TTA would at least provide a basic assurance for parents that the provision chosen for their child has had to take good, top, professional advice on this matter. Without such a guarantee, the claim of a new provider that it will be working towards the "desirable outcomes" is not very much more than a pious hope and a statement of faith and is not really worth the paper on which it might be written.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I wish to say a few words on the issue of the training and qualification of staff and to support what has been said earlier about the challenge to trained and qualified staff of teaching the youngest children within the education system and the children with the greatest needs among that cohort of very young children. In making these remarks, I have no intention of undermining the contribution that can be made and the support that can be given by parents or grandparents within that set-up. My remarks come rather from the experience of having been a parent and of helping at all stages, through playgroup, nursery education and primary school, and seeing how much more difficult and skilful a task it is to make sure that high quality education is delivered to the youngest children than to the oldest children.
One of the mistakes we have made in education has been in not focusing enough on, and not giving enough attention to, the highly skilled task of teaching the youngest children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, there is an important reason for doing that beyond the altruism of wanting to give the highest quality of education to those children. The reason is that more and more in our primary schools we see troubled and disadvantaged children in respect of whom, by the time they have reached a large reception class, we have lost our opportunity effectively to intervene to help them.
I saw in the primary school of which I was a governor for many years how effective that help could be if the nursery class had the resources in terms of teachers and skilled personnel to, if necessary, withdraw those children from the class in order to give them the special help and support they needed. The investment in those children, which starts with the identification of need and goes on to the meeting of that need, paid tremendous dividends throughout the rest of their primary school career. Therefore, I think it is of enormous importance that, in looking at the variety of settings in which
108
nursery education is offered to children, we are equally firm in determining that training and qualifications are of the highest standard.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may briefly underline and develop the point that was made by my noble friend Lady Thomas as regards special needs. We always talk about them as though they were always for people with learning difficulties. But there are special needs among the gifted. If they are neglected in their early years they can often turn into very difficult people. Identifying the gifted and giving them the right opportunities early on can be just as important as dealing with people with learning difficulties. Gifted people can be extremely troublesome and develop very badly if they are not allowed to develop the gifts with which they are born.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for his dissertation on the corruption of the English language in his brief intervention, but I wonder whether it was quite relevant, particularly in view of the time that this debate is taking. Perhaps I may also say that I am grateful for the news of his conversion on the road to Damascus over the Teacher Training Agency. I look forward to witnessing many more such conversions.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was worried that an amendment of this sort could squeeze out parents. Others have expressed the view that it could certainly squeeze out playgroups. I shall resist amendments of this sort very strongly, partly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky.
I can see what the noble Baroness is aiming for in her amendments. I shall speak first to the qualification side and later to the training side. I cannot see why we should have only qualified teachers providing education for voucher-bearing children. It is important to recognise that many four year-olds are already in settings in the private and voluntary sectors where there is no qualified teacher. Excluding such settings from the voucher scheme would do nothing for the quality of educational experience for these children, but by allowing such settings to take part in the voucher scheme, new money is injected, educational inspections begin, and, over time, quality is improved. It is vital to acknowledge that that is where we start from in the field.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that if an inspector revealed a totally unsatisfactory level of education provision—no doubt we shall come back to this later—the provider could be struck off immediately. There are no "ifs" or "buts" about that. But the situation is often not quite as black and white as it might appear. Our proposals allow for continuing development of the provider's ability to provide good quality nursery education. But there is no reason why, under the conditions of grant and that kind of provision, we could not strike that provider off immediately. I make that absolutely clear.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am delighted at what I believe I have just heard and so much so that I would like to hear it again. As I understand it, a provider may set up on a self-assessment scheme and be in operation

109
without being inspected for up to 12 months. Am I now learning that on that first inspection during the 12 months, providers can be struck off immediately? Do they have any appeal? If they appeal, do they get an automatic further 12 months or is there a time specified? I shall be most grateful if I can be helped on that.
Lord Henley: I prefer to write to the noble Lord in greater detail on those points unless we come to them later. I am not going to waste the time of the Committee by repeating my precise words. I was trying to make it clear to the noble Lord that if the provider is providing something which is totally unsatisfactory, there would be provision to strike the provider off.
I said that it is vital to acknowledge where we start from in the field. That is why I was trying to stress that there are already many four year-olds who are in settings where there are not qualified teachers. Neither do I see why the Secretary of State should be required to prescribe annually the qualifications required of staff. The Bill already gives her the power to set requirements of grant as she sees fit. Our Next Steps document published in January, sets out the staff qualifications that we will expect from voucher-redeeming institutions. We will keep that situation under review.
Amendment No. 34 seeks to provide that requirements of grant should be set out in regulations. The new powers enable the Secretary of State to impose any requirements that she feels necessary, including a requirement to repay grant in specified circumstances. Providers will have to comply with whatever requirements we put in place. If they breach any, they will stop receiving additional grant, may be liable to repay any grant they have already received and may be removed from participating in the scheme.
In fact, the flexibility of setting requirements through grant arrangements rather than in regulations provides greater control over the use of grant because it ensures that the requirements in place can always be appropriate to the circumstances at the time.
Turning to the training aspects of this group of amendments, I do not believe we need a specific power to enable the Secretary of State to make grants to nursery providers specifically for the training of teaching and non-teaching staff. The value of the voucher assumes an element for training and staff development. It will be for individual institutions to use the resources to meet their specific training needs.
In the current financial year (1996–97), grants will also be available through the school effectiveness grant for the first time to support in-service training for early years teachers. Our support for the PLA's extensive training infrastructure will continue.
The amendment suggests that all non-maintained providers should have to seek advice on training and qualifications from the TTA before they can redeem their vouchers. I see no need to write into statute any rules about how and from whom providers of nursery education should seek advice on their staffing. We shall be imposing and inspecting requirements about outcomes. The staffing necessary to achieve those outcomes is quite properly for the judgment of
110
individual providers. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will see fit not to press her amendment. I can assure her that if she wishes to press it, I shall resist it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is sometimes very difficult to follow the detail of the Minister's replies. I shall certainly read Hansard with great interest to see the exact words that he chose not to repeat—because of time, he said—regarding the training element of the voucher. I shall also need to read one or two other aspects of his reply. Are the very same Government, at education and training meetings across Europe, supporting the European Union in the International Year of Life-Long Learning and encouraging people to go into training for life? How can the Government say that they support the principle of life-long learning and claim that they recognise the importance of young people gaining qualifications and then suggest to young people leaving school that were they to take up a nursery nurse qualification it would be of little value and the Government are not even prepared to be involved in assessing the institutions that will provide that qualification?
It is important to understand that nothing said from these Benches undermines the role of parents. Far from it. Good nursery education training now concentrates heavily on the importance of working with parents. The hospital service works with parents, recognising that a young child in hospital will recover most effectively if the parent can stay with him or her. But it does not ask the parent to remove the tonsils. Under the guise of supporting parents, the Minister is now behaving as though the only added value is the involvement of parents, the added value of qualifications and training by teachers and non-teaching staff being somehow an irrelevance.
The Minister could have said, "Yes, we are prepared to consider this, but we would like to see it phased in". He could have said, "Yes, the Government can see merit in this, but would like to move towards it over a two to three-year period". The Government could have asked, "What about accreditation for prior experience and the consideration of new modes of qualification?" However, the Government have behaved as though the whole field of education has ceased to be a profession and become an occupation. This Government encourage young people who may work in Sainsbury or other shops, or as hairdresser trainees, or in any field—I wholeheartedly approve of this—to gain qualifications and undergo training. Yet, when dealing with the care of all children, for some of whom parents may have no choice, the Government say that they are not prepared to look at the issue of qualifications.
The Government fail to understand the logic of the position they adopt on one subject and the position they adopt on another. It is ridiculous. The Government find themselves in an unacceptable position. I have no intention of dividing the House at this time, but I am sure that these matters will be returned to at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("their fifth birthday") and insert ("they have attained the age of five years").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 11 is a purely technical amendment which seeks to ensure that the definition of nursery education with regard to the upper limit of children who may be covered is consistent with the commencement of compulsory schooling. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: This has all the appearance of being a drafting amendment. I confess that in considering it we were more than a little puzzled as to how it came to be here and why it had to stay. If I understand the Minister correctly, it concerns the definition of the age range for nursery education; that is, education before the first school term starting after a child's fifth birthday. It appeared to us that it sought purely to alter the terminology without altering the meaning in any particular way. We are strongly in favour of making every possible improvement to this Bill, especially in any area which gets us through the interminable thickets of the language of the parliamentary draftsman. Perhaps the noble Lord can assure us that what we understand it to mean is what it means, neither more nor less. It is hardly among the highest of our priorities, but we have no particular objection to it.
Lord Henley: As currently drafted, Clause 1 defines the upper limit as education provided before the start of the first term beginning after a child's fifth birthday. This would include education provided for children whose fifth birthday fell on the first day of term. However, such children would be of compulsory school age and be children for whom a full-time primary school place must be provided, and should not therefore be eligible for nursery education grant.
The noble Lord will see that the amendment affects only one in 365 children, or three in 365 children; that is, those children whose birthdays happen to fall on a certain day. I am afraid that my mathematics may not be up to it. However, it affects only a relatively small number.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I believe that the correct figure is three in 365. Since we on these Benches and the Labour Party as a whole—new Labour, old Labour or Labour of any sort—are resolute defenders of minorities, especially those around the age of five, we have no objection to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) No arrangements may be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act on or after 1 April 1997 before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an
112
evaluation of the operation over a period of twelve months of any grants for nursery education in the area of any local education authority made during the financial year 1996/7.").
10.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 58.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Avebury, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNally, L.

Borrie, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Meston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Methuen, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mishcon, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monkswell, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Palmer, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sewel, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Southwell, Bp.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hayman, B.

Thurso, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Varley, L.

Hooson, L.

Warnock, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Balfour, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Boardman, L.

Courtown, E.

Bowness, L.

Cox, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Bridgeman, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Burnham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Downshire, M.

Carnock, L.

Elton, L.

113

Feldman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ferrers, E.

Gage, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Marlesford, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Northbourne, L.

Henley, L.

Northesk, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Howe, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Rennell, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Seccombe, B.

Kingsland, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) Education falling within subsection (2) above shall be given in premises conforming to such common standards as to space and facilities as the Secretary of State shall by regulations specify and such standards shall accord no less indoor or outdoor space or levels of facilities than would have been required if the Education (Premises) Regulations 1981 had been in force.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to require the setting of common space standards indoors and outdoors at no less than the 1981 regulation levels. The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1991 prescribed that:
"there shall be teaching and play-room accommodation of a total minimum net area of 2.3m2 for each pupil of the nursery school, or as the case may be, in the nursery classes".
Similar guidance issued by the Department of Health under the Children Act 1989 also recommended that an allocation of 2.3 square metres is a desirable standard for accommodating nursery school children of three to five years of age. That still stands, but the Government announced their intention to deregulate school premises in July 1995 and did so when they laid the statutory instrument just before Easter at the closing stages of the consideration of this Bill in the other House.
I cannot believe that the actual requirement, not the legal requirement, for space standards can have changed so quickly. That requirement still exists because parents expect that their children will have adequate space provision in schools. All children need adequate space in which to learn, move and play. However, confined teaching space and a lack of requirements for recreation areas will impact directly on the education for children under five. Dispensing with those regulations could have a significant detrimental impact on the social, physical and academic development of three and four year-olds with the effects for some children—depending on the nature of the facilities—remaining well into their school lives.
When parents send their children for pre-school education they expect to receive those basic minimum standards. That is the purpose of the amendment. We
114
believe that it is important because if quality is to be maintained we need strong protection and statutory backing for clear and appropriate quality standards for the premises used for young children. Setting the voucher value at less than the notional cost of provision immediately creates a pressure for providers to cut costs in order to minimise the top-up fee that parents must be charged. Compromising on the standard and quality of premises is clearly a way of saving money. If that is to be avoided and a level playing field of high quality established for all providers, space and quality standards must be clear, unambiguous and universally applied.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all premises offering funded nursery education comply with the minimum standards as laid down in the 1981 regulations. Where necessary, it would ensure that standards are improved before inclusion in the voucher scheme. Although the amendment has been moved just after a fairly important Division has taken place, it is, nevertheless, important. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it without the need for Members of the Committee to go through the process of another Division in a few minutes' time. I beg to move.
Lord Skidelsky: I should like to make a few comments on the amendment. Once again, it exemplifies the Opposition's passion for over-regulation which has run right through all the amendments that they have proposed tonight. We all know that good education can take place in poor premises and that very bad education can take place in excellent premises. What conclusions do we draw from that? Well, governments should not be over-zealous in specifying standards as to space and facilities; and, indeed, not strike down good schools which do not have very good premises. But, no, the Opposition wants to specify standards in minute regulation. Therefore, we are back again to the motto that I suggested earlier: maximum regulation always means minimum choice. That is what the Opposition have been arguing for all evening.
It is no use saying that that is a political remark because this is an intensely political debate. We approach such problems from different positions. We want more choice and light regulation but noble Lords opposite want a great deal of regulation and very little choice. I very much hope my noble friend the Minister will resist the amendment.
Baroness David: All we are asking is that we should go back to the regulations that the Government already have in place; we are not asking for new regulations. Indeed, those regulations have been in place for a considerable time. We do not want relaxation so that much worse conditions will prevail than was the case before.
Lord Dixon-Smith: There is one small point that bears on the matter of regulation. In the good old, bad old days when there was a great deal of regulation, the concomitant effect was equally present; namely, that there was relatively low provision because the regulation inhibited it. Surely provision, even under what some people might

115
consider less than adequate standards, is better than no provision at all. Indeed, provision is better than regulation in that respect.
Lord Elton: I would not altogether follow my noble friend because obviously one wants what provision there is to be of a suitable standard. However, I am not at all convinced that this is the way of securing that objective given first of all that there is already a matrix of requirements under health and safety regulations and fire regulations. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us what they are because it seems to me absurd to bring in one set of regulations in order merely to double bank another. Of course if they were to be in conflict with each other then confusion would become worse confounded.
To illustrate the point, I turn for a moment to Italy. The cheese makers in Italy are under a requirement to tile their cheesemaking rooms by the health and safety at work people and under an interdict against tiling their cheesemaking rooms by the heritage authorities of that country. That is a good illustration of what I have in mind. I hope my noble friend will be able to tell us what are the requirements at present under these other statutes, and also to bear in mind the general welcome there has been in this Chamber for the deregulating offensive—I think I can call it that—of Her Majesty's Government, which has resulted in the giving of work to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers to invigilate the process. It seems to me that if with one hand we do that and with the other we start laying on more regulations, we are creating a further round of deregulation for our own sub-committee. That would be a great waste of the time of this Chamber, as I suspect is this amendment. I hope my noble friend will resist it, but in the terms which I have described.
Baroness Seear: I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, as regards the introduction of a great deal of regulation. Of course we do not want the matter over regulated. We are only suggesting the reintroduction of regulations which were drawn up by this Government. I think back to the child minding arrangements which we entered into years ago. I think it was originally a Labour government who introduced those measures, but I forget which government introduced them. The lack of regulation in that area led to some horrid situations. We want a minimum of regulation which will ensure that we never see the kind of situation which we witnessed in those times—no one denies that—which arose because of the absence of regulation on child minding.
Lord Elton: Have the noble Baroness and her noble friends considered whether legislation by reference to a defunct regulation is a proper procedure, and whether they ought not to be considering reintroducing the regulations which have lapsed? It seems to me that it is difficult to refer to a ghost as it were and say, "Do it like him" because these are now ghostly regulations which are no longer in force.
Baroness Seear: That is a technical point which we can well look into. The whole point is that we do not want over regulation. We must not allow this debate to turn into a discussion of whether this area is regulated or not
116
regulated. We want to ensure decent standards in which good education can be conducted. There have been regulations which have laid down those standards. It is that kind of regulation—not necessarily precisely those regulations—which we require at the present time. That is all we are talking about. There is a determined attempt to suggest that we are regulators; we on these Benches are far from being over-regulators.
Lord Elton: I am attempting to be helpful. Have the noble Baroness and the noble Lord considered whether the Education (Premises) Regulations 1981 were amended at any stage, because if they were, in law it will not be known whether the regulations referred to here are the unamended or the amended version. This is legislation, not a parlour game. It is important that anything we put on the statute book will work. It seems to me that this measure is defective in that respect.
Lord Tope: These regulations provide the space requirements which I certainly feel are adequate and appropriate. I do not wish to lose the point of this debate in an argument about the technicality of legal drafting for which, frankly, I am not qualified. If the Minister is prepared to say that he accepts the intention and the spirit of this amendment, and that at Report stage he will bring forward a better drafted Government amendment to achieve the same effect, I should be content to accept his assurance on that point. If, on the other hand, he does not say that, we shall have to consider the matter further.
Lord Henley: I was waiting for our colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench to intervene. However, they seem to have developed a strange reticence since the earlier stage of the Bill. I was awaiting another dissertation on the decline of the English language—on "quality ball", which noble Lords' colleagues in the Principality use: a form of words which I imagine could be interpreted in a completely different manner in other parts of the world. However, we need not go into that.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Lord aware that ten past ten has passed?
Lord Henley: I am not clear why the noble Baroness refers to ten past ten or, for that matter, any other hour. We shall be here for considerably longer discussing the many amendments before us. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will wish to discuss them at considerable length, as he always does; and I look forward to that. I look forward to discussing the amendments well after the 'witching hour and I look forward to coming back tomorrow on other business bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Whether that is true of noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench is a matter for them. I do not know whether they have the resilience that we on these Benches have.
I do not believe that it makes sense to require voucher redeeming institutions to meet standards laid down in regulations that have now been superseded. New regulations will come into force later in the year. That issue has been through Parliament. It has been discussed in another place. To be tied to such regulations would be folly.

117
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will know perfectly well, following extensive consultation—the noble Lord knows just how extensive the consultation can be in the Department for Education and Employment—we decided to revoke those regulations. New regulations—the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996—were laid in another place in February and will come into force on 1st September. That again was discussed in another place.
All maintained schools, including those which offer nursery education, will be required to comply with the new regulations. These retain and even strengthen the health and safety requirements of the 1981 regulations.
But we are deregulating the minimum requirements for teaching accommodation and recreation area because we believe that governors and LEAs are in the best position to decide how to administer their school premises. We shall, however, be publishing guidance later this year to help schools and LEAs make informed decisions.
My noble friend Lord Elton raised a number of questions about other regulations which will protect children. Playgroups and other institutions registered under the Children Act will still have to adhere to the guidance under that Act. As a condition of registration under the Children Act, providers' premises must comply with a range of health and safety requirements, that, like the School Premises Regulations, ensure the safety of children.
In discussing a number of issues including Italian cheeses, my noble friend asked me to give greater detail of the effects of those health and safety regulations—what they do and how they protect the interests of children. I regret that owing to pressure of time I cannot go into quite the detail that my noble friend wishes. However, I can assure him that, while not being burdensome in the way that my noble friend Lord Skidelsky views many amendments—he is right to worry about excessive regulations—they adequately ensure the health and safety of the children attending such institutions.
The revised School Premises Regulations, and the relevant Children Act guidance, both contain important requirements for essential areas of health and safety like washing and toilet facilities and fire safety.
Our policies thus address fully the issue of premises standards for institutions that will be in a position to redeem nursery vouchers.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked why, when we had had the regulations for so long, we did not keep them. They date from as far back as 1981. A great deal has changed since then. We have seen quite a revolution in the world of education. The many changes were, as always, opposed by the party opposite, none more loud than the noble Baroness herself. But many of them are now warmly welcomed. We heard only today about the Damascene conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on the subject of the TTA.
Baroness David: These regulations were made in 1981. That was not by a Labour government.
Lord Henley: I did not say it was by a Labour government. The noble Baroness is right to remind us that
118
we were lucky enough, even as far back as 1981, to have a Conservative government. They were made by a Conservative government on that occasion. Much has changed since then in the world of education. Perhaps I may give just one—
Lord Tope: I thank the Minister for giving way. I accept that much has changed in the education world, as elsewhere, since 1981. But will the Minister tell us what exactly has changed that means that a child in 1996 or 1997 requires less space than he or she did in 1981? What changes is he referring to that mean we should have more crowded conditions for our children?
10.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: Put very simply, the changes we have seen since 1981, which, I hope, as we continue this process of Damascene conversions, we shall see the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and others welcoming, are, for example, LMS and grant-maintained schools—changes that allow much more to be devolved through the schools themselves. As I said, if the noble Lord was listening to me, we believe it right that the governors and the LEAs are in the best position to make appropriate decisions, and decisions in relation to school premises. That does not mean, as again I made clear, that we shall not be publishing guidance. However, it does mean that they should make those decisions. That was not necessarily the case in 1981.
Having said all that, I hope that the noble Lord will now accept that his proposals are not necessary on this occasion. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: I am less than convinced by the Minister's arguments. I am a strong supporter of LMS, if not GMS. But I really do not see how that means that children require less space then they did in 1981. What the Minister is saying is that, in the Government's view—
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord will bear with me, at no point did I say that children require less space than they did in 1981. What I said was that it was more appropriate that decisions of this sort should be made without being over-regulatory, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky put it. I said that these decisions could, and should, be made by the schools and the LEAs themselves and there was no need for a central diktat from government of the sort that the noble Lord and the party opposite seek. On this occasion we have not heard from the official spokesmen of the party opposite. A strange silence seems to have crept over them which I fail to understand. We now feel that it is appropriate that the schools and the LEAs make decisions—with guidance, yes, but not as a result of government diktat.
Lord Tope: I understand what the Minister is saying. He is saying it is no longer appropriate to set minimum standards and that, if a provider can get away with providing less space than would have been required had the 1981 regulations been in effect, then so be it.
The point I made earlier was that because the value of the voucher is less than the cost of the provision in many cases the pressure upon a provider to reduce space

119
in order to maximise the value to that provider of the voucher will be all the greater. It seems that the talk about LMS and GMS is a smokescreen. The need for minimum standards—not maximum standards, not a prescription or over-prescription, but simply minimum standards—is all the greater, not less, with the introduction of this scheme.
The Minister referred to the 1996 school premises regulations. In our view, they do not provide satisfactory standards of space and so on for young children. That is why we deliberately chose to go for the 1981 regulations—and we are immediately accused of being over-prescriptive and over-regulatory. The point has been made by my noble friend Lady Seear, among others, that these "terribly prescriptive, centralising" regulations were actually introduced by the same deregulating Government who are still in power, albeit for a short time to come.
The Minister has been far from convincing. I note what he says about the publishing of guidance. I believe that guidance is a lot less satisfactory than regulation, but we will certainly look at that guidance with interest and consider what he has had to say. For the time being at least, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1. line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) Nursery education falling within subsection (2) above includes educational provision by parents in their role as a child's first educator and arrangements made under this section may include grants for parenting education programmes which support parents in that role.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will be surprised to hear that this is an important group of amendments. In rising to move Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20 which is in my name.
These amendments are about the role of parents in the education of their children. The Bill as it stands makes no reference to the role of parents. I think it is generally agreed that one of the most important factors—perhaps the most important factor—in a child's success at school is parental support, encouragement and involvement. Some parents give this naturally. Some lack the confidence to give it, or the skill; and some are put off by schools which are unwelcoming. Parents from insecure and disadvantaged homes particularly need to be helped, involved and supported. This is a very worthwhile investment.
Troubled and damaged children who slip through the education net cost society very dear indeed in the end. A place at an EBD day school costs about £11,000 a year and at a boarding school £22,000; and we are told that these new secure units will cost £100,000 a year. If we compare that with the very low cost of keeping parents in the picture, interesting them in their children's education, empowering them with the confidence to become involved in helping their children and firing them with enthusiasm, any government who fail to make this small investment in parents will, in my view, be guilty of wasting a great deal of taxpayers' money later on.
Amendment No. 20 is designed to ensure that parents will not be excluded from being providers of nursery education just because they are parents, if they can provide education to the standards which are required in other ways. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We on these Benches support the importance of involvement of parents in the education provision for children and in particular the very important role of parents in early years education. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, even if one were merely to look at this in terms of the costs to society, the involvement of parents would be a valuable financial consideration.
Far more important than that is the quality of life. The quality of life of young children and the relationship between parents and children with regard to a child's educational future is often dependent on the fact that many parents experienced their own education within the context of seeing themselves as failing. There are many parents who are afraid of school. Their memory of school is of an environment in which they never felt they could succeed. The worst examples of extreme professionalism will have an environment in which parents' sense of inadequacy can actually be reinforced by the attitude of the educators, the professionals, who prevent parents from developing confidence in this new role.
During my contact with the education service, both in the playgroup sector and in particular in nursery schools, nursery units, reception classes and infant schools, I have seen excellent, outstanding examples of parental involvement projects being highly successful in terms of the confidence they have given to parents, and in terms of the confidence they give to the child, because as parents we all know that children tend to imitate rather than listen. If the child grows up in an environment where he or she observes that the parent is uneasy in the school environment, where he or she hears the parent saying, "We will not gain any benefit from this", it can undermine the child's first steps in education. But when the environment is good and the parents are involved right from the beginning, the child learns in a new environment and the parent benefits.
I consider this amendment to be one of the most important amendments that we are discussing tonight. It is critically important that we take seriously this area and this element. It gives me great pleasure to support Amendment No. 15.
Baroness David: My name is also to this amendment and I support very strongly what the noble Lord and my noble friend said. Parental involvement has been a theme to which I have returned time and again in this Chamber. We know that many parents are very much lacking in confidence. We also know of the excellent work that is going on in such places as the City Lit, where a great many parents of foreign extraction who do not speak English need to be given a great deal of confidence. If they are taken into the schools and helped, it does a great deal for the children's education.

121
This is an extremely important amendment. I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting it.
Lord Elton: I hope that my noble friend, who is so accustomed to disagreeing with those opposite him, will not regard their support for this amendment as a cause for immediately brushing it aside. I recognise that it is not framed and indeed I do not suppose that what it asks for is achievable in the terms in which it asks for it. But the noble Baroness, Lady David, touched on a point which ought to be common ground between the parties; namely, the crucial importance of the involvement of parents in their children's education, and not all parents are equipped to deliver that involvement.
Only last week, in common with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, I heard that a parent who had been illiterate and unable to help her children in school had, as a result of the intervention of the school, learned to read. She had been enormously helpful to her children and quite changed their behaviour in the school. That is an extreme example. But it is the case that many parents are not adequate to give their children the help that they need. Sometimes it is simply because they find the school a very daunting place. If some of the effort and resources put into this Bill could be put into making the school less daunting and more amenable to the involvement of parents in the education of their children, it would be enormously to the advantage of the children and eventually society at large.
The effects are greatly underestimated. Some years ago, I and my committee drew attention to that matter in a report on discipline in schools. A great deal of work has been done on it since then and every piece of work has re-emphasised its importance.
I do not want to delay the Committee at this time of night. I merely want to ask my noble friend to keep that principle firmly in mind (even if he asks the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment) because it is crucial.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: From these Benches perhaps I may very briefly support this series of amendments. I also welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who said what I hoped would be said on this series of amendments; namely, that this issue had nothing whatever to do with party politics but with something rather more important on which we could agree across party barriers. That was part of the burden of his earlier remarks.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I could advise the noble Baroness not to use those terms. Having sat for many years in the seat now occupied by my noble friend, I came to recognise that every serious assault on the Government's position was preceded by the statement, "This is not a party matter". This one really is not.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the noble Lord. He criticised me and confirmed that I was correct at the same time, so I am not quite sure on which side I am supposed to be standing.
I wanted to draw attention to Amendments Nos 52 and 60 which are like equivalent amendments in relation to the physical and intellectual progress aspect. In the
122
interesting and excellent document, Desirable Outcomes, a whole page is devoted to the importance of parents as partners. It would be a great help in watching how the process developed if the inspectors could look at it and take on board whatever they find during their inspection, in respect of the involvement of parents in their children's education, whether or not it is encouraging.
I take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Elton said. We are seeing in schools examples of parental violence. The pupil is criticised and the parent's reaction is to come to the school and thump somebody. That is often because parents do not know how to approach the school which seems, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, rightly said, to be a daunting institution surrounded by a hedge of rules and regulations. However much we try to keep the doors open—and most schools do—it would be useful in the context of early years education if inspectors were to be asked to pay attention to the development of care for parental involvement in nursery education.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not spoken during this Committee stage, but it is important for the Committee to remember that that is the whole point of vouchers. Parents will be very much less daunted by schools if the school's existence depends on their bringing their child. We must remember that. That is the whole point.
Lord Henley: I believe I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is aiming at. But these amendments in no way achieve what he desires. I find it rather peculiar that, despite knowing what his intentions were, having read it and seen what it did, the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrats signed up to an amendment which produces such inconsistency. The noble Baroness earlier accused the Government of inconsistency but this is inconsistency with a capital I; it is inconsistency on a major level.
An amendment such as this would allow the Secretary of State to treat parents as though they were a voucher-redeeming institution in themselves. The noble Baroness should have looked carefully at the amendment before signing up to it. I appreciate that that may not have been the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his amendment, though it is his concern in Amendment No. 20 to which the noble Baroness has not signed up. The earlier amendment is defective and does not achieve what the noble Lord wants. It has much the same effect as Amendment No. 20 and we do not believe—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, does not believe it, if she wishes to be consistent—that individual parents should he eligible to redeem vouchers.
Having said that, I can assure the Committee that we expect parents to be closely involved with their children's nursery education. Inspectors will have to include in their report their assessment of the quality of information for both parents and carers, and the chances for parents to be involved in their children's learning. Furthermore, the inspection reports will be required to be available to both parents and prospective parents

123
alongside other published information. That will ensure that parents have the opportunity to play an active role in their child's education.
Going back to the intentions behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I should remind him that one part of the Bill is specifically for the funding of education for four year-olds; it is not for parents. I therefore have some doubts as to whether we can accommodate what the noble Lord wishes to accommodate. Having said that, I shall be more than happy to have further discussions with him between now and Report stage as to whether it is possible to do anything. However, I must first make clear what the Bill is designed to do and therefore what are the constraints in terms of what the noble Lord is trying to achieve.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I understand, and I recognised when I drafted the amendment, that he has a problem there. However, it could well be argued that the cheapest and the best way to effect the beginnings of education for some children is to help their parents to give it.
With regard to the later amendment, I did mean to say in Amendment No. 20 that groups of parents who got together to form a playschool or a nursery school to provide a nursery education, if they could meet all the standards which were required by the inspection, should have the opportunity to do so. I am grateful for the noble Lord's invitation to come and talk about it and I shall certainly do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): In calling Amendment No. 21, I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 22 because of pre-emption.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 1, line 20, leave out from ("or) to ("are") in line 21 and insert ("a grant made under arrangements under this section shall he determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and regulations may, in particular, provide for the determination to be made by reference to an amount (or amounts) specified for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
( ) The times at which, and the manner in which, grants made under arrangements under this section").
The noble Lord said: I referred to this amendment earlier today. The Committee will recall that during the Second Reading of the Bill I gave notice that, in the light of the views of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, the Government would be introducing an amendment dealing with the method of determining the amount of grant that is to be paid to providers.
I explained that our aim is to strike a sensible balance between providing appropriate parliamentary control and excluding administrative details from the face of the Bill. The Government's amendment achieves just that.
It provides for the method of calculating the amount of grant to be paid to providers to be set out in regulations, thus ensuring that a fundamental element of the arrangements of the voucher scheme is subject to
124
parliamentary scrutiny. The Government intend this to be a per capita amount per term for each child for whom nursery education is provided in that term. But the amendment is framed to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility to determine, and thus to adjust, the per capita amount to be used or to adopt different amounts for different cases, as necessary.
In moving this amendment, I refer to the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It said that if the House agrees to the amendments the Government propose to bring forward,
"the delegated powers in the bill will be subject to appropriate parliamentary control; and that there is nothing further in the bill on which we invite the House to act".
I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: As the Minister said, the amendment responds to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which is itself taking up the Government's suggestion in their evidence that an amendment of this type should be moved. It means that the method of determining the amount of grant in each year will be subject to regulations open to parliamentary scrutiny rather than being decided under arrangements.
The value of the grant in the pilot year is £1,100 and this corresponds to the value of vouchers given to parents, although it is not actually required so to correspond since there is no provision for vouchers in the legislation. By the same token, the deductions from the LEA are also set at £1,100 in the current year, and again these could vary in future years from the value of grants. The mechanism for the setting of the grant level is nonetheless the core around which the financial side of the system will operate. It is right that there should be proper scrutiny. The amendment does not actually give Parliament the right necessarily to agree the actual level as opposed to the means by which it should be determined. The second half of the amendment does give power for the regulations to prescribe a determination by reference to "an amount"—i.e., to name a figure—but that is not mandatory. The amendment which stands in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, Amendment No. 24, achieves that object, but that is a matter for separate consideration. We are perfectly happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 1. line 22, leave out ("by the arrangements") and insert ("annually by order").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 85. The purpose of the amendment is to require an annual voucher value setting order which would be debatable. This amendment, along with one to Clause 7(3), will require an annual order laid under the negative resolution procedure to state the amount of grants. Let us see what the Minister thinks of that.
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this place reported on this Bill on 1st May 1996. The report recorded that the Secretary of State had agreed, at his committee's request, to table an amendment in this place so that
"the method of calculation of grant is set out in regulations subject to the negative procedure".
This amendment, along with the amendment to Clause 7(2) requires an order to be made annually on the amount of grant to be paid to nursery providers.
The issue which divides the amendment from the Government amendment is that there will have to be a statutory instrument each year giving the grant arrangements. The reason for that is that the Government have not stated how the grant arrangements will change from one year to the next. If they remain the same there will be no need for a further statutory instrument and therefore no parliamentary scrutiny through that avenue. The Government have not stated how the value of the voucher will vary from one year to the next. Will it be based on the retail prices index, or will it be related to education costs or earnings? It is a probing amendment to discover what the Government's intentions are on this matter.
Nursery education providers need to know the mechanism for receiving money, but they need also the protection of secondary legislation to know how much money they will receive. In our view the Government amendment does not quite fulfil that requirement, but our amendment, coupled with the amendments to lines 20 and 22, require that all the financial arrangements will be in regulations and that those must be reviewed annually by Parliament.
Amendment No. 85 corrects an earlier misreading of Clause 7 and secures the aim of the main amendment in the group headed by Amendment No. 21, that there should be a vote in Parliament on the order to set the voucher value. I beg to move.
Baroness David: Amendment No. 25 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It is grouped with this amendment. Amendment No. 25 would allow for the consideration of, and resourcing for, continuity and stability for children in educational terms. The current arrangements may jeopardise continuity between pre and post-five provision.
In A Framework for the Primary Curriculum (1989) the National Curriculum Council stressed the need to plan for progression and continuity in order to enable children to transfer smoothly from pre-statutory to statutory provision and from one phase of education to the next. It points out that in primary schools where there are nursery classes, continuity is eased where nursery class teachers are involved as full members of the primary team.
The HMI report A survey of provision for under-fives in the playgroup and maintained sectors in Wales: Inspected during Academic Year 1994-95 includes as a feature of good practice:
"There are close links with the next stage of education to promote continuity and progression."
126
Children benefit from being taught by qualified teachers who are able to build the links between the individual knowledge and understanding of each pupil and the expectations of the national curriculum and the broader components of school life. In settings where curriculum provision is largely underdeveloped children are less likely to be able to cope with the educational demands at school.
The Rumbold Report Starting with Quality (1990) states:
"On current evidence we believe that continuity is likely to be better between nursery education and primary education than between other provision for the under fives and primary school."
Children also benefit from continuity of environment as well as that of the curriculum. In such terms, some settings are able to provide greater continuity and stability than others.
The Rumbold Report supports that statement and says,
"continuity is likely to be easier where the child moves from a nursery class to the same school's reception class than when there is a move between nursery school and primary school."
I hope that the Minister will pay attention to that point.
11 p.m.
Lord Henley: I always listen with the closest attention to everything the noble Baroness has to say. I do not think that the arrival of my noble friend the Chief Whip interrupted her thoughts one jot.
Amendment No. 24 would require the amount of grant, and the time and manner in which it was paid, to come before Parliament either in regulations or in an annual order. I believe that to be undesirable.
The Government propose that the amount of grant received by providers should depend on the number of voucher-bearing pupils they attract. The precise amount of grant payable to each provider will therefore differ in each case and be impossible to predict.
Under the Government's proposal, Parliament would scrutinise the method by which grant was to be determined and would be informed of the per capita amount to be used in determining grant and any changes to that amount. That seems to me a sensible and practical approach.
The noble Lord asked me to go further and explain how my right honourable friend will consider the matter and decide to uprate it. I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord. As with all public expenditure, the value needs to be considered in the light of the overall public expenditure round and is something that my right honourable friend will consider each year in the light of other pressures and demands in the world of education. The Government as a whole will consider such matters in the light of all the other demands on government expenditure. These amendments would require subordinate legislation to specify the amount of grant providers will receive. That seems unrealistic and unworkable.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 25, to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke. The Audit Commission report, Counting to Five, shows that

127
the hourly rate implied by the voucher (if it is exchanged for a part-time place) is not far from expenditure in a variety of institutions. We have said that we will be looking at the value of the voucher across the country and will consider whether there is a need for regional variations in value.
However, I am not convinced that this is a workable amendment. The responsibility for assessing individual children's needs rests at a local level with the provider, not with central government. Children have differing needs and develop at their own pace. Therefore, the amount of time and money needed will vary from child to child. Providers are in the best place to reach a judgment on this and to manage their resources accordingly.
In some places the cost of a place will exceed the voucher value. But in local authority schools, the LEA will still retain funds, as at the moment, to do so—and budgets will be reduced by only the voucher value for each four year-old. In the private and voluntary sector it will be for parents to top up the voucher. The voucher will enable parents to choose which setting offers the most appropriate provision for their child. Therefore, I hope that amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Amendment No. 24 was worth a try. I am not unduly surprised that the Minister is not terribly content with it and I thank him for the courtesy with which he explained his position. I appreciate the noble Lord's points about his right honourable friend. This is a matter on which we shall have to differ. We may return to it at a later stage; meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("(4A) Nothing shall be taken to prevent, or to afford any right of appeal against, a refusal by any authority or person to provide (or continue to provide) a child with a place for nursery education at a maintained school if the reason for the refusal is that a relevant condition has not been complied with in relation to the child; and this subsection applies even if the child has been provided with, or offered, a place at the school before the commencement of this subsection.
In this subsection—

(a) "a maintained school" means a school maintained by a local education authority, a grant-maintained school or a grant-maintained special school, and

(b) "a relevant condition" means a prescribed condition designed to facilitate the determination of the amount of grants payable under arrangements under this section.").

The noble Lord said: Again, I beg to move a technical amendment. It responds to views which have been expressed by a number of local education authorities and, I hope, will be welcomed by them.
In nursery schools and classes it is possible for admissions authorities—either LEAs or governing bodies—to place conditions on the places they offer to children. It may be therefore that an admissions authority offers a child a place in a nursery school with a condition that relates to the presentation of the nursery
128
education voucher to the school. The law on admissions is not quite the same for reception classes in primary schools.
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the position in reception classes and to ensure that reception classes, nursery schools and nursery classes are all on an equal footing. We propose giving admissions authorities a power to place conditions on the offer of reception class places. This is a power. It is entirely up to individual LEAs and governing bodies to decide whether or not to exercise that power.
Let me also make clear that this new power is very tightly drawn. There is no question of allowing admissions authorities to impose any sort of condition—only conditions that are prescribed and allow the amount of grant payable under this Bill to be determined.
Of course, all four year-olds are entitled to a nursery education voucher. Therefore, there is no reason why parents of eligible children should not get their vouchers or present them to schools. With that brief explanation I hope that the noble Lord is prepared to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: This is an interesting and potentially helpful amendment. It gives an insight into the potential human cost of the voucher arrangements. The purpose of the amendment is to allow any person or authority to refuse to admit, or if in attendance to exclude, a child from nursery education in an LEA-maintained or grant-maintained school if the voucher is not produced. It seems to me that there is a flaw in the arrangements which this amendment has the potential to remedy. If a child is in a part-time maintained place in the morning but goes to a voluntary and private part-time place in the afternoon, because the morning place is free the parent can choose to use the voucher for the afternoon provision. This amendment gives legal sanction to excluding the child from the morning session if the parent has not produced the voucher.
However, the human cost of excluding a child—perhaps a three year-old—who has already settled into a nursery class ought not to be underestimated. The provision can also be used to exclude a child whose parents have not presented a voucher for any reason, no matter how genuine. The child may be a new immigrant whose parents are not in receipt of child benefit. There is also the prospect that grant-maintained schools, who are fully in charge of their own admission arrangements and finance, may wish to exclude children whose parents do not produce vouchers immediately, whereas an LEA school may take a more humane approach to the receipt of vouchers and give parents warning of the consequences of not producing it. It may increase the divide between LEA and grant-maintained primary schools.
I believe that there are two issues which need a little more probing. First, can the Minister define "any authority or person" in the second line of the amendment? Does it mean that the LEA can direct voluntary schools to refuse to continue to educate a child whose parents do not have a voucher? Can the head teacher of a maintained school exclude a child

129
whose parents have not been sent a voucher, even though the LEA may be prepared to wait for another couple of weeks for the voucher to be presented? Are these matters that can be dealt with within the confines of the LMS scheme?
Secondly, the amendment refers to "a relevant condition" as a condition to do with payment of grants, but the precise nature of any conditions will be subject to regulations. Can the Minister state what the regulations will prescribe? For instance, how much notice will a parent have before a child is excluded? Will children who are not on the child benefit database be excluded from the provision? It is worth noting that there is a retrospective provision in the amendment. A child can be excluded under the provision even though he or she has been admitted to school before the commencement of the provision. Can the Minister offer any help on those matters?
Lord Henley: I believe that at this time of night it would be rash of me to attempt to answer the detail of the noble Lord's questions. I prefer to write to the noble Lord in greater detail. It may help if I explain what would have happened without the amendment. That may give the noble Lord some idea why we felt it necessary to table the amendment. The objective of the amendment is to make a link between the voucher and place in the maintained school. It has been drawn to our attention in Phase 1 that there is room for clarification and giving equal treatment to nursery schools, nursery classes and reception classes. The consequence is to ensure that each school receives funding for the four year-olds that it takes. I believe that that is only right and proper. I believe that that will be welcomed by the LEAs who have brought it to our attention in Phase 1. If the noble Lord agrees, I prefer to write in greater detail to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) A grant made under arrangements under this section may be made to the governing body of an aided or special agreement school in respect of expenditure incurred by them in the provision or alteration of premises or equipment for the purpose of providing nursery education at the school, and such grants shall be made as if they were grants under section 281 of the Education Act 1993 (grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools).").
The noble Baroness said: I move Amendment No.27 in the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. The amendment addresses the need of voluntary-aided primary schools to receive capital funding to extend or alter their premises to make new nursery education provision.
The amendment arises because of the desire of local education authorities to make provision for nursery classes in voluntary aided schools. As a member of the local education authority in England with the largest number of voluntary aided schools, I speak from personal experience when I say that the LEA is not responsible for the costs of this provision and may not make provision from the capital expenditure approvals.
The building costs have to be found by the schools' trustees, governors and dioceses, although 85 per cent of the cost is grant aided by the DfEE. Frequently however, the DfEE has refused to find the 85 per cent, and that has caused much frustration. In certain years the Government have advised voluntary aided school governors and diocesan authorities not to submit bids for funding of nursery provision. The reason is that the Treasury has been reducing education capital spending significantly over recent years and nursery education provision has not featured high on the list of urgent priorities in the voluntary aided school sector. The amendment attempts to address the imbalance.
I cite the example of a local authority of which I am a member, Lancashire County Council. In looking at the provision of nursery schools, classes and units, the authority has attempted to evaluate the areas of greatest need taking into account that the most appropriate need on the list of developments would be a voluntary aided school. That has often been thwarted by the actions of the DfEE. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The amendment is intended to empower the Secretary of State to make capital grants under Clause I to the governing body of an aided or special agreement school. I can assure the noble Baroness, in her role as the right reverend Prelate—I welcome the fact that the Church of England is moving further forward - that grant will continue to be available to voluntary aided and special agreement schools under Section 281 of the 1993 Act as now, subject to the need to prioritise bids in the light of the need to ration scarce resources.
I understood that that was the kind of reassurance that the right reverend Prelate was seeking. I hope it is the sort of assurance that the noble Baroness, in her role as the right reverend Prelate, is also seeking. If that is the case, I hope that she will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am very happy to take on this role. I hope that the Minister will not discuss whether or not enacting the policy he has referred to is dependent on his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who may not share his view about welcoming me as a right reverend prelate. At this stage I shall not press the amendment. I look forward to reading Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 28.
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
NURSERY EDUCATION DUTY
(".—(1) A local authority shall secure the provision of nursery education within the meaning of section 1(2) above for children within its area.

131
(2) The Secretary of State may, after consulting such persons as appear to him to be concerned, issue guidance to authorities as to the fulfilment of their duties under this section.").
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move Amendment No. 28. It is—
Lord Henley: We spent considerable time on securing groupings. We went through about four drafts. Amendment No. 28 was grouped with Amendment No. 7; we discussed it earlier. I see little to be gained by discussing it yet again unless we are to be here all night.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: All I was going to do was say, "Not moved".
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Delegation]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Requirements]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 2, line 10, after ("shall") insert ("have regard to any code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under section 157 of the Education Act 1993 and shall").
The noble Lord said: I wish to concentrate my few remarks on Amendments Nos. 33 and 88. In tabling the amendments, I and my noble friends Lady Warnock and Lord Northbourne seek to ensure that all voucher-redeeming institutions—I apologise for the jargon—have regard to the code of practice on special educational needs. No doubt other Members of the Committee will speak to Amendments Nos. 44, 47 and 73.
At the moment, the Bill does not require the private or voluntary sector to have regard to the code of practice. I believe that it is essential. The code of practice is based on good practice gathered from the maintained sector. I believe that it is flexible enough to be used by a variety of organisations.
I readily accept that not every section of the code will be relevant in all settings. However, having regard to the code gives enough scope to use only those parts of it which are relevant.
Although, as the Bill stands, all providers will have to publish policies on special educational needs, if those policies are developed without use of the code they may encourage and reinforce bad practice. I am sure that we are on common ground in wanting quality, and quality requires attention to principles and detail. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those matters. I look forward to hearing his comments. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My name is to Amendment No. 47. The amendment would require all voucher-redeeming institutions to produce a written SEN policy. The code of practice states:
"as part of their statutory duties, governing bodies of all maintained schools must publish information about, and report on, the school's policy on special educational needs".
132
The production of school SEN policies provides an opportunity to audit each school's needs in a systematic way. The Education (Special Educational Needs) (Information) Regulations 1994 prescribe the information which the school must make available. For example, the checklist contained in the SEN policy outlined in Regulation 2 and Schedule 1, and reproduced in the code of practice, includes the requirement for basic information to be published on,
"any special facilities which increase or assist access to the school by pupils with SEN".
This requirement to produce such comprehensive SEN policies has proved vitally important in terms of ensuring the identification, assessment and subsequent provision for children with SEN in maintained schools. The benefits of identifying and assessing the special needs of children as early as possible are obvious, and it is vital for these children that any subsequent provision is both adequate and appropriate.
The current Government and the Labour Party are both keen on baseline assessment as a focus or starting point for value-added measurement. The identification of a child's special educational needs at the age of four (or younger) would dramatically increase that child's chances of later success. Therefore it is extremely important that all forms of provision for four year-olds should be required to publish information about, and report on, their SEN policies with regard to the code of practice's SEN policy checklist. That is an extremely important requirement.
The DfEE next steps document lists the publication of SEN policies in the information that providers should be required, as a condition of the voucher grant, to provide annually for parents. However, it gives no indication of what form this SEN policy should take. The amendment would ensure that all providers follow the SEN policy checklist as outlined in the Education (Special Educational Needs) (Information) Regulations 1994. I hope that the Minister can see his way to accepting this group of amendments.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 44 and 73. Amendment No. 44 is a modest little compromise amendment about the identification of special educational needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in moving Amendment No. 10, sought to require all providers to employ a qualified teacher. I presume that that means one person full-time. It seems to me that that may be a very exacting requirement in the case of a small nursery provider in, say, a remote area where there are only half a dozen children involved and where provision could adequately be made by a trained playschool leader, perhaps supported by mothers or grannies.
However, such staff might not have the skills to identify special educational needs, so it seems to me that the employment of a specialist teacher part-time for a minimum, as I have suggested in the amendment, of 15 hours a term would ensure that special educational needs were identified. If the principle of the amendment were to be accepted by the Government, I think it would probably need to be backed by a consequential amendment on Report which would require all schools

133
to notify the social services of children with special educational needs so that some action can be taken to deal with the matter and help them.
Amendment No. 73 is, I admit, a slightly "rogue" amendment. I believe in vouchers but I do not really support this scheme because I believe that the value of vouchers ought to be related to the needs of the child and to the costs of fulfilling those needs. I tabled the amendment under what I believe now to be a misunderstanding about the Government's intentions. Perhaps the Minister will now confirm whether or not I am correct in believing the following. If a child with special educational needs is, at present, being educated in a state school and it is costing, say, £4,000, will the local authority lose £4,000 under the new scheme or will it lose £1,100 from the clawback? I believe I am right in saying that it will only lose £1,100 which it will then get back, in which case the importance of the amendment is not as great as it might otherwise have been.
However, it seems to me that there is a pot of money which could easily be available to help the children in most need. I simply cannot believe that any person who is wealthy enough to pay tax at 40 per cent. would not be prepared to accept a hand-out of £660, instead of a hand-out of £1,100, if he or she knew that the balance was going to help children in need.
Lord Addington: I should just like to express my support for the tenets of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I also give my full support to Amendment No. 47 tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady David. Early recognition is a great tool for anyone giving assistance in this field. If you identify a problem, you can then start to do something about it—or, at the very least, you can stop doing things which may aggravate that child's problems in the classroom. If we are starting to educate at the age of four, then there will be a slightly longer period during which teaching practices may compound problems. Early recognition and trying to get some statement of intent is vitally important to the whole system. I suggest that we cannot start early enough in the field.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to support this group of amendments. I shall be brief, even though this is the first time that I have spoken tonight. Amendment No. 44 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbourne would ensure that each establishment employs a teacher for at least 15 hours a term who could identify children with special educational needs. That seems to me to be a valuable and extremely modest requirement. I particularly support Amendment No. 33, so succinctly moved by the noble friend Lord Rix, which relates to the duty to,
"have regard to any code of practice issued by the Secretary of State",
which would bring the legislation into line with that for schools.
I also warmly support Amendment No. 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which would ensure that "every authority" had a duty to make and maintain a statement
134
of its special educational needs policy. That would be excellent. It would mean that we would have a duty right across the educational field with nursery schools, schools, further and higher education colleges, together with LEAs, providing further education. It would make for coherence and continuity in provision for pupils with special educational needs and students with learning difficulties. I very much hope, therefore, that the Minister will give an encouraging reply, not only to my noble friend Lord Rix but also to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Northbourne.
Lord Henley: I hope that I can be encouraging on this occasion, though I cannot accept all the amendments, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked. However, I hope I can go some way down that track. I start by answering the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, when he asked about a figure of £4,000 and whether all that would be lost, or whether he was right in assuming that the figure is £1,100. I was trying to nod, but obviously nodding does not get onto the record. He was right in saying that only £1,100 pounds would be deducted for every child, regardless of the cost of the place.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which he and I discussed at a meeting where a number of points were put before us. We thought the meeting might last some time, but because there was such agreement among us all, the meeting was over before the tea was cold or the chocolate biscuits finished. I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to learn that having considered his amendment, and listened to the representations he and others made, we have decided to place on the face of the Bill a requirement that all voucher-redeeming institutions not already covered by the duty in Section 157 of the 1993 Act "have regard" to the SEN code of practice.
However, in placing such a requirement on the face of the Bill we need to build on the noble Lord's amendment. Therefore he will quite understand if we cannnot accept his amendment precisely as tabled. It is important not to forget that the code of practice was written primarily with local education authorities and maintained schools in mind. It was not drafted with playgroups and private nursery schools in mind. As such, a good deal of the code is not directly relevant to non-LEA providers.
We have therefore decided, in order to make the code more accessible to voucher-redeeming institutions in the private and voluntary sectors, that we will issue complementary guidance on the code. We envisage that that guidance will highlight the key principles of the code, and issues relevant to private and voluntary providers.
I see such guidance as essential in the short to medium term. We need to ensure that private and voluntary providers are aware of and comfortable with

135
the requirements of the code. At such time as we revise the code, we shall see that its contents are suitable over the various settings in which the under-fives receive education with support from public funds.
I stress that that complementary guidance will be just that—complementary. It will complement the code by flagging up the key principles for those not familiar with them. It will not in any way dilute the standing of the code itself. The code will remain the point of reference. We shall be consulting shortly on the detailed content of this guidance. In bringing forward our amendment, we will expand on the noble Lord's amendment. The result will be that all voucher-redeeming institutions will have to have regard to the code, and to any complementary guidance issued alongside it.
I hope therefore the noble Lord will feel it unnecessary to press his amendment, and I hope other noble Lords will understand why, having gone that far, I am not prepared to go quite as far on some of the other amendments. I start with Amendment No. 44 from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which seeks to make it a requirement that all voucher-redeeming institutions employ for a minimum of 15 hours per week a person qualified to identify children with SEN—
Lord Northbourne: It is 15 hours per term.
Lord Henley: I apologise to the noble Lord. Of course he is right; it is 15 hours per term. I do not think that such a requirement is needed. I am confident that many of the staff who are working with the under-fives have the necessary skills and experience to work with children with SEN.
Moreover, I have already outlined the commitment we have made to children with SEN by requiring all voucher-redeeming institutions to have regard to the code of practice and to publish information about their SEN provision. We believe that those requirements will help ensure that the needs of SEN children are identified and addressed, and will help identify the training needs of staff. We have included an element for training within the voucher value and individual institutions could obviously use that according to their specific needs.
Turning to the request by the noble Baroness, Lady David, for a written statement of SEN policy, this clause seeks to place a duty on providers of nursery education to produce and keep an up-to-date written statement of their policy for making provision for children with SEN within the meaning of Section 156 of the Education Act 1993.
The availability of information for parents about an individual institution's policy on SEN is important to enable parents to make informed choices as to the most appropriate pre-school setting for their child. Again I argue that the noble Baroness's proposed new clause is unnecessary. We have made it clear that it will be a requirement of grant that all providers participating in the nursery education voucher scheme must publish on an annual basis information for parents which must include details of the provider's SEN policy. I shall not go into detail as to exactly what should be provided. I do not think that at this time of night the noble
136
Baroness would wish me to continue at great length. However, in offering to write to the noble Baroness with further details, I hope that that will speed matters up.
The publication of SEN policies as a requirement of grant, together with a duty on all providers to have regard to the SEN code of practice, will enable parents to make appropriate, informed, considered and confident choices about the type of provision for their child.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, described his amendment as the rogue amendment. I am opposed to the amendment for two reasons. First, I do not believe that it would be desirable to make vouchers a taxable benefit; and even less desirable then to hypothecate the tax. The noble Lord will know that we are unwilling to hypothecate taxes. Secondly, we believe that resources for nursery education for children with special educational needs are already being provided. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to pursue that amendment further.
I hope that the concessions that I have announced for the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will go a considerable way towards allaying some of the concerns of other noble Lords who have spoken on the amendments.
Lord Rix: I am delighted with the Minister's response. It was certainly worth waiting these long hours to hear those words of comfort. I was also delighted with the response we received when we met the Minister last Thursday in the department to discuss Amendments Nos. 33 and 88. It was clear then that we were pushing at an open door. I hope that noble Lords who put forward Amendments Nos. 44, 47 and 73, will feel that they have not wasted their time this evening and that some form of favourable response will come from the Minister in due course.
I am grateful for such a short debate on the amendments and for the fact that, although the wording will not be precisely as tabled, in the fullness of time it will be similar. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) Requirements imposed under this section shall include a requirement to ensure that corporal punishment is not used in nursery education provided by an authority or other person to whom a grant is made under arrangements under section 1.").
The noble Baroness said: The Minister will not be altogether surprised that I have returned to a theme which I have followed for about 15 years—moving sometimes a little way and sometimes quite a long way. I hope that we can move a little way tonight.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all children in institutions providing early years care and education are protected from institutional corporal punishment. We are talking here of four year-old and possibly three year-old children. Surely no one these days on either side of the House would seek to justify institutional corporal punishment for such children.
When I raised the issue at Second Reading, the Minister responded at col. 722 of the Official Report of 20th May that he believed that protecting voucher-bearing children was sufficient. In our view it is not. Surely there have been enough instances of abuse and ill-treatment of children in institutions to convince the Government that there must be no confusion whatever over teachers' and other carers' rights to hit children.
We appreciate that the Bill cannot be used to solve the problem properly by extending the existing prohibition on corporal punishment to cover all institutions, including those in the private sector. But it can and should be used to ensure at least that the very young children in all the institutions involved in the voucher scheme are protected.
Ministers in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment know that educational organisations—those involved in early years care and education and child welfare, and child protection groups, including the NSPCC—all strongly oppose the use of corporal punishment. The National Early Years Network and the Law Reform for Children's Day Care Group strongly support this amendment.
Whatever the Government may say, the current proposals are a step backwards. The Department of Health has maintained for years that,
"Physical punishment has no place in the childcare environment".
Back in 1987, in answer to a parliamentary Question, Edwina Currie, then a junior Department of Health Minister, stated that,
"There are no circumstances in which corporal punishment would he appropriate for children attending local authority day nurseries or any premises registered under the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948".
What has changed to lead the Government now to tolerate institutional corporal punishment of these young children?
The current proposals will not even implement the DfEE's limited policy that there must be no corporal punishment in publicly funded institutions or of state supported pupils. Children in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes are of course already protected. But day nurseries are fully publicly funded. Playgroups receive public funds. Yet, under these proposals non-voucher bearing children in those institutions will not be protected from corporal punishment.
The only adequate and humane solution within the scope of this Bill is to ensure that corporal punishment cannot be used in any voucher-redeeming institution. I appreciate that this amendment may not be the best way of achieving this. It can probably be achieved by regulations. But in moving the amendment, I am seeking an assurance that the Government will accept the need to protect from corporal punishment all children in all the institutions involved in the voucher scheme, and to do so through legislation. Guidance is not enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, regrets that he could not stay to support me in this amendment, but he wishes it to be said that he very strongly supports it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I know that the noble Baroness feels particularly strongly on this matter. I know her interest goes wider than this Bill and that she has pursued it for a number of years. The noble Baroness will remember that in answer to a Written Question earlier this year, I made it clear that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to prohibit corporal punishment for all state-funded education.
Clearly, education provided in exchange for nursery education vouchers is "state-funded education" and as such we will ensure that no child receiving eduction by virtue of its use of a nursery education voucher is subjected to corporal punishment. We intend to do so through a condition of grant. I believe that is as clear a way of doing it as any.
I hope that the noble Baroness appreciates—I am not quite clear about the scope of her amendment—that this would not be the place for a wider debate on corporal punishment generally; this Bill relates only to children funded through the grant arrangements. Therefore we must confine ourselves to that group. I hope that the assurance I have given her, and gave again in a Written Answer on 12th February, will be sufficient. I make it quite plain that, through the conditions of grant, we intend to make it quite clear that no child receiving education by virtue of its use of a nursery education voucher is subjected to corporal punishment.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for his reply. But I did say myself when I spoke that I did not look on this Bill as a way of preventing, or trying to prevent, corporal punishment in every private establishment. However, I am not quite clear from the Minister's answer whether the institutions where any government money is going will be prevented from using corporal punishment or only the children who have vouchers. It would seem to me a very odd situation if in any institutional educational establishment some children were able to be hit and not others. It would be perfectly ridiculous, rather like the ridiculous Bill that was brought forward by Keith Joseph which was ignominiously thrown out by this place. Could the Minister please make it clear.
Lord Henley: It is so unlikely that there would be an institution that allowed some children in receipt of vouchers not to be beaten but allowed others whose parents paid for facilities to be beaten. I do not think one would have an institution of that sort. There might be private sector institutions that would not become voucher-redeeming institutions which might, as with other private schools, wish to go on making use of corporal punishment. The assurance I am giving to the noble Baroness is that no child in receipt of vouchers will be subjected to corporal punishment and I do not

139
think that any schools will have two classes of pupil dependent on whether they do or do not receive vouchers.
Baroness David: Will the Minister at least give guidance to that effect?
Lord Henley: There is a limit to how much guidance we can issue. The suggestion that there could be such a school is so beyond all ideas of reality that it is hardly necessary.
Baroness David: I agree it is ridiculous, but I would have liked a further assurance. However, I shall discuss the Minister's reply with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and see whether he is satisfied with what the Minister has said. I am not quite sure that I am, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 2. line 12, at end insert—
("( ) shall require that an authority or person to whom grant is made under arrangements under section 1 is subject to the requirements of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I think it is best that I start off with a question to the Minister. He has just said that special educational needs provision will be enhanced and brought forward with the Bill. Thus, does the provision address the type of school about which this amendment is talking? This amendment and Amendments Nos. 37 and 91 are about those children in non-maintained schools in receipt of vouchers who fall outside the Disability Discrimination Act and within the statutory requirement for education, which is designed for five year-olds, and which is expanded down. Therefore, there is an area where a child is vulnerable to discrimination. The problem is that there is a possibility that the state may fund a child in an educational programme where it is quite legal to discriminate against him because he is not defended. This is what lies behind both these amendments. If this has been corrected by what the Minister has just said, I will of course withdraw the amendment straight away. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I suspect I missed an opportunity to make the noble Lord aware of the letter I wrote on the 4th June this year to David Grayson, the new Chairman of the National Disability Council. It is a letter that I showed to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, dealing with the very point about which the noble Lord is concerned. First, I want to make it quite clear that I will make a copy of the letter available to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and he might like to consider that in the light of what he does at a later stage. The first point I want to make is that the voucher redeeming institution will be a school and therefore will be excluded from Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act, along with other educational institutions. However, in the light of concerns raised by the NDC—and this is what I was writing to Mr. Grayson about—I wrote:
140
"We have come to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to extend the education exclusion to cover all services offered by providers who redeem nursery vouchers. We are very aware that many providers in the private and voluntary sectors who redeem nursery vouchers will also be offering other services for the under fives, notably child care services, and that it would be unacceptable for institutions to discriminate against disabled children whose parents may apply for such services".
What I am trying to say to the noble Lord—and again I ask that he looks at the letter in due course—is that, although the educational aspect will remain excluded following concerns raised by the NDC, the non-educational aspects will not be excluded from the Disability Discrimination Act.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord for that response. I shall first read the letter and then consider his remarks. I shall possibly come back to the point.
But the fact remains that there is a hole that must be filled. I hope that what the noble Lord said has filled it, but it is a matter of concern. There have been cases in point. For example, a small girl had a facial disfigurement—a portwine stain on her face—and was undergoing reconstructive surgery for a hare lip. Other parents protested to the headmaster, who asked for the child to be removed. Something has to be done, if there is any possibility of such a child who is receiving state funding for education not having full protection.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord will remember better than I do the long debates that we had on the Disability Discrimination Bill. We decided to exclude education partly because there is the 1993 Act and the SEN code of practice. Obviously, as on the previous amendment, that will apply to the educational aspects of nursery provision. But the other, non-educational provision, will be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord for that little piece of clarification. I believe that he has covered the points that I wanted to raise, although I should like to think a little further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) shall prescribe the staffing ratios required in respect of four-year old children in reception classes (having regard to the need for the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that adequate resources are available to providers for this purpose)").
The noble Baroness said: I shall move this amendment very briefly. There is quite clear educational evidence that those children who are designated as summer-born children perform right through to the age of 16 at a lower level of attainment than other children in the same year. It is equally true that the child who is barely four when it enters a reception class has very

141
different educational needs from a child who has reached statutor school age. It is also true that the Government have no intention at the moment of putting any limit at all on reception class sizes. There will not even be a limit on the number of children who can be placed in a reception class on health and safety grounds. That is the current situation.
This amendment is necessary. Nursery education and primary school education are different. One obviously merges into the other. We are concerned to ensure that schools which take children as part of the nursery voucher scheme do so providing an appropriate education for children in that age group. The educational research shows that the child who is taken into a large reception class too young, where there is no proper training for or recognition of the needs of that young child, may be further disadvantaged. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 40, which also concerns staffing ratios but which varies significantly from the amendment of the noble Baroness, to which she has just spoken.
If one relies on market forces to provide satisfactory outcomes, then a level playing field must be provided. The key factor in the economic operation of an educational establishment is the staff to pupil ratio. If a situation is allowed in which one set of providers is submitted to fairly stringent, though probably very right, conditions in relation to staff-pupil ratios and other providers are allowed complete freedom, the natural economic tendency will be to fill up reception classes and provide the minimum of staffing to give a general impression that the establishment is doing its job. With a reception class of 25 or 30 children and perhaps one teacher and one assistant, as the noble Baroness said, the children will not receive the education they need. With the present economic pressures on schools and local authorities there will be a serious temptation to do that. It is not in the best interests of children, and it is not fair to the institutions which are providing quality education, to throw them into the marketplace and not provide a level playing field.
Lord Henley: I am afraid that I do not see a justification for either Amendment No. 39 or Amendment No. 40. The touchstone of quality in all settings will be whether the desirable learning outcomes are likely to be achieved. Defining any particular staff:child ratio will not guarantee the achievement of the outcomes. I am not sure why we should need to.
Where is the evidence to suggest that there is no good work going on, no good provision, in any reception class? Indeed, an Ofsted report on the standards and quality of education in reception classes published in 1993 found that the overall standards of work were satisfactory or better in nearly 80 per cent. of the reception classes seen. The HMCI report on provision for under-fives in Wales, published last December, reached similar conclusions.
142
As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made clear, a teacher in a reception class is often supported by a classroom assistant. I hope therefore that we need not take that amendment any further. Perhaps I can deal with a further suggestion that was made.
Lord Northbourne: Before the Minister moves on—it is simpler to do it in this way—if he says that it is not important to specify staff:pupil ratios, why are they specified in nursery schools and similar establishments?
Lord Henley: I was coming on to the suggestion that reception classes would "unlevel" the playing field by cramming in pupils. I hope that that will respond to the point raised by the noble Lord.
I have no doubt that the LEAs and the governors will keep the number of children in reception, and indeed in all classes, to a reasonable, manageable and safe level, as they do at present. The revised School Premises Regulations strengthen the detailed health and safety standards to which schools must adhere, and we discussed that earlier.
We need also to recognise that once children have gained admittance to a school's reception class, they have a secure place until the age of seven, eight or II, depending on the type of school and the area they are in. So if a school were to cram children into its reception class—the unfairness the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, sees—that school would need to continue to provide for all those children throughout their time in the school. I cannot believe that any governing body or an LEA would think such a situation desirable.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister has misunderstood. There are two aspects to the question of the number of children in a class. One is the physical constraints. In response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the Minister seemed to imply that any constraint would involve teachers. Can the Minister confirm that the nursery staffing ratios recommended by the department are adult:child staff ratios? They are not solely teacher:pupil ratios. Part of the justification is the safety of very young children where there are insufficient adults. I speak from memory; I believe it is something like 13:1 for children in that age-group, but I may be wrong.
Lord Henley: I suspect the noble Baroness's memory is better than mine. I shall have to come back to her on the detail of that.
The point I was hoping to make reasonably clearly, though it is difficult at five minutes to midnight when we have much more to get on to, is that, first, it would not be in the interests of the school itself, in the case of reception classes, to cram in more children because they have to provide for those children later on, up to whatever may be the appropriate age. For nursery classes and other such institutions the case is different and that is why I set it out as I did. That is why I made it clear to the Committee when I started my response that the teacher in a reception class is often supported by a classroom assistant—the very point the noble Baroness was trying to make.

143
Ultimately, though, these should be matters for parental choice. If, for whatever reason, schools do not offer the type of nursery provision that parents want, they will take their children elsewhere. So that the governors are totally clear about what is expected, we shall publish some fairly detailed guidance on school accommodation later this summer. I hope that that deals with the point made by the noble Lord and I trust that, at this hour of night, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Given the lateness of the hour and the need to read in detail the points raised by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 40:
Page 2 line 12, at end insert—
("( ) shall prescribe the minimum staffing ratios in respect of four-year-old children in reception classes which shall not be less favourable than the minimum staffing ratios that apply to four-year-old children in other nursery classes,").
The noble Lord said: I shall not move the amendment because of the lateness of the hour. However, I am profoundly unhappy about what the Minister has said. I do not think that he has at all answered the questions which were raised in the debate.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 2, line 16. at end insert ("not").
The noble Lord said: I should welcome some clarification from the Minister. Clause 3(3) gives the Secretary of State power to reclaim grant from providers in certain circumstances. The circumstances in which this power might arise are expressed as where, "specific conditions are satisfied".
The amendment argues that a better formulation would be that the powers bite where the conditions are "not" satisfied. Perhaps I may give an example to illustrate my point. A condition of grant might be that the recipient should not abscond with the money. The recipient does not abscond. The condition has actually been satisfied and the grant could be reclaimed even though the recipient has done absolutely nothing wrong. Conversely, if he did abscond and went to Rio with the proceeds, there might be some doubt as to whether steps could be taken to recover it. Presumably, the drafting is intended to allow for both negative and positive requirements; that is, obligations, respectively, not to do and to do certain things. But the phraseology seems to me impenetrably intricate. I invite the Minister either to put me out of my misery or to take this amendment away and see whether he can help in some other way. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I shall try. If my explanation fails to work, I shall take away the amendment and have a look
144
at it. We were not quite clear what the noble Lord intended to achieve with the amendment and I am now even less clear.
We propose that the requirement of grant may specify circumstances in which a provider would be required to repay grant. These might include, for example, where a provider has not used the grant for the purpose of nursery education. What the noble Lord's amendment suggests is that the provider should be required to repay grant when circumstances specified for the repayment of grant are not met. I would suggest that that is the wrong way round. But, as I said, if I have still misunderstood what the noble Lord is getting at, I shall certainly have another look at what he had to say in moving the amendment.
Midnight
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord. This is no hour of the night to be bending our minds to this kind of thing. Let us see what we have both said tomorrow morning and come back to this matter at a later stage if we cannot satisfy ourselves between times. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
STATEMENTS OF SPECIAL NEEDS POLICIES
(" It shall be the duty of every authority or other person to whom a grant is made under arrangements under section 1 to make and keep up to date a separate written statement of their policy for making provision for special educational needs, within the meaning of section 156 of the Education Act 1993, with regard to children in receipt of nursery education.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. The Minister was good enough to say that he would write to me in response to it. I am very pleased to accept that from him and look forward to his letter.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"EARLY YEARS" STRATEGY
(" .—(1) An authority or person to whom a grant is made under arrangements under section I shall comply with such requirements as may he specified by the early years strategy prepared by the local authority under subsection (2).
(2) An early years strategy shall be prepared annually by each local authority to whom a grant is made under section 1 or in whose authority a person to whom a grant is made under section 1 has his premises, and shall specify requirements on providers of nursery education to whom this Act applies.
(3) In carrying out such a strategy each local authority shall consult any relevant body within its boundaries for the purposes of ensuring that children aged three and four within its boundaries shall have nursery education made available to them, with particular emphasis on children with the greatest need.
(4) In subsection (3) "relevant body" means—

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

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

145
(c) any organisation which represents schools in the authority's area which are grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools;
(d) the proprietors of every such school providing primary education in the authority's area which is not so represented under paragraph (c) above;
(e) such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests of people who use or are likely to use services as specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989;
(f) any other persons to whom a grant is made under arrangements under section 1;
(g) such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct.
(5) In drawing up such a strategy, each local authority to which this section applies shall have regard to—

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

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

The noble Lord said: This amendment arises out of a curious situation. Attempts were made to table various amendments trying in some way to link together the provisions of the Children Act and those of this Bill. Unless some effort is made to co-ordinate the various services undoubtedly some children will fall through the net. The obligations of the local authority to provide for children in need and those at risk—I am talking now mainly about children in need—are not in any way meshed into this Bill. The example is the child about whom I spoke on an earlier amendment who is costing the local authority £4,000 at the moment to provide nursery education. Now there will be a provider who will get £1,100 from a voucher, but the obligation of the local authority to provide the other £2,900 will have to be meshed in with that. Questions arise as to whether this Bill will in any way relieve the local authority of its obligations. I do not want to go into details at this hour of the night. It is the kind of situation where it is particularly important that there should be co-ordination.
The proposal behind this amendment is that the local authority should be required to produce a strategic plan for the provision in its area. The arguments for it are particularly relevant in areas where there are very small numbers of clients; for example, in remote rural areas and where there are minority ethnic groups who may need special provision. It is probably an amendment that the noble Lord will not like. It may be one that we should discuss between now and Report stage if there is any hope of getting some sort of a solution. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: It is an amendment that I do not like. It proposes the development by the LEAs of an early years strategy. It looks to me very much like another attempt to put local authorities very much in the driving seat, to use a form of words I used in connection with earlier amendments. Unlike the amendments that we debated earlier concerning development plans and the suggestion of placing a new duty on local education authorities to provide nursery education, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, does at least recognise the important part that providers and agencies, other than the local authority, play in the provision of nursery education. It is certainly very good to see that
146
local authorities will have to consult such a wide range of bodies in carrying out their early years strategy. Consultation with those other bodies does not require local authorities to take their views into account nor feature other sectors in the strategy as it is developed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister would seriously benefit from visiting a wide range of local education authorities. He will find that they have co-ordinating committees on provision for under-fives on which health authorities are represented and on which the local education authority has its own representatives, including those of the voluntary sector and the pre-school playgroups. It is about time that the Government came down from their ivory tower and went out and visited local authorities. I see two former colleagues from local government circles, the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Dixon-Smith, on that side of the Chamber and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on this side. I know that they can all tell the noble Lord that there is already co-operation. It is not something to which the Government have to keep referring.
Lord Henley: I am not quite sure of the point of that in relation to this amendment, but I can tell the noble Baroness that I am a former member of a local education authority—not, I appreciate, with the great distinction of the noble Baroness. I have nevertheless served for a number of years on a local education authority. I can also assure her that in the course of my work in the department I visit a number of local education authorities and see officers and members, and I intend to continue doing so.
The simple point that I was making is that I do not like the amendment, but I like it slightly more than the previous one moved by the noble Baroness. In effect, it puts LEAs in the driving seat and I can only repeat that the Government believe that the manner of the expansion of nursery education should be determined by parental choice, not by LEAs.
Lord Northbourne: The problem we are discussing highlights the fact that the responsibility for children and their families falls across no fewer than seven departments of state. That is the root of the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Nursery education grants: inspections etc.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, line 33, after ("education") insert ("with particular reference to—

(i) qualifications and training of staff;

(ii) staff-child ratios; and

(iii) space regulations and guidance").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to give the chief inspector a duty to report to the Secretary of State on objective measures of inputs to quality listed in the amendment. This would help to

147
develop a better defined and more robust inspection regime that makes specific reference to those indicators of quality—a little less of the light touch, a little more of the heavy hand.
The chief inspector's duty in the Bill to report on the strengths and weaknesses of early years education should refer directly to the inclusion of judgments on the qualifications and training of staff. The nursery voucher scheme will very suddenly plunge us into a new system where providers, who have previously been expected to do no more than fulfil Children Act requirements to satisfy the fit person requirement, are now expected to provide a curriculum that will lead to the SCAA desirable learning outcomes. In ensuring that the providers are "fit" persons, the local authority will only be required to "have regard" to a number of important considerations, among which is,
"qualifications and/or training in a relevant field such as child care, early years education, health visiting, nursing or other caring activities".
As the father of a nurse who is well qualified in health visiting, I can assure the Committee that she would not exactly welcome being stuck in a situation for which she would feel that she was not properly trained.
It is clear that there is no real qualification requirement. In what must be the most crucial indicator of quality the SCAA desirable outcomes for children's learning study found that the children who had attended LEA nurseries,
"engaged in more purposeful and complex activity in reception class than did the children who attended playgroup; they chose more 'demanding' educational activities. Nursery children were more likely than playgroup children to initiate contacts with the teacher that were 'learning orientated' while the playgroup children approached the teacher for help".
This begins to demonstrate the quality of the children's experience in playgroup by comparison with that in nursery education—a quality determined by the quality of staff in both environments.
That is complemented by a second study, carried out by Kathy Sylva at the Institute of Education, working with Siraj Blatchford and Johnson. The study found that the staff in the social services sector of nurseries had too little knowledge of the national curriculum to lay down firm foundations for it during the pre-school years. In contrast, teachers in the education sector were well informed about the national curriculum pertaining to primary school children and devised nursery school programmes based on assessing the educational needs of children and fostering learning tailored to individuals. Some recent evidence pertaining to the importance of qualifications in the teaching of this age group is contained within the Audit Commission's splendid little report, Counting to Five. That study examined 50 settings, and on page 25 the report states:
"The inspectors' reports did not highlight any single feature common to all the highest grade settings, but two were mentioned in relation to many of them, one of which was: staff trained specifically for working with young children".
If this is true, surely we should acknowledge this important facet of high quality provision by making certain that, above all, the chief inspector has it firmly in his sights.
Earlier amendments today have raised the issue of staff: child ratios and space regulations. This amendment simply suggests that the chief inspector should report on the national picture in those areas to assist in assessing progress and identifying and developing national trends.
Amendment No. 57 is intended to introduce a set of basic minimum standards against which all nursery providers are inspected. It would exert considerable pressure on the Secretary of State to establish those common criteria relating to staffing numbers and qualifications, training and experience as well as those relating to indoor and outdoor space regulations, which have been a sore point with us all along in consideration of the Bill. Such aspects are much more reliable and long-term indicators that basic standards are being met than any kind of half-day snapshot of a nursery teacher or any other staff can be. They are also quantifiable indicators by which parents can compare and thereby make more meaningful choices. We are all for choices but let us have meaningful ones.
Although in the new arrangements there is an apparent commitment to give Ofsted overall responsibility for inspecting all nursery providers, it remains distinctly possible that the criteria against which each provider is measured may be different for different kinds of institution: for example, maintained nursery classes as against play groups. Such differences would be unacceptable, and the amendment seeks to remedy that. We know that staff can be put on show for inspectors. What happens when the inspectors go is rather like the Sunday after "Songs of Praise" has visited a parish church. On television day the church is packed but the following Sunday the congregation comprises the usual three old ladies and one small child. Similarly, in these situations there can be an under-performance as a result of being inspected. However, more qualifiable aspects of standards, like child:staff ratios, cannot be changed for the day and they are not subject to human responses or judgments. We believe that the amendment would help by requiring inspectors to inspect those quantitative factors and to inform parents of how the situation with one provider compares with a national set of common criteria. If you like, it is a league table. It also allows greater feasibility for initial inspection prior to registration. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: After all that, I intend to respond briefly in the manner that I adopted in relation to earlier amendments. We believe that it is unnecessary to prescribe the scope of the chief inspector's duty to report to the Secretary of State, or the scope of the inspections, in any greater detail than that already provided for in the Bill. The Bill provides for that in some detail and in a manner very similar to other bits of legislation which have been before the House relating to inspectors. The provisions for the chief inspector and the inspector to consider the quality and standards of funded nursery education embrace the standard and suitability of teaching, alongside other aspects of quality. Having said that, I believe that it is unnecessary to go down the line that the noble Lord, Lord Morris,

149
wishes us to pursue and further prescribe the scope of his duty. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The remarks of the Minister are noted. I disagree with what he has said. Like General MacArthur in the Pacific in the Second World War, I shall return. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.51 to 61 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 5. line 38, after ("a") insert ("public").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to require the register of inspectors to be public. This is, by contrast, a gloriously simple amendment. There are no technicalities or complexities. It simply requires that the registers of nursery education inspectors established and maintained by chief inspectors for England and Wales be in the public domain.
The amendment is intended to promote public access to information contained in the registers. Parents and other members of the public with a legitimate interest in the quality and integrity of inspectors entering institutions for the purpose of carrying out inspections would be able to have access to the registers in order to satisfy themselves that those persons charged with the important responsibility of scrutinising the quality of education in such institutions are properly qualified and experienced to do so.
The amendment does not seek to prescribe the detail of any arrangements for providing access to the registers. By implication, that could quite properly be left to the chief inspectors for England and Wales. We do not see it as an invasion of personal or sensitive information which the chief inspectors may legitimately hold. Published information contained in the registers would include the lengths of the inspectors' registration and the nature of any conditions imposed by the chief inspector on registered inspectors as provided for elsewhere in the schedule.
Thus the public, if it wished, could be informed as to the experience and competence of registered inspectors. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: These amendments are unnecessary. The chief inspector already makes a register of inspectors available to the public under the 1992 Act. It has always been our intention to follow the same course of action for nursery education. I assure the noble Lord that the register will be available free of charge on request. There seems little to be gained from spelling that out on the face of the Bill, particularly if it is not spelt out on the face of the 1992 Act, and to have different provisions in different Acts. I suspect that that could lead to a different interpretation of the procedures
150
in both Acts. Therefore I suggest that we follow the provision in the 1992 Act. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am satisfied with what I have heard. I am grateful to the Minister for putting it on the record, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 72 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Nursery education grants: disclosure of information]:
[Amendments Nos 74 and 75 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power to borrow]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 2, line 27, leave out from ("fit") to end of line 30 and insert ("subject to the provisions of the standard form contract under subsection (5) below, which is to be known as the School Standard Loan Contract").
The noble Lord said: I have been advised that Amendment No. 83 is out of order as being inconsistent with the long title of the Bill. I will therefore not move it or otherwise refer to it, except to say that the weakness of the Bill is, in my view, the artificial distinction it creates between the borrowing powers of the two maintained sectors—a distinction that my "out of order" amendment was designed to rectify.
The amendments to which I will speak may look a little complicated but they are designed to do two things. I am sorry that I must explain them at a little length, even though it is late. I shall try to keep my remarks as short and succinct as possible.
Amendment No. 77 is designed to create a level playing field for all GM schools. Clause 6 allows GM schools to borrow from the private sector but only on the security of surplus assets. This means that many GM schools will not be able to borrow at all. Whether or not they have inherited assets surplus to their current requirements is largely a matter of historical accident.
Moveover, if a surplus asset becomes the security for a loan it is no longer available for return to the local authority which first acquired or created it. So there is not just the inequality between the borrowing powers of GM schools but also a strong sense of inequity between the two maintained sectors. My amendment tries to get rid of the first inequality by allowing all GM schools to take unsecured loans, subject to a school standard loan contract, the terms of which are spelt out in Amendment No. 81.
The reason for getting the Secretary of State to introduce a standard contract is that the market for loans to schools will need a great deal of prompting. The transaction costs of arranging loans is extremely high as everyone will be playing unfamiliar roles. In addition,

151
the standard contract can provide a convenient and simple vehicle for regulating the types and levels of borrowing allowed.
The amendment removes the discretionary veto power of the Secretary of State over the granting of loans and instead requires him to set out the rules of the game in the schools standard loan contract. I hope that one day this most basic principle of modern political economy will penetrate into the Department for Education and Employment; setting out the rules of the game rather than intervening in an anxious manner over every case.
The amendment suggests a basic framework of the standard contract. In essence, it should not specify the length, price or the maximum size of the loans permitted. These are matters to be filled in later by the parties to a specific loan. However, the contract will have to do several things. It will make clear that loans are not underwritten by the public authority; it will issue a standard procedure for what happens in the event of a school or bank ceasing to trade; and, in particular, what happens if the school fails the Ofsted inspection. It will also cap borrowing powers by forbidding schools to devote more than a set proportion of their cash income for servicing the loans.
Most importantly, the standard contract will deal with the issue of default with organised and pre-set arrangements. In particular, signatories will agree on a schedule of required resources for the school. These will simply be income and capital assets required for the school to meet its obligation to provide education. In the standard contract schools will have to service and repay loans as long as their resources year by year exceed their required resources. If resources dip below the required resources, schools will be permitted to default on their loans and carry on trading.
The aim is to ensure that the first liability of schools is to service their statutory obligation to the state. Banks will never be allowed to claim resources, income or capital if the school cannot then properly teach. The resources required to meet those obligations will be agreed in advance. Being part of the negotiation in signing a standard loan contract, they will be understood at the time the loan is made.
One advantage of this procedure is that it replaces the rather narrow notion of surplus assets which are difficult to define—the distinction between surplus and core assets is rather vague—with a far more general notion of required resources.
Thus the amendment sets in train procedures for unsecured as well as secured loans. The expectation is that most schools will require all their assets; that is, they will have no surplus assets and, consequently, they will be able to apply for unsecured loans only. On the other hand, if the loan is used to create a new separable asset like, for example, a new building, that could be recovered by the lender, as the new asset will not, by definition, have been required.
That is the end of the technical exposition. I move very swiftly to my conclusion. I believe that these amendments offer an elegant mechanism for enabling
152
publicly funded institutions to borrow from the private sector, and is one which could be extended, if necessary, to other public sector institutions, such as local authority schools, hospitals, and so on. It would be far better to consider the borrowing problems of such institutions in a general way rather than on a case-by-case or sector-by-sector basis. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider this group of amendments in the light of the explanation that I have rather lengthily offered, and for which I apologise. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to my noble friend for his lengthy explanation of the terms of the amendment, for which he apologised. I should like to look at all the amendments tomorrow with considerable care when I have more time at my disposal. I do not wish to sound too hopeful to my noble friend. I must remind him that the amendments were only tabled last Friday and, therefore, we need slightly more time to study them.
Having said that, I should like to make a few brief comments on what my noble friend said. First, the Bill as drafted does allow unsecured borrowing for schools which have no non-core assets to offer as security. Therefore, he is not proposing anything extra. Secondly, we agree with my noble friend that grant-maintained schools should, subject to certain restrictions, be free to take out whatever loans they see fit. We also agree in general terms about what those restrictions should be. Borrowing by grant-maintained schools should not impair their ability to perform their main business—that is, educating children—nor should they place at risk assets that have been provided out of the public purse.
However, where I suspect my noble friend and the department differ is over the mechanism for applying those restrictions. Both of us believe that there should be as light a touch as is possible. My noble friend has argued that schools should not have to seek consent from the Secretary of State or the Funding Agency for Schools but that their borrowing should be circumscribed by the kind of statutory standard contract that he suggested. We prefer the other route because we believe that that provides more of the light touch that is necessary and that it leaves the grant-maintained schools to make their own arrangements. Having said that, I shall have a further look at my noble friend's amendments and give them the proper consideration that they deserve.
Lord Skidelsky: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very helpful reply. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): I should inform Members of the Committee that I am advised that Amendment No. 78 has been incorrectly placed on the Marshalled List and that it should be called after Amendment No. 80.
Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert ("as may fall within the meaning of the "core assets" of the school as prescribed by regulations made under section (Core assets) of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996").
The noble Lord said: The amendment and the suggested new clause in Amendment No. 82 are an attempt to insert on the face of the Bill some definition of "core assets" against which borrowing will not be allowed; that is, to insert some framework for agreeing a definition of that phrase against which borrowing will not be allowed. I hope that the Minister will accept the suggestion as I believe we need to have a clearer definition of exactly what is meant by "core assets" and a framework within which schools and the FAS need to be working.
I understand that the Secretary of State will be sending a remit letter to the FAS in due course. If the Minister is not inclined at this stage to accept the amendments, I hope he will at least give us some information on the content and status of that letter. Finally, and most particularly, before any further definition of "core assets" is produced, I hope that there will be full consultation with all interested parties, especially the representatives of local education authorities. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Henley: I start by pointing out that the noble Lord's amendment is technically flawed. I do so purely to be of assistance should he want to return to it later. It would explicitly allow GM schools to offer core assets-however they are defined-as collateral for loans. I take it that the noble Lord's intention is actually the same as the Government's—that it should not be possible for grant-maintained schools to mortgage essential assets. This was pointed out to the Opposition in another place but they seem to have tabled an identical amendment today.
An important part of our policy for grant-maintained borrowing is that vital publicly funded assets should not be placed at risk. To that end the Government are committed to proper and appropriate safeguards. I believe there is a good deal of agreement on this between this side of the Chamber and noble Lords opposite. We agree that schools should not be able to offer as collateral assets that are essential to their functioning. I think we also agree about what is and what is not likely to be considered essential. Where we differ from noble Lords opposite is whether there is any
154
need to define core assets in legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, wants us to set this out in regulations. I believe that that is unnecessary and undesirable.
The difficulty with defining core assets in regulations is that the circumstances of individual schools vary so widely. The layout, size and quality of school buildings in different institutions may also vary. Whether particular buildings are essential to a school's functioning at any one time will depend on a wide variety of factors.
As regards consultation, I can give an assurance that the department consulted fully on the proposals and the remit letter will obviously be based on that. If the noble Lord would like me to write to him in greater detail on precisely what will be included I shall be more than happy to do so. If that would assist, I shall try to do so before the next stage. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. It would be helpful if he could write to me in more detail as soon as he is able. I shall certainly consider what he says with great interest before we reach the next stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 91 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to. Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before one o'clock.

  Wilton Park
  Wilton Park
  EU and NATO Enlargement: Comparative Costs
  EU and NATO Enlargement: Comparative Costs
  Assembly of European Regions
  Assembly of European Regions
  UK Action in EU: Legality
  UK Action in EU: Legality
  UN Weaponry Convention: Implications of Amended Protocol
  UN Weaponry Convention: Implications of Amended Protocol
  UN Human Rights Committee: Annual Report
  UN Human Rights Committee: Annual Report
  Human Rights Conventions
  Human Rights Conventions
  The Mall: Parking
  The Mall: Parking
  Fisheries Council, 10th June
  Fisheries Council, 10th June
  Mammalian Meat and Bone Meal: Disposal of Stocks
  Mammalian Meat and Bone Meal: Disposal of Stocks
  Bat Death: Rabies Diagnosis
  Bat Death: Rabies Diagnosis
  BSE Cases in Animals Born after Ruminant Protein Feed Ban
  BSE Cases in Animals Born after Ruminant Protein Feed Ban
  EU: Animal Feed Sterilisation
  EU: Animal Feed Sterilisation
  Antibiotics in Animal Feed: Monitoring
  Antibiotics in Animal Feed: Monitoring
  Emergency Towing Arrangements
  Emergency Towing Arrangements
  Vehicle Number Plates
  Vehicle Number Plates
  "Making the Punishment Fit the Crime": Scottish Office Consultation Paper
  "Making the Punishment Fit the Crime": Scottish Office Consultation Paper
  Education Provision in Prisons
  Education Provision in Prisons
  Criminal Records: Access for Employment Purposes
  Criminal Records: Access for Employment Purposes
  Marriage: Working Party Consultation Paper
  Marriage: Working Party Consultation Paper
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Leaseholders and Service Charges
  Leaseholders and Service Charges
  Local Authority Budgets: Notional Amounts
  Local Authority Budgets: Notional Amounts