Sitting of 6 March 1996

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

Education (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
9.34 am
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I appreciate the opportunity to raise the issue of education in Scotland, but what I really want to refer to is the crisis in education in Scotland. I am happy to see that hon. Members from all parties are in the Chamber, and I hope that they will all have an opportunity to express their views on a matter that concerns everybody in Scotland. Education is deeply rooted in our traditions, and I hope that there will be enough time to allow everyone who wishes to speak an opportunity to do so.
For centuries, education has been a Scottish priority. It is embedded in our national culture. Embedded in that culture also is a reverence for learning and an endeavour to provide the highest quality for all.
The traditional philosophical strengths of the Scottish system are there for all to see—a national comprehensive unified system from elementary through to university level, allowing each person to develop their abilities to the fullest, irrespective of wealth, background or any other consideration; a system staffed by an all-graduate-trained professional work force; a Scottish generalist flexible approach that is nowadays ideally suited to our ever-changing modern world, allied to an egalitarian attitude that ensures that the. highest quality of education is available to all as of right.
In the Scottish tradition, high-quality education applies across the nation. The well-being, quality and accessibility of our education provision is of national and strategic importance to Scotland. In the past, we educated ourselves out of poverty. I want us now to educate ourselves into prosperity as we approach the future. Scotland's comprehensive education system is a model for success, but sustaining and building on it will require new resources.
The principle of equality of access to education is now under threat, and only an independent Scottish Parliament with real control over our resources will ensure that Scottish priorities once again hold sway. The Scottish education system is somewhat battered, but it is basically sound and strong. It is simply under-resourced, and the most serious threat faced by Scottish education in the long term is persistent underfunding. According to a survey carried out by the CBI in 1994, spending on secondary schools was only 88 per cent. of the OECD average, while the figure for primary schools was 78 per cent.
260
Everyone acknowledges the importance of early years education in Scotland, but we have a poor record of providing publicly funded pre-school education compared with other European countries. I want that record to be destroyed. I want Scotland to be at the forefront of Europe, instead of trailing behind other countries, as we are now.
There is a mood of crisis in Scottish education. There is frustration, as Scottish local authorities are made to carry the can for the Conservatives' botched reorganisation of Scottish local government. There is anger among Scottish teachers and parents at the fact that the children of Scotland will suffer as a result of the spending cuts forced on Scottish local authorities. That anger and frustration—if the Minister did not know about it—spilled out on to the streets of Edinburgh on Saturday 24 February, when 40,000 parents, teachers and pupils marched to protest against the cuts that threaten Scotland's education system.
It is clear that services will be put under severe strain. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland anticipates that total cuts in education funding will range from 2 per cent. to 7 per cent.—possibly even more.
The predicted total cuts are estimated to be around £95 million. This week's changes give some authorities £38 million to hand back to council tax payers, with £30 million concentrated on only 10 authorities, but that does nothing to protect vital services. Education is, by definition, the single largest local authority service, and the largest provider of employment in local authorities. As such, it has been the victim of underfunding, not just this year, but in previous years. Reorganisation has merely brought to a head and served to deepen a crisis that was already affecting the funding of our education system and the morale of our teaching profession.
The Scottish School Boards Association has estimated that a local authority with an average education budget of £60 million will be facing a typical 10 per cent. cut. That would result in the loss of between 90 and 180 teaching jobs and around 40 non-teaching posts. The quality of education for Scotland's young people cannot help but suffer as a consequence. I am informed that, for an average council, the cuts will mean £4 less per primary school pupil and £7 less per secondary school pupil to spend on books and equipment.
I had the honour of listening to the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Shimon Peres, in this very establishment describing his absolute policy of providing a computer for every Israeli child. In Scotland, we cannot even provide our children with books, never mind computers. That is a massive irony for one of Europe's major computer-producing countries. The percentage of books given to our pupils in Scotland is one of the lowest in Europe. It is about time that we caught up with the 21st century, instead of trailing. Scotland's once proud record can be restored only if we give our pupils the very best in modern technology and an advantage when they start out in their school career.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It was probably a slip of the tongue on the hon. Gentleman's part, but as I understood it, Mr. Peres said at the meeting that he wanted to provide "access to" a computer for every child.
Mr. Welsh: I am happy to stand corrected—he did indeed. But I think that his long-term ambition would also

261
be to match the two. I would be happy to see either in Scotland, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would share that ambition.
The cuts that the Government have forced on local authorities will mean between £100,000 and £200,000 taken from school maintenance budgets, larger classes, older equipment and reduced course choice. They will mean that services such as transport for school pupils will be cut to the statutory minimum and that special education needs provision will be cut, particularly on the residential side. During the debates on local government reorganisation, we were all worried about meeting the needs of children with specialist needs. The Minister must ensure that those needs are met, because those children are particularly vulnerable.
Language tuition will suffer, with the loss of foreign language assistants. They have always been a unique and special feature of the Scottish system. There will also be a reduction in exchanges—the opposite of Scotland in Europe. Scotland has always been internationalist-minded and had a connection with Europe, but we will find that language tuition will suffer because of the cuts.
As well as jobs being lost in teaching, there will be reductions in supply cover. At a time when greater and greater demands are being placed on the teaching profession, with the five-to-14 programme and "Higher Still", teachers face a reduction in the educational development service and service support. There will also be delays in the implementation of national guidelines—for example, for devolved school management. There will be a reduction in grants and subsidies to voluntary organisations and increases in charges for school meals, letting and music instruction. Schools operate not in a vacuum but within the wider community, and the cuts will affect the community and a school's relationship with it.
Charges for nursery education are being introduced, and thus, for the first time in Scotland, there is a retreat from the principle of free provision at the point of delivery. That is the situation to which the Government have brought us, and it is unacceptable.
A reduction in the community education service, including youth work and adult education provision, must follow from cuts. The closure of outdoor education and arts centres is threatened. For many people, community education is an access to the mainstream education system, and the access will simply be denied if that provision dries up or is limited.
There will be a reduction in support for key preventive education strategies—for example, in drugs, HIV and health education. That comes at a time when the Scottish Secretary is supposed to be spearheading a ministerial task force on drugs—his other policies are producing the opposite result. It is no wonder that 40,000 parents, teachers and pupils took to the streets of Edinburgh in protest. If that did not get through to the Minister, nothing will.
The general secretary of the biggest teaching trade union in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, Mr. Ronnie Smith, wrote to the Secretary of State on 29 November and 21 December 1995, seeking a meeting between the right hon. Gentleman and the EIS. It took nearly three months and the largest demonstration of its kind ever seen on the streets of Scotland's capital to evoke
262
a response from the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), and even then, it was only for him to offer his junior Minister. That says everything we need to know about the importance that the Government attach to Scottish education.
In each of Scotland's major cities, we can see where the axe is poised to fall. Glasgow estimates job losses, increased class sizes and reduced subject content. Glasgow's education department states that there will be
"closure of schools on an unprecedented scale and within a time frame that is driven by budgetary constraint".
In Aberdeen, a £24.5 million shortfall exists between the cost of providing services to the city and the capping limit determined by the Scottish Office, which will result in a 10 per cent. cut in its base budget. Aberdeen council states that education will have to bear a significant share of the cuts—a minimum of 6 per cent., or £6 million, taken out of the system. It goes on to say:
"redundancies and closures can be avoided in year one but given the reduction in compensation for the mismatch problem, additional burdens and the need to avoid a similar situation next year, significant rationalisation in 1997/98 is unavoidable."
It also says:
"a number of council staff jobs have been lost equivalent to at least 10 FTE or £300,000 cost."
The council also points to a significant impact on the private sector resulting from reductions in buildings and maintenance contracts. Education also affects other businesses within the community that it serves.
In Edinburgh, £2.3 million will be taken out of the education budget in net terms—1.5 per cent. of the total education budget will be lost. Community education will be reduced by 5 per cent., with the threatened closure of the theatre arts centre and the drama centre. By the end of the year, 100 fewer teachers will be employed in Edinburgh, although again there will be no compulsory redundancies, thankfully.
In Dundee, the education budget will be cut by 5 per cent., with the closure of two secondary schools, four primary schools and a £1 million reduction in expenditure on property maintenance. Happily, there will be no compulsory redundancies, but there will be an overall reduction of 30 teaching posts in 1996–97, and a further reduction of 20 teaching posts in the next two years.
In addition to the damage being done because of the Minister's budget, the Government are creating a blight on curricular development. The funding crisis, allied to resentment by teachers because of their excessive work load, are badly affecting the five-to-14 programme and "Higher Still". Research shows little progress with the environmental, expressive arts and religious and moral educational elements of the five-to-14 programme. In secondary schools, there may now actually be a regression away from that programme towards the traditional secondary 1/secondary 2 curricula, with some implementation in English and mathematics, but little in other subject areas.
The five-to-14 programme is a curricular revolution, rather than a development of existing principles, which is not easily compatible with the existing secondary school approaches to S1/S2, or with the pattern of subject-based teaching at secondary schools. There can be no meaningful implementation in secondary schools until the new curricula are in place in primary schools. If the reform had been adequately resourced, the morale of

263
teachers was higher and there had been no funding crisis, the reform might have had a chance. In the absence of those conditions, I am told that the future of the five-to-14 programme looks bleak, and that "Higher Still" may well turn out to be an expensive paper reform that will never be implemented.
So far, the Government have made no commitment to the on-going and recurrent costs of implementing "Higher Still". I give them fair warning that, from my reading of the mood of teaching profession, unless new and adequate resources are forthcoming, teachers will refuse to implement "Higher Still", which is part of a long line of Government-imposed changes. I participated in some of them when I taught in a secondary school and when I worked in further education.
The system has had a series of changes, such as the raising of the school leaving age or the implementation of the modular system in further education. The changes were introduced and back-up resources were promised, but they took two, three, four or five years to arrive. In the meantime, education staff were left to cope. Cope they did, but they have reached the end of their tether. They are saying that it is not on for the same thing to happen with "Higher Still". I hope that the Minister is aware of the teachers' mood, and is going out among the schools, because that impression has been given to me strongly. Will he make it clear what extra resources the Government will make available for the changes? Unless there is an early change of direction, the new Scottish qualifications authority may end up presiding over two entirely different examination systems.
The Scottish education system has its own well understood fundamental principles that the Government are endangering with the imposition of alien ideas, unwanted by teachers or parents. There is a consensus across the whole of Scotland on common goals, ideas and educational philosophy, but the Government are not part of it. It is time they listened rather than dictating events to suit themselves.
The Government's proposed nursery voucher scheme will soon have to be debated. Concerns are being expressed in another place that that scheme is the thin end of the wedge.
How long will it be before the Government start to regard the market as a solution to the problem of educational provision instead of concentrating on the mainstream bulk of Scottish education? That is where improvements and changes should be made—to the national system that provides education for 98 per cent. of our children. Nursery and pre-school education should be a natural part of Scotland's national education system, with places available for all three or four-year-olds whose parents wish them to have pre-school education.
At the upper end of the scale, there is chronic underfunding of the Scotland's world-renowned higher education system. Scottish further and higher education has been suffering from a near 30 per cent. real terms reduction in unit funding over the past six years, culminating in 1995 with a 4.5 per cent. cut, in addition to a forecast overall cut in resources of some 10 per cent. That is all against the background of a 50 per cent. increase in student numbers since the late 1980s. The very success of further and higher education has been turned into a problem by the Government.
264
The higher education sector has reached a near 40 per cent. participation rate in Scotland—the Government's official target for the year 2000. Yet its reward has been projected further cuts of 10.2 per cent. in real terms by 1998–99, on top of the 28 per cent. cuts over the past six years. The Secretary of State is responsible for that situation. He may try to pass the buck over primary and secondary education to local authorities, but he cannot duck—there is no hiding place—his cuts on higher education.
Funding for individual institutions will be announced on 14 March, but the overall funding package is already known, and has caused widespread concern. Resources for 1996–97 have been cut. The Minister seems pained by that. He obviously does not know that resources have been cut by £7 million on top of the 3 per cent. efficiency savings, with reductions for future years of around 4 per cent. He might not know that, but the providers of education do, because they have to cope with it, as they have had to cope with the £6 million cut in last year's capital budget.
The effects of the Government's funding failures are already to be seen in deteriorating buildings, poor access to equipment, under-resourced libraries and overworked staff. One university reports that units of resource per student have declined by 30 per cent. in the past seven years. That is all happening in a service that is a major income earner for Scotland.
In 1993–94, Scottish universities attracted £536 million to Scotland from overseas students, through research income and in their role as employers and users of local services and businesses. Universities are major players in city economies. For every £100 they generate, they create an extra £79 of economic benefit elsewhere. For every 100 full-time equivalent jobs, they add 124 elsewhere. The Government's failure to invest in education is holding back Scotland's economy and creating unemployment, while their downright barbaric attitude to student grants is limiting access to universities for young Scots.
Scottish universities and colleges should be open to all with the ability to benefit from them, not rationed in the way that the Government have done. The Minister does not seem to know it, but an estimated capital investment of £700 million will be required over the next decade. I wonder whether he will say today whether that will be forthcoming. His policies so far have led us to the opposite conclusion.
Let us contrast the Government's failure and under-resourcing with the Scottish National party's detailed proposals, which allocate an additional £1.3 billion of resources to Scotland's local authorities in the first four years of an independent Scottish Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Where will it come from?
Mr. Welsh: The Minister need not ask where we will get it from. I will be happy to let him read our booklet. We are the only party that has detailed in pounds and pence where we will spend money. If he wants to find a party that runs away from spending commitments, he need only look across to the Labour Front Bench. The SNP has clearly shown where the money will come from.
The £8 billion deficit is a figment of the Minister's imagination. The real tartan tax is the subsidy from Scotland to England. The Minister may not know it, but

265
I advise him to read the Government's own figures, which show that, in the worst scenario, Scotland, with 8.8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, provides 9.3 per cent. of all UK taxation. The real tartan tax is the subsidy of £10 per taxpayer per week from Scotland to the London Treasury.
In return, we get the Minister's pocket money. He cannot fund Scotland's education or local authorities, because he is getting a fixed, pocket money budget from the Treasury. His policies are Treasury-dominated. The £8.8 billion deficit exists only in his mind. All he can do is to play down his country and pretend that we are not one of the richest oil-producing countries in the world.
Why, with 7.5 billion tonnes of oil and gas reserves in Scottish territorial waters, is such a country talking about cuts, closures and unemployment? Instead of the problems of poverty that the Minister's pocket money budget imposes on us, Scotland should be dealing with the problems of prosperity. We have the resources, but we can exploit them only through independence. He offers us only the dependency culture—the begging bowl—approach of Unionism. That is the past; Scotland's future, as the people are deciding, is with independence and a Scottish Parliament, so that resources can be used for the things that we want in Scotland.
Our costed budget, in the first four years of a Scots Parliament, would provide more teachers, refurbish schools, and ensure nursery places in the national school system for every three or four-year-old whose parents wish it. With independence, Scotland's further and higher education institutions would meet the strategic needs of the nation and supply the highest-quality educational provision to the wider world.
The system is fundamentally strong, and based on deep-rooted Scottish values. Given the resourcing and priority it requires, Scotland's education system will once again be the envy of the world. That, and nothing less, should be our goal.
9.58 am
Mr. Matthew Banks: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this important debate. I was a little worried earlier that not many hon. Members would attend the debate, but it is better attended than the debate last Wednesday morning on education in England. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), whom many of us regard more as a housing than as an education spokesman, if he will forgive me for saying so.
I am pleased also to see a full complement of hon. Members from the Scottish National party. There are only four of them at present, and I suspect that there will be fewer still after the next general election. I wish my very good friend John Godfrey, the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Perth, the best of luck. Opposition Members will be pleased to know that, while I am more than capable of making a long speech about Scottish education, I shall not do so, as a number of hon. Members are present and they wish to make their own contributions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Banks: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye also, Madam Deputy Speaker.
At a time when the interests of our economy are best served by reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and our overall level of public expenditure, the Government have set out their priorities in both education and health. Despite the fact that the PSBR fell from £35.9 billion to £29 billion this year, spending on education and health are priorities—particularly higher education—in Scotland, where spending will be £621 million in 1995–96, which is an increase of 4.2 per cent. on last year. In the December public expenditure survey statement, the Scottish Office education budget was maintained at a record level of £1,277 million.
However, Conservative Members are not convinced that only increased expenditure will radically improve standards in Scottish education. The education reforms that we have implemented throughout the United Kingdom are founded on our belief in devolving management of schools from Government to the schools, on parental involvement and on traditional teaching methods of instructing children in the subjects set out in the national curriculum. Teaching methods are particularly important, and the Office for Standards in Education has made it clear that their selection and application and the form of class organisation have a greater impact on learning than class sizes.
I welcome the fact that, from 1 April, bad teachers who are sacked by local education authorities will not have their dismissals referred to local education committees. We will abolish that long-winded, time-wasting procedure which makes it almost impossible to get rid of bad teachers.
Mr. Welsh: It is quite insulting to the Scottish education profession for the hon. Gentleman to talk about bad teachers in that manner. Does he not understand that one of our traditional strengths is a fully qualified, graduate teaching profession? If teachers have problems, they can be solved within the counselling system. They can receive the help they require in order to perform better, or they may decide to change careers. It is wrong merely to blame bad teachers or bad schools. Instead of moaning about teachers, the Government should fix the problems.
Mr. Banks: I am talking about a tiny minority of teachers. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) which appeared in The Scotsman earlier this week—perhaps she will expand on them later in the debate. It appears that the Labour party is coming closer to the Government's policies: I welcome the fact that it seems to support some of the actions of Scottish Office Ministers.
The 1981 parents charter began the process of parental involvement, which has progressed through its 1991 and 1995 follow-ups. School boards were created in 1988, and they have given parents a role in running schools. They have now been established in more than 90 per cent. of Scottish secondary schools. The implications for local authorities of the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Education Act 1993 were to extend choice to parents, governors and head teachers, centralise control of the curriculum and pass control of school inspections to Ofsted.
I shall point out how those changes advantage Scotland. Devolved management has encouraged flexibility and responsiveness by allowing decisions to be taken closer

267
to the Scottish people. Decisions are taken not just in the House and in London, but by local authorities. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I hope that those hon. Members who are engaging in repeated seated interventions do not hope to catch my eye to speak later in the debate.
Mr. Banks: That is true devolution: powers have been granted to parents without the need to establish alternative institutions and bureaucracy either here or in Edinburgh. Because there are no jobs, titles or sinecures for Opposition Members, it does not mean that their constituents will not benefit from the Government's policies. One has only to look at the success of Dornoch academy in Sutherland and its welcome expansion to six-year status to see the beneficial effects of schools governing themselves.
The Government's objectives—including the devolution to schools of at least 80 per cent. of local spending and schools having the controlling interest in staff selection—should be contrasted with the outdated paternalism of the Labour party. The introduction of nursery vouchers by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is widely welcomed.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: By whom?
Mr. Banks: It is welcomed by parents, but I shall come to that point in a moment—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will comment on it also.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Banks: If I had plenty of time, I would love to give way to the hon. Lady. However, I promised the House that my remarks would be brief—it must be obvious to hon. Members that I am speaking more quickly than I would like. However, they should take care, because I could speak for much longer than they might wish.
I am pleased that the assisted places scheme will deliver further choice to parents. I emphasise that it has come about as a result of direct expenditure by the Scottish Office. I hope that the number of pupils taking advantage of the assisted places scheme will increase from 3,000 to 6,000. We want to give parents greater choice.
I commend the Scottish authorities that have taken part in the initial nursery voucher schemes. I wish those parents in North Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire, Argyll and Bute, and Highland the best of luck. I hope that vouchers valued at £1,100 or more will be made available to parents throughout Scotland, rather than in only a few authorities. I warmly welcome that measure, which gives parents unprecedented choice.
Unfortunately, education has been caught up in the uproar surrounding the reorganisation of local government. The hon. Member for Angus, East touched on that point, although I did not agree with everything he said—in fact, I think that, in Kilmarnock, he ran foul of the problems to which he alluded.
It is interesting to note that an extra £186 million has been allocated to Scottish councils this year. Current expenditure levels are more than 30 per cent. higher in
268
Scotland than in England, yet we hear claims about the denigration of Scottish local democracy by central Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on Monday of an extra £96 million for local authorities—including £58 million to safeguard front-line services, such as education—is motivated more by the need to help the oppressed council tax payer than by a desire to feed local authorities' addiction to more central funding.
The spendthrift behaviour of many of the outgoing regional and district authorities resembles that of a national lottery winner with only a few weeks to live. The new unitary authorities will suffer the consequences. Local reorganisation has been used by extremists—epitomised by one or two Opposition Members—simply as an excuse to make mischief. The Scottish National party's high-tax, high-spending agenda for Scotland is matched in its lunacy only by the foolishness of the Labour party, which sniggers in the background at the antics of the nationalists.
The hon. Member for Angus, East waved around a document containing many figures about where his party intends to spend money. However, he did not answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about where the money would come from. Conservative education policies make a rounded whole. The five-to-14 development programme, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, includes the three interlinked elements of the curriculum, testing and reporting on progress to parents. The five main areas of study seem to have struck the right balance between learning the basics and learning new subjects relevant to the future, such as environmental studies.
The aim of our recent legislation has been to make schools more responsive and accountable to individual choice, and to involve employers and the wider community. It is well known that education in Scotland—as in the rest of the United Kingdom—has been too distant from the needs of industry. The technical and vocational education initiative—which I think was pioneered by the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—is a fine programme, as is the compacts initiative. I warmly welcome the initiatives, which give students who perform well in Scotland a greater chance of a job when they leave school.
The latest reports of educational standards are encouraging. In November 1995 there was an increase in the proportion of pupils achieving three or more standard grade awards in the fourth year, and the proportion of pupils gaining five or more awards at the top level increased by 4 per cent. Participation of young Scots in higher education was more than 38 per cent. last year, compared with 17 per cent. under Labour.
I hope that the new local authorities that come into force on 1 April will be able to consult parents who are concerned about the future rationalisation of school places following the Accounts Commission for Scotland's identification of some 300,000 surplus school places. While I accept that that figure must be qualified by geographical and other considerations, there is still room for substantial improvement.
Mr. Phil Gallie: My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable outcry from local authorities in

269
Scotland that claim that they are under-funded. Is it not the case that in Scotland, particularly in the Strathclyde region and in Glasgow, Labour councillors have failed to come to grips with the problems of too many schools not being maintained well enough?
Mr. Banks: I am glad to see my hon. Friend in his place. He has raised an important point, and he will recognise that it is a matter for local councils and the geographical factors to which I have alluded.
I will devote as much attention to the policies of the Scottish National party as I think is due. I am conscious of the fact that, in 1989, it wasted time during the Budget to draw attention to the fact that more power was being devolved to parents north of the border. If ever there was an example of the Scottish National party being against choice, that was it. It has a long history of trying to scupper the Government's policies of devolving more power to parents and to schools.
I have no doubt that new Labour will continue to adopt many of the policies of the Conservative party, as it appears to be doing already—it is beginning to show the courage of our old convictions. However, it can never adopt our core beliefs, because choice and the minimisation of bureaucracy are not part of the socialist gospel or of the new Labour soundbite.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This is good.
Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Member for saying that it is good, because I could spend the next half hour or so going into much more detail.
Samuel Johnson is quoted as follows in Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson of 1775:
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would not rather know it than not."
Obviously, he could never have anticipated knowing Labour party education policy.
10.14 am
Mr. Sam Galbraith: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) spoke for such a long time but said so little.
My constituency has an exceptional quality of education, and the following secondary schools are at the top of the list of achievement by any standards throughout Scotland: Turbull high, Bishopbriggs high, Tuos Muir high, Lenzie academy, St. Ninians, Kirkintilloch high, Boclair and Bearsden academy. It was expected that these top schools would opt out under the Government's education reforms in the last Parliament, but not one of the schools in my constituency has expressed an interest in doing so.
The staff and the parents are content with the services provided by Strathclyde regional council—a Labour council. They have continued in that compact between the schools, the parents and the society in which they live, which is the basis on which good-quality education is delivered.
We cannot separate schools from society—when we were at school, there was a compact between school and society, and that was the basis of good education. It was
270
understood that, if one went to school, worked hard and obtained qualifications, one could move on to higher education and achieve a job. That process has broken down under the Government, and that compact has been split—and there is no doubt that there are falling standards and an increase in truancy as a result of the breakdown in society.
The schools in my constituency are full: there are no spare places and there are no spare schools. Under the local authority settlement, savings are supposed to be made within the education budget based on the assumption that there will be empty schools that can be closed. That cannot be done in my constituency: every school is completely full. However, we are asked to make the same cuts as other areas.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to consider that point. It is no good there being an average, because some areas will be above it and some areas will be below it—and it poses particular problems in my area. We do not have spare places, and we have placement requests because of the quality of the education in the area.
Mr. Gallie rose—
Mr. Galbraith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
We have good-quality schooling for pupils with learning difficulties. However, pupils with special educational needs have to go outside the area—they are no longer part of the Strathclyde system—which is causing problems. The number of places available for pupils with specific learning disorders is inadequate, so they will be wrongly placed in other schools, to the detriment of their education.
I plead with the Minister to listen to local authorities and to look at the provision of facilities for children with specific learning needs. These children have a bad start to life as it is, so it is our duty to ensure that we do everything in our power to deliver a better service. There is much else that I wish to say, but if I have got through to the Minister the need for extra places for those with learning difficulties and other specific learning needs, I will have done some good in this debate.
10.18 am
Mr. James Wallace: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on succeeding in obtaining this debate and on the way in which he presented his case. Although I do not agree with everything he said, particularly in the latter part of his speech, he presented a broad canvas of the serious problems and difficulties currently facing Scottish education.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) referred to children with special needs. The nursery voucher scheme makes no provision for them. It is arguable whether £1,100 would pay for a nursery place for a child without special needs. We have heard little to date to give us any reassurance about provision for children with special educational needs, although Ministers have had plenty of opportunities to debate the issue.
Although such councils as Highland, and Argyll and Bute, which offer precious little nursery provision, may well gain from the nursery vouchers scheme, nursery

271
provision is inconsistent across Scotland. Western Isles provides no nursery education, while the cities and Grampian offer high provision of nursery education for three and four-year-olds.
Will the commitment to nursery education for four-year-olds affect education authorities that currently provide nursery education for three-year-olds? Will their nursery provision be compromised to ensure that sufficient resources are available for four-year-olds? What will happen to parents who are given vouchers but are unable to cash them in because of the lack of provision? I have heard nothing so far to satisfy my hon. Friends or myself that there will be sufficient resources in the system to train the exceptionally large number of teachers that will be required to deliver nursery education—
Mr. Don Foster: Or capital.
Mr. Wallace: Indeed.
When I raised the matter with the Secretary of State in Stirling, his reply was frightening. He suggested that having properly trained teachers was perhaps aspiring to the ideal. It is far from ideal; I hope that it will be the reality: otherwise, the Government's proposals are for nursery education on the cheap.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the debate in Stirling. He may remember that I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he had previously advocated vouchers not just for nursery education, but for primary, secondary and tertiary education, and received an evasive answer. Will he join me in asking the Minister for clarification as to whether that was previously the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Wallace: I certainly remember the question and the vague answer. I do not know whether that was the case in the past. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us with that. However, we would welcome some assurance that it is not the Government's policy.
In primary and secondary schools, there is a crisis in the provision of books and equipment. We have a backlog of repairs and maintenance to Scottish school buildings amounting to some £450 million. As the Scottish Office could not give me the figures, I wrote to every education authority in Scotland in spring 1994. When I wrote to them again last summer, the figure had risen to £500 million. It is still increasing, and nothing in the most recent local government settlement suggests that it will be tackled.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) mentioned the five-to-14 curriculum development. Although there has been progress in maths and English in our primary schools, there is some concern about curriculum development in environmental studies, expressive arts and religious and moral education. One cannot help thinking that the financial pressure on many new local authorities will put further constraints on much-needed progress in those matters.
In secondary 1 and secondary 2, implementation of the five-to-14 curriculum has not been as far reaching as everyone had hoped. Perhaps it would be useful if the Minister could let us know what research has been conducted and what assistance or encouragement is being given to developing the five-to-14 curriculum in the first two years of secondary education.
272
The hon. Member for Angus, East also mentioned the question marks over "Higher Still". The Government have made no commitment to the on-going and recurring costs of implementing "Higher Still". Will the Minister say whether the timetable is current and what further assistance will be given in regard to course preparation and the pressure on staff who have to deliver a new curriculum?
Higher education has suffered a 30 per cent. real terms reduction in unit funding over the past six years, with a further 4.5 per cent. cut promised for next year. Everyone welcomes the growth in student numbers, but no account has been taken of the consequences. Lecture theatres are overflowing, and science students do not have sufficient laboratory space. For students, timeshare means how long they are allowed to sit in the library and read, because books are in such demand.
The concern about funding that has been expressed by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals should not be overlooked by the committee of inquiry into higher education in the United Kingdom under Sir Ron Dearing. Professor Graham Davies, the principal of Glasgow university, highlighted the concern that up to 6,000 jobs could be lost—not only directly in higher education but among the spin-off jobs that relate to higher education—as a result of Government cuts, so there is clearly a problem.
There has been a deafening silence from the Government in response to the alarm bells that have been rung by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals and the Association of University Teachers. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to respond to those alarming concerns. Perhaps he will also say how Sir Ron Dearing's committee of inquiry will cater for the Scottish dimension.
When I read the press reports, it was reassuring to note that the Secretary of State for Scotland recognised that there was a Scottish dimension to higher education, but his comments had all the hallmarks of the committee of inquiry being set up and then someone realising that Scotland had to be fitted in somewhere and the Secretary of State running around at the last minute to see what he could cobble together.
The problems are now overlaid by the financial crisis in local government. When 40,000 people took to the streets of Edinburgh, they were not protesting against Edinburgh district council or the new Edinburgh unitary authority, as the Minister sought to claim in a BBC interview.
The photograph on the back page of last week's edition of The Orcadian shows the Orkney EIS banner in Princes street. I do not believe that teachers from Orkney were protesting against the policies of Edinburgh city council. [Interruption.] The Minister may have some doubts about that, but it is quite clear that the people of Scotland were speaking out. It was similar to the protest in England and Wales last year, which left the Conservative party in third place in terms of the number of elected councillors. I am sure that the Government are relieved that there are no local authority elections in Scotland this year.
The Minister and the Secretary of State talk about the additional local authority expenditure per head in Scotland compared with England and Wales, but that does not take into account the fact that there are substantially more schoolchildren in the Scottish local authority sector. It also prompts the question whether Ministers want higher standards to be maintained.

273
Despite the crisis and the difficulties that we have discussed today, good-quality education continues to be delivered in Scottish schools. Of course there will be the odd bad teacher or even the odd bad school—although no one has named one—but there is no evidence that the poor teaching mentioned in reports on schools south of the border exists north of the border. League tables have their limitations, but they show that good-quality education is being delivered in Scotland. There is concern that standards might come under pressure through the funding cuts that are being forced on local authorities.
In conclusion, my party has made it clear that education must be our first priority. It is essential that we have a well-educated and well-trained young population to ensure our future competitiveness. We have stated that we would be prepared to spend the equivalent of 1p on income tax on education funding, and that if that had not been achieved in the United Kingdom, we would be prepared to support it in a Scottish Parliament.
The Minister points to a difference of view between the Labour party and ourselves, but we shall put our respective case to the Scottish people. The tax-raising powers of a Scottish Parliament are a matter of democracy. As the hon. Member for Angus, East said, the Scottish people have a firm and long-standing commitment to the education system. I am confident that, when we go to the Scottish people with our policies and our commitment to education, having been prepared to say how it will be funded, we will get a resounding vote from the people of Scotland.
10.29 am
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be brief, because I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak. We will be interested to hear the response of the Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland. Hon. Members have made valuable points in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), as our parliamentary spokesperson on education, on having secured it.
I suspect that I am not the only hon. Member who has received a substantial amount of mail from constituents—I have also, in the past few weeks, met representatives in my surgery—about the prospects for our education system. I do not think that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) really understands the financial crisis that is affecting our local councils, which are responsible for delivering this vital service. All hon. Members should share the concern that has been expressed in the past few weeks as our councils have been going through the process of setting their budgets.
Moray council, like other councils, has been asked to make substantial cuts in its service. In our case, for a population of about 70,000 people, we have been asked to cut £7.8 million. Despite everything that the Secretary of State told the Scottish Grand Committee in Kilmarnock, there has not been one iota of change for many councils, because the transfer of some of the money to which the hon. Member for Southport referred had already been made by many councils, including mine. No additional money will therefore be given to those councils.
The education budget for Moray council was faxed to me yesterday, at my request, by the newly appointed director of education. In a small area such as Moray, the
274
required staff reduction will, I hope, result from voluntary severance. The reality is that we will lose 19 teaching posts and three to four of our specialist music instructors, who are a vital part of the Moray community. Other issues that have been highlighted are the loss of specialist language teaching and the reduction in special educational needs, which are front-line services that are vital to our education system.
In that context, I should like to put these questions to the Minister about education budgeting. The Secretary of State has claimed to have protected education in his financial statements. In Moray, we have kept above the grant-aided expenditure level, by only 0.5 per cent., yet we are facing cuts like every other authority, including the loss of those vital teaching posts. Any further cuts in education next year will have a very severe impact on front-line services, which will entail going below GAE, and schools will certainly be forced to opt out.
Is that the political agenda that has been set by Scottish Office Ministers? Are they determined to force our schools to opt out of our state education system, of which we are justifiably proud?
In the light of the cuts' impact, will the Secretary of State explain how the agenda and the timetable for new national developments can be fulfilled unless the Government deliver additional resources to our authorities? I should like to have very straight answers to those questions, and no obfuscation.
I should briefly like to examine higher education. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has already told us what the Association of University Teachers said about university funding, and I will therefore not rehearse that argument but only endorse it. Let us talk about funding our students in the further and higher education sector.
All hon. Members must be well aware of the difficulties that people of all ages who wish to enter further or higher education face in ensuring that they have a decent standard of living while undertaking their course. They do not want to be millionaires; they merely want to keep body and soul together. That is particularly true of mature students, many of whom are women, who want to enter the education system after their families have been raised.
I have written to the Scottish Office, time after time, about individual cases. The response has been, "Tell the person to go and look through the register of trusts. Find a sponsor." There is no evidence that Scottish Office Ministers believe that people should be entitled to reasonable funding during their education. Last month, I took up the issue of student funding, Student Loans Company funding and the fact that new financial institutions will be involved, with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). He said in his letter to me:
"The financial institutions will offer loans on terms which are at least as good as those currently offered by the SLC."
Anyone one who has talked to a student knows that the loans offered by the SLC are inappropriate to students' needs. He went on to say:
"It is true that the private lenders will be able to choose their customers, but there is no reason to believe that they will indulge in 'cherry-picking'."
I will say only that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I suspect that there will be a great deal of cherry-picking by those private organisations.

275
My final point is about the prospect of the development of a university of the highlands and islands. I understand that meetings have taken place with Sir Graham Hills and with the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and that the director of the highlands and islands project has met representatives of colleges throughout the highlands and islands for preliminary discussions.
Will the Minister ensure that the results of those discussions are made public to all hon. Members who are very interested in the prospect of a university of the highlands and islands, which would create jobs, build on the expertise of our existing colleges and be a great boost to the area's economy?
10.36 am
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on his success in the raffle for this debate, and on his speech. I cannot say the same for the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). It is a measure of the Government's attitude to education that the one Conservative Member who could be persuaded to attend throughout this debate and to speak in it has not done his homework. I counted at least three errors of fact about Scottish education before he was many minutes into his speech.
I should like to concentrate my remarks on a few points about under-fives, because, a few weeks ago, when we had our debate on under-fives in Stirling, we were told that it would be quite appropriate to use village halls to accommodate under-fives. Why should young children be the only people in society who are so disregarded that they are expected to make do with accommodation in which everything is locked away at night, and which has no outdoor play space? That illustrates the Government's attitude to the education of ordinary people.
Once again, we have been told that local government schools are having great difficulties because of their incompetence and squandering of money. Only this morning, we heard about the Ministry of Defence losing or having had stolen millions of pounds' worth of pictures. I wonder if the hon. Member for Southport—who, I believe, went to Sandhurst—will join me in telling the MOD that it will get more money when it finds those pictures.
I was recently a member of the Committee that debated the Education (Student Loans) Bill, and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), told us—believe it or not—that students are not poor, that the citizens advice bureaux' survey of students in Scotland was profoundly in error because students were not poor, and that they could not be poor because he had met them in student beer bars. That was the level of his interest in and knowledge of students in further and higher education.
I once again want to pursue the issue of proper funding for students in further and higher education. We must have a system that ensures that students are not deterred from entering further and higher education on financial grounds—they are clearly being deterred at present. They are, in fact, leaving further and higher education in numbers that the Minister would not admit. He simply refuses to recognise that any student would leave education on the grounds of not being able to carry on financially, yet all hon. Members know from constituency experience that that happens.
I have only a few minutes left, but I want to ask the Under-Secretary about the student loans scheme. It has been deferred for a year because the Government could not
276
get the banks to co-operate on the time scale at first envisaged. Is it not the case that not one bank in Scotland was willing to join the scheme, because they all expected it to be highly unpopular with students, many of whom will enter highly paid jobs and possibly be useful customers? How many Scottish banks offered to join the scheme? If any did so, will the Minister give us their names?
10.39 am
Mrs. Helen Liddell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on securing this debate on an extremely topical subject. The Labour party recognises the very real concern about Scottish education, which led to 40,000 people taking to the streets in Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago. Only one sneering voice was raised against that demonstration—that of the Minister responsible for education in Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson).
I shall take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Angus, East and agree with almost everything that he said. There have now been five years of Government attacks on Scottish education. We have to contend not only with spending cuts but with the impact of local government reorganisation. We now see coming to fruition everything that my hon. Friends predicted during the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. The Government were warned by parents, teachers, the Churches and others of the chaos that would be brought to Scottish local government as a consequence of their untimely and ill-thought-out reorganisation.
It is significant that only one Conservative Member has spoken today—the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). I pay tribute to a distinguished war pensioner for having the nerve to confront the anger felt by Scottish Members about what is happening to Scottish education. It is disgraceful that the crib notes provided by his party misled him so badly. He said, for example, that there was universal support for nursery vouchers. Clearly the Government Whips failed to inform him that 84 per cent. of the people consulted about the scheme opposed it.
A number of hon. Members have spoken about pre-five education, and it is apposite that we should discuss it this week. On Monday, under the cover of moving from crisis to chaos in local government, the Secretary of State for Scotland again told us that the views of the Scottish people were to be ignored on the subject of nursery vouchers. He said that the pilot schemes, which any sane and rational person would have regarded as an opportunity to see whether the project would work, were not to go ahead. We have been told that nursery vouchers will be introduced, no matter what. That figures, with a Government who have consistently failed to listen.
The Government have been told by representatives of parents and teachers that nursery vouchers were not wanted in Scotland and that £1,100 was too little to guarantee a nursery place. They were also told that playgroups were inadequately funded to fill the gap, and that they too were opposed to the scheme—but they did not listen. The Government, true to their ideology, are hellbent on attacking Scottish state-funded education.
Is it not ironic that, as we gathered in the House last Wednesday to discuss the local government settlement and cuts, the Minister responsible for education issued a statement saying that the assisted places scheme was to be increased? That scheme is a direct subsidy to private schools, but funding for children at state schools is being attacked. That is absolutely disgraceful.

277
Nursery vouchers have been in circulation for two weeks in England, and the system has already descended into chaos. One third of eligible parents have not received their vouchers, because they did not know that, even if they had a child in nursery education, they had to apply for the vouchers. One needs to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the system.
First, the child benefit agency sends out a form which parents have to send to a private management consultancy—Capita Management Services—based in London. The company sends details to Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which sends a printed voucher to the school, which then sends the voucher to the local education authority, which in turn sends it back to Capita. Capita sends it to the relevant Government Department, which sends the money to Capita, which sends the money to the local authority, which then sends it to the school. All that costs £290.
Head teachers in Edinburgh told me last Friday that their schools face cuts of £150 for every pupil, yet the Government can waste £290 on administration by a private management company which will destroy the structure of education for the pre-fives in Scotland.
Even more important, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the Scottish Grand Committee in Stirling, as did the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). In that Committee, we stressed to the Secretary of State the need for professional pre-five education. We were told that there was to be a light-touch inspection approach. That is another sign of the downgrading of education. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the Secretary of State's relaxed attitude to providing teachers for nursery education.
I issue a challenge to the Minister responsible for education in Scotland, and hope that he will respond without his usual bluster. Schools in Scotland confront a serious problem because of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It is well known that a number of after-school schemes operate in Scotland to care for children after school hours and in the summer holidays. At the moment, a regulatory system is in operation to vet those people who look after the children. Because of a deregulation order on which there will be no vote, such vetting is to end.
Will the Minister guarantee that he will ensure that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 will be amended by way of a statutory instrument, so that children who could be extremely vulnerable will be protected? Otherwise, there will be a paedophiles charter in Scotland, and people who look after our most vulnerable children will not be vetted in any way. The Government say that they are ending the system because it involves unnecessary bureaucracy for private sector providers. I ask the Minister, who is a sensible man, to tell us today that that deregulation will not be applied in this instance in Scotland.
In the remaining few minutes, I shall deal with the problems facing higher education. Within the next week, institutions of higher education in Scotland, which are centres of excellence, will learn how the funding measures will shake down and affect them. We in Scotland are conscious of the fact that our higher education system is respected throughout the world. Its funding had already been cut.
278
I suggest that the hon. Member for Southport should have checked his facts, because the capital cuts affecting higher education in England were already affecting Scotland last year. We have experienced cut after cut. We are no longer cutting into the fat of higher education, but into the muscle. I am delighted to see that the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), is here, because our higher education is an important element of our ability to attract industrial inward investment.
Strathclyde university carried out significant research, which shows the multiplier affecting every higher education institution. Let me cite one example. One university, which employs 6,000 people, estimates that, through its multiplier, it employs a further 5,000 people in the community. If we damage the ability of higher education to operate properly, we limit its impact on the wider economy. That will affect not only people currently involved in higher education but future generations.
Those of us who have high ambitions for all Scotland's children want them to have the best possible opportunities in higher education, but the Government have let them down. We are rightly proud of our education system, but there have been successive attempts to anglicise and destroy it.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buffin—[Laughter.] I mean the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan; I apologise profusely to his constituents. He said that he had asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether nursery vouchers were to be the thin end of the wedge, and were to be introduced for primary and secondary education.
In July 1986, a certain Michael Forsyth, who described himself at that time as a former Westminster city councillor, contributed to a pamphlet called "Save Our Schools" by the No Turning Back group of Members of Parliament. Almost every proposal in that document, from opting out to vouchers, has been carried through. What is next? Are we to have vouchers for secondary education? Are we to have vouchers for primary education?
The Secretary of State for Scotland said in that document, which was written by him when he was proud of the fact that he was an ex-Westminster city councillor, that he believes that state schools should provide only the minimum education, and that parents should pay for the rest. Is that what the Under-Secretary—who has gone round Scotland to try to get schools to opt out, and who is so proud of the assisted places scheme—wants for the children of Scotland?
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I am happy to have the opportunity to respond to the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on securing it. I have listened with great interest to all the speeches, but I am disappointed that so many concentrated on resources in such a negative and misleading way.
Let me put the record straight. Resources allocated to school education have increased from less than £1 billion in 1979, when that crowd in the Labour party left office, to £2.5 billion now, a real terms increase of 15 per cent. So I will take no lectures from the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) and her party about funding of Scottish schools. Local authority spending per

279
pupil is 50 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979, and 25 per cent. higher in Scotland than in England. However, as the House knows, we have taken careful note of the real concerns that have been expressed by many councils, parents and those in the service about the impact on education.
We are glad to note that councils share the priority that we consider needs to be given to education. Councils should have the maximum flexibility to do that. Hon. Members heard earlier this week the positive response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to those concerns.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear to the Scottish Grand Committee in Kilmarnock that our wish is to give councils as much flexibility as possible in using their substantial resources to support front-line services, such as education.
The new arrangements that my right hon. Friend announced will give councils the scope to spend an extra £58 million on services, including education, and for the authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Angus, East that will involve an increase of £1.25 million. My right hon. Friend announced a package worth £38 million to protect council tax payers. That package means that the overall increase in Government support for local government is £186 million, £64.5 million more than the formula consequences of the English settlement.
Mr. Welsh: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Mr. Robertson: I have only eight minutes left, and the hon. Gentleman had half an hour at the beginning of the debate.
I am therefore proud to make it clear to hon. Members that, despite a tough public expenditure round, we have treated local government very fairly and have given especial priority to education. We look to local government to reflect that priority, and we are confident that it will. However, we remain firm in our view that efficiency savings can be found across the entirety of local government services. There is scope in education for that as well.
For example, the Accounts Commission reported that there are 300,000 surplus places in Scottish schools, and that rationalisation might yield annual savings of £25 million. The Accounts Commission helpfully set out suggestions on how rationalisation might be approached. It is a sensitive and difficult issue, but it is important that education authorities develop strategies to deal with falling and changing school rolls. Twenty-five million pounds is a prize worth grasping. It can and will make a difference.
But I do not want to go over that ground again. Let us look forward to what can be achieved. The Government have taken a positive lead to encourage the delivery of an effective and relevant education for everyone who wants to benefit. I ask hon. Members to look again at the improvement in exam results. There has been a clear increase in the proportion of standard grade presentations resulting in credit awards. More of our young people are qualifying for higher education than ever before. There is more choice and more opportunity.
280
Improving standards are welcome and impressive, but we should not be complacent. There is room for improvement, and I wish to draw the House's attention to two especial concerns. The first is testing.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham rose—
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe rose—
Mr. Robertson: I am not giving way. I have five minutes to respond to a debate that lasted for an hour and a half. The hon. Member for Angus, East took up half an hour, and I am trying to respond to some of the points in the debate. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am tired of seated interventions, from wherever they come.
Mr. Robertson: National testing, as hon. Members have said, is an integral part of the five-to-14 development programme. Rates for testing in primary schools are encouraging, but the position in secondary schools is completely unacceptable.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Angus, East, in talking about education, did not look at his education authority, which, in the last six months of last year, tested only 1 per cent. in maths in S1 and S2, 0 per cent. in reading and 0 per cent. in writing. I am therefore currently considering options for giving further impetus to testing in secondary schools, and I will report to the House later. The generally poor performance of secondary schools on testing must be—and will be—addressed if the wider benefits of the curriculum reforms are to be secured.
The new authorities will have an important role. They can grasp the opportunity to make real progress towards full implementation of five-to-14 and national testing in secondary schools, and to secure the benefits for the children involved. I have made it clear that we have a background of positive achievement, and the time is now right to move forward and to build.
I am certain that the vast majority of our schools do an excellent job, and children and parents are well served by them. But some schools are not achieving their full potential. That is the second area of concern that I wish to share with the House.
I do not just mean inner-city schools. Schools in other areas may not be getting the best out of their pupils, and are therefore letting them down. We should not brand those schools as failing, as some Opposition Members do, or think that teachers should be dismissed, as some Opposition Members do. We owe it to those schools, teachers, children and parents associated with them to help to find ways of raising performance.
I am therefore announcing today that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will set up a task force to address the issue of under-achievement. Its chairman and members will be announced in due course. The task force will identify strategies to achieve better teacher and pupil morale and the more effective use of resources in the education sector. It will build on the solid groundwork of achievement and rising standards that we have already laid. The specific remit of the task force is
"To advise the Secretary of State on strategies to improve performance in primary and secondary schools which are under-achieving with a view to improving pupil achievement generally and also to securing greater value for money for the resources committed to school education."

281
The task force is a direct product of the work that we have already done in identifying performance measures for schools.
I am sure that it is necessary to look at under-achievement in its widest form. I do not want hon. Members to go away with the simple notion that under-achievement is about failure, either of pupils or of schools. Under-achievement implies that we are not meeting our full potential, and that can take many forms and there can be many reasons for it. There may be examples at all levels in the school system.
Among the fundamental issues that the task force will identify is the need to create positive attitudes to success, and eliminate the demoralising fear of failure from our approach to so many tasks. I am sure that there will be a role for everyone associated with the education system to help to take forward the products of the task force.
Many of the Government's initiatives in education and elsewhere have been directed towards giving people control—giving them a say. In education, we have led the way in recognising the rights and interests of parents—their rights to choose, their rights to better information, and their rights to participate. But not everybody sees it that way, least of all Opposition Members. From the cradle to the grave, they believe that big brother—in the form of central Government, the local authority or the education committee—always knows better than parents what is best for their children.
Sometimes, the Opposition's knee-jerk opposition degenerates into farce. Labour-controlled local authorities, which have been screaming blue murder over their budgets, have cavalierly turned down the extra money that was available for nursery vouchers. The hon. Member for Monklands, East, with no apparent sense of irony or of the absurdity of her remarks, asked me last November:
"Have you no concern for the education and emotional development of the four-year-olds you intend using as political footballs?"
I have never yet heard of a four-year-old who has been traumatised for life because his parents were able to flourish a voucher for £1,100—buckshee—to be spent on his or her education. The hon. Lady published a document that stated, "Every child is special", and so it is—but not special enough to deserve an assisted place, to give him or her the same start in life that the Leader of the Opposition had; not special enough to have his or her academic ability tested with a view to improving attainment; not special enough to get free nursery education of his or her parents' choice; and not special enough to have mixed-ability teaching examined, to see if that is the right way forward.
The hon. Lady's meaningless document is another high-wire balancing act between the cosmetic modernisers in her party and the stone age old believers. It will impress no one—not even the Educational Institute of Scotland, which said that the document was empty-headed and showed a paucity of thought. Only this Government's policies for genuine devolution of power to schools and parents offer the agenda of choice and individuality that will equip our young people for life.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Cyprus
11.am
Mr. John Marshall: I make no apology for again bringing the tragedy of Cyprus before the House. Although the issues facing Cyprus have not changed since 1974, the hurt that ordinary Cypriots feel has grown deeper. Over the past 21 and a half years, many tens of thousands of Cypriots have been able to see their homes but unable to live in them. Homes that might have been in their families for generations may now be uninhabited or, worse, inhabited by squatters sent there from Turkey.
The green line that divides the great city of Nicosia provides a contrast between the closed, but once prosperous, shops in the north—from which their proprietors have fled—and the modern, successful stores in Greek-Cypriot Nicosia.
The tragedy of Cyprus is a human tragedy. It is a tragedy of individuals displaced, and of whole generations of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots who have known only Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The separation between the two communities is as cruel and effective as apartheid was in South Africa. Old friendships have died over the past 21 and a half years. Young Cypriots no longer mingle, Greek with Turk and Turk with Greek. No longer do they play together on the football field or drink coffee together in the cafes. The events of 1974 have led to an almost institutional division of that beautiful island, which has been treated cruelly by mankind.
It is necessary that the House should reiterate from time to time that the status quo in Cyprus is unacceptable and that Ministers and leading politicians throughout the world should remind the international community of that. It is wrong that Turkish and Greek Cypriots should mingle and be friends in London, Melbourne, Wood Green or Edmonton, but not in Nicosia or elsewhere in Cyprus.
There is in any debate about Cyprus a sense of déjà vu. Today's debates are similar to those of the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. All that can be said is that the dramatis personae has changed. The fundamental problems remain the same. The island is divided when it should be united, and Nicosia is still divided when it should be a united city. However, those sentences fail to describe the dreadful suffering that some Cypriots have undergone. If a home has been in the family for generations, and if generation after generation of the family has lived in the same village, it is a cruel blow if, suddenly and by force of arms, one has to leave quickly knowing that it will not be possible to return for many years—as happened in 1974.
In 1979, I met a Greek Cypriot in Nicosia who told me that, before his father left northern Cyprus, he said, "We must take the title deeds to our house, so that we can claim it when we come back." That did not do the father much good—he has since died. Tens of thousands of Greek Cypriots have died but been unable to be buried in the villages that were their home for generations; others have been unable to live in the homes of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents.
It is difficult to imagine such a situation in this country because Britain has not been a divided island since the Romans built Hadrian's wall. The closest analogy is if the River Thames were a mythical green line and people

283
could not cross Westminster bridge or Lambeth bridge—if we could look across at County hall but could not go there, or look across at St. Thomas's hospital but not visit patients there. That is what it is like in Nicosia for the refugees from Famagusta. At night, they can see the lights on in their former homes, and they know that Turkish Cypriots are living in the properties in which their parents and grandparents once lived.
Some 500 Greek Cypriots live in an enclave in northern Cyprus, but it has gradually shrunk. They decided to remain in their homes, but they do so with great difficulty—there are restrictions on their movements, they may spend only a limited time in southern Cyprus, and there are restrictions on their activities in northern Cyprus.
There is justifiable anger across the world that there is a large number of Turkish troops and settlers in northern Cyprus. Since 1974, many Turkish Cypriots have left northern Cyprus to be replaced by settlers. Why are the troops there? If the people of northern Cyprus are happy and so rejoice in their good fortune, surely there is no need for troops. The ratio of troops to local population is greater in northern Cyprus than it ever was in Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. That seems to indicate that the people of northern Cyprus are rather dissatisfied with their lot, and the people of the rest of Cyprus must wonder whether the troops are there to attack southern Cyprus one day.
One of the greatest tragedies since 1974 has been the uncertain fate of the missing people. Some husbands did not know what had happened to their wives, parents did not know what had happened to their children, and sisters did not know what had happened to their brothers. Many Cypriots have died since 1974 not knowing the fate of their loved ones. Last summer, I was in Trafalgar square with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). One touching aspect was that elderly people came to the demonstration with photographs of their loved ones as they had been in 1974, still not knowing what had happened to them.
We are now told by Mr. Denktash that 1,600 of those missing people were killed by Turkish troops in 1974. That bald announcement is not good enough. The relatives have a right to know how their loved ones were killed and where they are buried. They have the right to give their loved ones a proper funeral. We must be told who committed those atrocities and what will happen to them. Surely we have a right to know why the international community has been kept in ignorance for 21 and a half years about the fate of those people. It is a disgrace that, 21 and a half years later, anyone can say, "Yes, we killed them in 1974."
The Cypriot problem also has practical implications, because of the United Nations peacekeeping force. The United Nations is almost bankrupt due to the cost of peacekeeping and the fact that the United States is rather reluctant to pay its dues to it, but it is essential that the peacekeeping force stays in Cyprus as a means of averting bloodshed. Cyprus is one of the flashpoints between Greece and Turkey. Turkey is a valued member of NATO, and Greece, of course, is one of our valued partners in the European Union. We want to reduce the flashpoints between them. We want them to have a sense of amity rather than enmity.
284
Cyprus has wanted to be part of the European Union, to become closer to Europe, for a very long time. I remember from my visits in the 1970s that the Cypriots were saying, "We want to get closer to Europe. We are part of Europe. Our traditions and our heritage are European." The European Union has agreed to begin negotiations for Cyprus and Malta to join the European Union within six months of the end of the intergovernmental conference. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would be happy for the IGC to disappear quickly from the earth, as indeed would some other of my hon. Friends. The current timetable is that the IGC will end in mid-1997. That means that negotiations on joining the European Union should begin towards the end of 1997.
Some argue that the negotiations should start only if the Cyprus problem has been solved, but that is quite wrong. If we were to adopt that approach, we would be giving the Turks and Turkish Cypriots a veto on decisions to be taken by the legitimate Government of Cyprus. The timing of the decision would no longer be in the hands of the European Union, of the recognised Government of Cyprus or of the people of Cyprus; it would instead be given to an illegal regime that is recognised by no member of the European Union.
Would it accelerate a solution to the problem of Cyprus to say to Turkey, "Cyprus cannot join the European Union unless and until you agree to a settlement"? Of course it would not, because securing the accession of Cyprus to the European Union is scarcely high on the list of objectives of the Turkish Foreign Ministry. At worst, Turkey is hostile, and at best it is indifferent. It would therefore be crass in the extreme to give the Turkish Government any means of preventing Cyprus from joining the European Union. We in the European Union must encourage Cyprus's application and make it clear that it will go ahead, whatever the political situation in Cyprus. In the longer term, we know that Turkey also wants to join the European Union. We must make it clear to Turkey that it cannot join unless the Cyprus problem has been solved. I believe that a necessary precondition of Turkey's successful application would be a solution to the problem.
The logjam in Cyprus has lasted for a very long time. That is why I welcome the fact that Mr. Richard Holbrooke, who managed to bring peace—perhaps only a fleeting peace—to the former Yugoslavia said that 1996 will be the year of Cyprus. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is also committed to making progress on Cyprus. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will outline his thinking this morning. I know that the timing is complicated by the elections that are due to take place in northern Cyprus and in Cyprus in the middle of the year, but from June there will be a period during which we could hold successful negotiations before the presidential elections in southern Cyprus.
Cyprus is much like the problem of the middle east. There will be a successful conclusion only if we have a series of building blocks. When two communities have been apart for about 20 years, confidence will not suddenly be rebuilt overnight. That is why I am sad that the confidence-building measures proposed by the United Nations have so far failed to succeed. If we could get agreement on two issues—Varosha and the reopening of Nicosia international airport—in unison, we would be laying the foundations for future productive developments.

285
If Varosha were given back to its original owners, it would lead to a rebirth of tourism in northern Cyprus, to the rebuilding of hotels, the restoration of property rights and the rebirth of confidence. Where, in 1974, there were the best hotels in northern Cyprus, we now have the wrecks of buildings. What was once home to tens of thousands of tourists is now home to weeds and vermin.
Last summer, I was on holiday in Cyprus with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Knowsley, South. We met former citizens of Famagusta and the mayor in exile of Famagusta, who were able to see their homes. At night, we could see the lights of Famagusta, but we could not see a light where Famagusta was. There was nothing. Total darkness reigned over that part of the island. The ghost town of Varosha should again become an inhabited city, which would help to bring confidence to Cyprus. During that meeting, the mayor in exile of Famagusta made it clear that the people yearned to return to Varosha and to their homes.
The confidence-building measures could be mutually beneficial. They would enable Greek Cypriots to regain assets and provide Turkish Cypriots with a boost to the economy of the north of the island and provide them with jobs. Most important, it would allow the fragile plant of confidence and mutual respect to grow again, and get rid of some of the enmity of the past 21 and a half years.
My message to the people of Cyprus is, "Never despair." Around the world in the past 15 years we have seen tremendous developments, none of which could have been forecast 15 years ago. No one would have forecast that the Berlin wall would disappear. How many people could have forecast the demise of communism? In the 1960s, Mr. Kruschev went around the world saying that communism would bury the west. In the 1990s, communism was buried by capitalism. Where communism once reigned, we now see democracy. Who would have believed in the 1980s that F. W. de Klerk or Nelson Mandela would be able to take part in the same democratic elections in South Africa and be part of the same democratic Government? Who would have believed 10 years ago that King Hussein would be willing and able to make peace with the state of Israel?
Those are some of the major international developments, all of which have taken place against the expectations of experts only a few years ago. The people of Cyprus must not despair. I have a final message for the leaders of both communities:
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
11.19 am
Mr. Edward O'Hara: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing the debate on Cyprus. There have been a number of debates on Cyprus in recent months, but there cannot be too many on this important subject, which we must never forget.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the demonstration in Trafalgar square that he, other colleagues and I, attended last year to mark the 21st anniversary of the 1974 invasion. Sadly, if we are realistic, we may anticipate the 22nd anniversary in July this year.
286
As that date approaches, time is vital in the search for a solution. I shall not weary the House by repeating what was said by the hon. Member for Hendon, South, as many other hon. Members wish to speak. Let me say, however, that I agree entirely with what he said about the tragedy of Varosha, and the importance of finding a solution in the short term in order to establish confidence in the communities. I also agree with what he said about the tragedy of the 1,619 missing people—a tragedy that confronts us graphically whenever we attend demonstrations calling for a solution. I agree also with what he said about the tragedy of the refugees who have been unable to return to their homes for nearly 22 years.
As I have said, time is vital, for a reason that I do not think was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, South. I refer to what is happening to the population in the occupied zone of northern Cyprus. Hon. Members will know of the Cuco report, produced for the Council of Europe, which demonstrated conclusively that there had been a massive programme of ethnic engineering in the occupied zone. It is possible that the immigrants who have been brought in from Turkey—the Epiki, as they are called—now outnumber the Turkish Cypriots who still live in northern Cyprus. Every day that passes separates the two communities more, and makes a solution more difficult. Those two communities will have to relearn the habit of living together peacefully, as the vast majority did before 1974.
Given the exigencies of time, however, I prefer not to look back, but to look forward optimistically. There are signs of movement everywhere in 1996, leading us to hope that it may prove to be the year of a solution to this tragic problem. President Clinton has appointed Richard Beattie as his special envoy, to devote urgent attention to the problem. Following his successful efforts to find a solution in Bosnia, Richard Holbrooke had planned to visit Cyprus, but was diverted by the crisis in the Aegean involving the island of Imia, when Greece and Turkey nearly went to war. That would have been a tragedy in itself, but at the same time the Turks landed about 40 fresh tanks at Famagusta, which gave us all cause for reflection and concern about the explosive possibilities that still exist in that part of the world.
The Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, visited Cyprus and offered his empathy and experience to the search for a solution. On 19 January, the United Nations Secretary-General's special envoy. Gustave Feissel, proclaimed that there was no reason why progress should not be made quickly, and that the elements of a solution were well known. The hon. Member for Hendon, South alluded to those elements, not least when he mentioned the confidence-building measures that were the subject of the last round of talks.
The European Union is taking a renewed, reinvigorated interest in the problem. In connection with the progress of Cyprus towards full membership of the Union, Greece was supported by France and Germany in its proposal for the appointment of a European Union co-ordinator to monitor progress towards a solution. The United Kingdom Government opposed the idea, but I understand that that was because they feared that such a move might interfere with the initiatives taken by the United States Government. I gather that the United Kingdom has not ruled out the appointment of a co-ordinator; I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

287
The new Italian presidency of the European Union has also taken a close interest in the problem. Susanna Agnelli, Italy's Foreign Minister, has said that the EU cannot just sit back and follow United States initiatives; the problem of Cyprus is a European responsibility. The Italian presidency has therefore appointed a representative to monitor developments in Cyprus—Italy's former permanent representative in the European Union, Federico di Roberto.
Lord Finsberg, who in the past has not been noted for his advocacy of a solution to the Cyprus problem other than one based on the status quo, went to northern Cyprus recently. He visited the enclaved people in the Karpas peninsula—another tragic group mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, South. He is quoted as saying:
"I didn't expect to find at the end of the 20th century people having to endure the sort of restrictions placed on their lives that I found."
It is said that
"He described as 'inhumane' the practice of banning visits from children over 16 years old to their parents and called the confiscation of Greek-Cypriot houses and property in the northern third of the island 'legalised theft'."
That constitutes a dramatic change of heart.
I was interested to read, on 27 February, an editorial entitled "Cypriot bitterness". According to The Times,
"The divided island looks infertile for the Dayton process".
I was gratified to see The Times taking an interest in the problem, even if belatedly, but some misapprehensions in the editorial should be corrected. It referred to the Cyprus Government as
"currently representing only the Greek side, although it is the only one to be recognised internationally".
That is half right, but half wrong. The Greek side is the only Government of Cyprus to be recognised internationally; the so-called republic of northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey. The editorial is wrong, however, to suggest that the Cyprus Government represent only the Greek side. They also represent the Turkish Cypriots. Hon. Members who fight for a solution always make it clear that they are supporting not just the interests of Greek Cypriots, but those of Turkish Cypriots and Cypriots of all other ethnic origins.
The Times was even more wrong in stating that there has been a
"clear lack of political will"
on both sides. In his report on the breakdown of the last round of negotiations, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said that the responsibility for the lack of progress lay clearly with Mr. Rauf Denktash, leader of the Turkish Cypriots, and with his intransigence over the years.
I question the suggestion of The Times that a Dayton procedure might be the appropriate way—although The Times is not optimistic about it—towards a solution of the Cyprus problem. The problem is complex and deeper-rooted than the Bosnia problem. I would be apprehensive about a quick fix through a Dayton process.
We can, however, be optimistic for these reasons. We can look forward to Cyprus's progress to full European Union membership. That is good news not just for Cyprus, but for Europe and the west. Cyprus is of enormous importance to the west. As it lies at the meeting point of three continents, it has geo-political importance—part of Cyprus's tragedy has been the importance of its
288
geo-political location over thousands of years. Cyprus has been the bone over which stronger world powers have frequently fought throughout history.
Cyprus is important militarily, again because of its geographical location. That is why we have our bases there and why the Americans preserve their presence there. Economically, Cyprus has much to offer the EU, as distinct from feeding off it. Cyprus's growth, averaging 4 to 6 per cent. per year, continues to outperform that of most EU members. Cyprus's per capita income averages $12,000 per annum and is one of the highest in the EU. Cyprus's economy has much to offer Europe, much as Europe has much to offer Cyprus.
We should look forward with optimism and purpose to a solution. I suggest—I am sure that many hon. Members would welcome this—that we should immediately look to demilitarisation. I mentioned the 40 extra tanks that landed at Famagusta. That is alarming. There is common criticism of the excessive weight of arms on both sides on such a small island. The occupying force is out of all proportion to any strategic need to protect northern Cyprus's population. More than 37,000, I think, troops are occupying northern Cyprus with supporting light and heavy armaments, including tanks.
I accept that the Cyprus Government are also spending heavily on armaments relative to Cyprus's size, but what are they to do when faced with the armaments that they see across the border? We should consider closely President Clerides's generous offer for an approach to Cyprus's demilitarisation whereby the Cyprus Government would pay the costs of taking interested forces in Cyprus out and replacing them with neutral forces. As the hon. Member for Hendon, South rightly pointed out, the costs of policing Cyprus with neutral forces are enormous and a burden on the UN. We should grasp that generous offer.
We should turn our attention to the management of a solution because, in my bones, I believe that a solution is coming. The management of the solution will present problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South that Varosha could be important in that. I frequently refer to Varosha as the test bed for demonstrating that a solution can work.
There will be tremendous problems of management. We should turn our attention to those and look forward to a future in Cyprus of prosperity for the whole island, where the two communities and the minority communities can live together in peaceful co-existence, as the majority did before 1974. Commonly, that is stated in the slogan:
"One island, one people, one Government"—
albeit a federal Government, the likely solution—
"one Cyprus."
I look forward to that.
With the permission of the House, I should like to quote a few lines of a Greek poem that I have often quoted in Cyprus and in this country. It sums up so much of Cyprus's importance to the Cypriots, to so many hon. Members and to humanity:
My translation is:
"If I forget you Cyprus, I shall fail as a man, I shall be beggared, I shall be diminished, I shall wither."
11.36 am
Dr. Ian Twinn: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I should declare my interest in Cyprus. I was a paid-for visitor to the rallies at Morphou and Famagusta last summer. Sadly, they were held just outside those regions because they are occupied by Turkish troops. That is a graphic symbol of why hon. Members should take a close interest in what is going on in Cyprus. It is a blot on Europe and on the world that we allow an island to remain occupied and divided in such a way.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing yet another debate on Cyprus. It shows the interest that exists here and that we want to keep reminding the country, this Parliament and others around the world of the need to be positive about Cyprus.
Listening to the two speeches so far, I find it interesting that there is optimism. Despite what has happened in Cyprus, we remain optimistic that a solution is not only right but possible to achieve. That solution would be in the interests of all Cypriots—not just Greek Cypriots but Turkish and other Cypriots. Their prosperity and human rights are at stake and that is what we are discussing.
Britain has a particular interest in Cyprus. It is not just that we are the former colonial power—or one of a number of former colonial powers over the years—or that we have bases there that continue to be extremely useful to our defence needs, or that we have strong cultural links with Cyprus. Even a casual visitor to that lovely island must realise that people there drive on the same side of the road as us and that they speak English very well. Some businesses have joint branches in north London and in our constituencies in particular. Hon. Members speaking today are proud to represent many Cypriots who are London based, which is our gain, but Cyprus's loss in that Greek and Turkish Cypriots are not able to live at peace in their own homes there.
The reason why we have a moral duty to take a close interest in Cyprus is that, as Britain is a guarantor power, we have international obligations. Sadly, we have not always taken those as seriously as we should. The 1974 Turkish invasion remains a blot on British foreign policy. The Government of the time, a guarantor power, refused to join the other guarantor power in taking action against the Greek colonels, who had instituted a coup in the island and thrown out the legitimate president.
We had every right, indeed a moral duty, to be involved then. We did not act, and we have been fighting the consequences for the past 21 years. We in the House must recognise that fact, and it is right to return to it time and time again. I hope that we shall not be as weak-kneed again in the future, and will take our responsibilities seriously.
We left a legacy in Cyprus, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has outlined in graphic detail the effect that it has had on Cypriots. There are refugees who cannot go back to their homes, and there is an army of occupation far larger than Turkey, as a guarantor power, could possibly argue that it needed to protect Turkish Cypriots, even if anyone seriously believed that such protection were needed. I fully accept that in 1974, with the Greek army there and a coup taking place, there was a need for international involvement in Cyprus, but I do not think that that justifies the presence of 30,000 or more troops and lots of heavy armaments on such a small island.
290
Today we have heard about the refugees, the occupation and the missing people. We have heard from Mr. Denktash the very late news—which, although interesting, is not surprising—that those people were killed in 1974 by Turkish Cypriot paramilitaries. Possibly that is what most people already knew in their hearts actually happened, but the committee in Cyprus investigating the missing people must consider with a little more urgency what happened to them and where the graves are.
The surviving relatives remain most concerned, and while there is even the slightest hope that the missing people may be alive, it is cruel not to allow their deaths to be finally underlined, so that proper remembrance services can be held. I hope that Mr. Denktash will carefully consider the implications of his words. Indeed, I hope that he is not too ill to do so, and will make a recovery from his heart attack, as I gather he is now doing in Turkey.
At the time of the invasion, and perhaps even before, what took place in Cyprus was ethnic cleansing. We have seen results of that continue in the Mediterranean area. None of us has anything to be proud of when we realise that we allowed that to happen.
There is another legacy of what happened in Cyprus—the actions of Turkey itself, which convey serious messages that we tend to forget. Yes, Turkey is important and we have to take account of it. It is a military ally of ours, and was extremely important to us during the cold war. It remains significant in the fight against the spread of fundamentalism in Islam. It cannot be in the interests of European civilisation to allow non-democratic fundamentalist terrorism to spread in our area, and Turkey stands as a bulwark against that. If it can continue to do so, that is something that we should all support with enthusiasm, and we must give Turkey all the help that we can.
Turkey's sheer presence is important in the region. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) talked about the geo-politics. Turkey is a large significant country with strong cultural links with Cyprus, but Cyprus is not and never has been part of Turkey. It was a Turkish colony until we took it over in the 19th century, when it became our colony. But Cyprus remains a separate country. When Turkey starts to say that it would like Cyprus to be part of Turkey, we should all fear for the consequences.
We do not want an expansionist Turkey in the region again. We have a duty to support that country as it is, but not as it, in its wilder fancies, may like to see itself, with an expanding empire. The United Kingdom and the European Union must stand firm against Turkey, while at the same time being supportive. I look at Cyprus and wonder what objectives Turkey can possibly have in carrying on as it does there. There can be only one conclusion: Turkey wants to dominate the island and still sees it as a part of its empire which, for cultural and other reasons, it would like to take back. We need to say that that is not acceptable.
The United Nations has made that plain, and in all its statements and successive motions, as well as in the activities of the Secretary-General, has underlined it time and time again; yet 21 years later we are in the same position as we were in 1974. There has been no significant progress, for the good reason that Turkish politicians and

291
some Turkish Cypriot leaders have not wanted there to be any progress. All the political good will, where there have been signs of progress, has come from the Greek Cypriot politicians and the Cyprus Government—but I hope that we shall now start to see a significant change.
I believe that the European Union offers the possibility that Cyprus could become united again, and have the guarantees of peace and freedom within their own country that all Cypriots want. Perhaps it was not appropriate for Greece, Turkey and Britain to be guarantor powers, but it would be appropriate, within the European Union, for the guarantees of freedom and justice to be offered by a wider international community. So I hope that we can make progress there.
I am grateful for the British Government's support for the UN. It has been noticeable that many of the initiatives have come about not only with Britain's tacit support but after a great deal of hard work by our Ministers and diplomats. One has only to observe the activities of the British high commissioner in Nicosia to appreciate what good work is done, and what confidence building between the two communities can be achieved by the positive actions of the British Government.
I hope that that will continue. We must do more than rely on the United Nations; we must work through the EU and use our own resources to promote justice within Cyprus rather than simply relying on what may be perceived as the foreign affairs interests of the United States.
We would probably all agree that nothing can be achieved in Cyprus unless the United States wants something to be achieved. After 21 and a half years, that may lead us to certain conclusions about the good will of American Administrations. I hope that there is now an opportunity for America to show a more positive attitude towards Cyprus, and a less sycophantic response to the military needs of Turkey. The United States elections are a jolly good time for candidates on both sides to make their positions clear, and I hope not only that they do that but that this time they carry out what they say after they have been elected.
We have talked about possible membership of the EU for Cyprus, with negotiations starting six months after the conclusion of the next intergovernmental conference—if it ever reaches any conclusions. I hope that we manage to get some sensible conclusions from the IGC, with which Conservative Members can agree. I see my hon. Friend the Minister of State laughing; he knows perfectly well what I would like to come out of the IGC. Immediately afterwards I would like to see Cyprus join the EU.
It is important for us to reaffirm the message that Cyprus will join, and that it should join as a federal state—one Cyprus, one sovereignty and one Government, albeit in a federal system with two parts. Turkey does not have the right to veto a political solution in Cyprus, and therefore veto its membership of the EU.
I have no illusions about how difficult it would be for the Government of Cyprus to enter the EU when one third of the island is still occupied, as that part could not functionally be part of the European Union. That would be incredibly difficult, but it must remain a possibility, if Turkey and Turkish Cypriots do not adopt a positive attitude and find a solution. I should like an affirmation from my hon. Friend today that that remains the bottom line, and could happen, however difficult it may be.
292
I also draw conclusions about Turkey over what has being going on in the Aegean. I am concerned that Turkey has sought to overturn a clear international agreement on the demarcation line between the Dodecanese islands and the Anatolian coast that was agreed in 1932. It was perfectly fairly agreed with Italy, transferred by Italy to Greece in 1947 and has been operated successfully ever since by Turkey and Greece. Turkey cannot use weasel words or find ways to slip out of it.
It is beholden on us to recognise that international agreement and the way in which it has been operating and say, "No, we will not be drawn into supporting Turkey in trying to widen an area of conflict." I suspect that Turkey is only trying to distract attention from its political problems at home. We should not become part of the dispute and I would like to hear the Government reaffirming their statement.
Like other hon. Members, I remain very positive about Cyprus despite everything that has happened over the past 20 or so years. It is possible to reach a successful conclusion. We need the good will of the Government and of the people of this country and Europe to do so. I hope that we all work together to achieve it.
11.50 am
Mrs. Barbara Roche: I am extremely proud to declare as an interest that I have a very large Cypriot community in my constituency. I have visited Cyprus on a number of occasions as a paid guest of the Morphou district association and the Morphou council in exile.
I am very pleased that we have the opportunity to debate Cyprus once again. It is extremely appropriate to continue the debate because, as hon. Members know, Cyprus is important to us not only as a member of the Commonwealth but because of the unique role that we play as its guarantor power—a guarantee of Cyprus's integrity.
It is difficult to speak in this debate without feeling emotionally committed to Cyprus and the history of the past 21 years. I remember very clearly where I was when Cyprus was invaded in 1974. I was a student and can remember the shock waves and the feeling of outrage that the invasion caused. When we look back, we ought to feel outraged that an invasion was allowed to take place and that that occupation—that is the only word for it—is continuing in Cyprus.
To very many people in this country, Cyprus is a beautiful island to visit. It has built a very successful tourism industry and many people from Britain visit that lovely place. They probably go for a couple of weeks' holiday, have a lovely time on the beaches and, one hopes, also see the sights and visit the villages, where people can still receive traditional hospitality.
Before people go—or even during their visit if they stick to the beaches—few realise the tragedy of the divided island and its divided capital. In, for example, the commercial, bustling, modern city of Nicosia, they might suddenly come to the end of a road where they are met by a wall, and the fact that they are in the middle of a division will really hit them. Encountering that division, represented by a physical wall, is a great shock to many people.
One of the reasons why Cyprus is not so high on the international agenda is that the Cypriot community have been so successful in building their economy and

293
absorbing their refugees. One does not see any refugee camps in Cyprus. Indeed, as a result, one can go to Cyprus and not fully appreciate what has happened. That is part of Cyprus's tragedy. Its problems are on the international list, but not as high on it as hon. Members want.
Hon. Members have graphically described how 40,000 Turkish troops—a foreign army—are occupying a country that is a member of the United Nations, a sovereign country, part of the Commonwealth, and for which we are a guarantor power. We have heard about the terrible plight of the enclaved people, the great majority of whom are elderly. Some, however, are extremely young and are harassed in their daily lives. We know that not only from people who are sympathetic to the Cypriot cause but from the United Nations.
There is also the tragedy of missing people, about which recent information is very welcome. Like other hon. Members, I have Cypriot constituents who do not know the fate of their relatives. I know that hon. Members have heard me say this before, but it is worth repeating. An elderly lady in my constituency does not know what has happened to her son. The only snippet of information that she has is a reference to his name on the BBC 9 o'clock news on the day the invasion occurred. Her son was a police officer—a young man serving his country and his community. One moment he was there, the next moment he disappeared out of sight. That lady is elderly and she deserves to know what has happened to her beloved son.
I referred earlier to visiting Cyprus. Sadly, I could not go to Morphou, although I could see it from a distance. The refugees may be absorbed in the new lives that they have created, but they can still see the villages and communities that they had so tragically to leave when they were invaded. Indeed, they can even smell their former orange groves while staging demonstrations.
Like other hon. Members, I remain optimistic, as we must. Cyprus's application to join the European Community is absolutely essential in resolving the problem. It is very important that the illegal regime of Mr. Denktash and the Turkish Government is not allowed a de facto veto on negotiations. I remain disturbed by the Prime Minister's comments on Cyprus's application. Cyprus fulfils the criteria of European Union membership in every possible way. It looks to Europe. Its successful, modern, vibrant economy is right for European Community membership. But Turkey and the illegal regime must not be allowed to have a veto on the accession.
A two-pronged strategy involving the EU and the United States is needed. Britain has a key role with respect to the United States because of our countries' special relationship, and we must work with the Americans and the EU to bring about a just solution. Britain could do much more with the Americans to make sure that the issue goes to the top of the international agenda.
I want to come back to the House to say that the situation in Cyprus has been resolved and that there is one Cyprus, and I want a debate in this very Chamber to celebrate the unification of Cyprus. I want Cyprus to take a proper part in the world and to display all the enthusiasm and energy that a united Cyprus could produce.
12 noon
Mr. Hartley Booth: During a debate on Cyprus last year, I explained that I was taking up the case of a particular missing person to whom reference has been made by hon. Members. I said that I would have a letter to Mr. Rauf Denktash translated into Turkish, and I did. I received a reply that asked for more information, and it may amuse the House to learn that the letter—which I took great difficulty to prepare—was treated by Mr. Denktash's office as though it were a standard letter. That office has obviously been bombarded by such letters over the years. I intend to continue my efforts and negotiations, and I am still in contact with Mr. Denktash's office. If there is a further debate on Cyprus this year, I shall give the House more information.
Those of us who are friends of Cyprus look now not to Mr. Denktash—whom we regard as a puppet—but to mainland Turkey. Greek Cypriots—indeed, all Cypriots—now see their future in the hands of mainland Turkey. Only when the 35,000 troops in northern Cyprus are withdrawn by the political will of Ankara shall we see a solution.
I hope that we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the British Government place a top priority on solving the problem, and they should focus their attention on two matters. First, no one should argue that the fact that the island is temporarily divided—it is only a temporary division—should be a barrier to EU membership for Cyprus. One thinks of the differences between Gibraltar and Spain, the residual claims of France to the channel islands, the well-known divisions in Belgium, the awful divisions in Germany, the divisions in Corsica and, of course, those in Northern Ireland. It seems as though there is almost a rule that a country needs division to be a part of the EU.
What would be a barrier to EU entry, however, is a failure to observe human rights, and that is the second point that I want the Government to focus on. For years, Europe told Franco that if Spain cleaned up its act, respected human rights and got rid of dictatorship, it could perhaps join the European Community. Democracy was introduced and human rights were respected in Spain thanks to the force of the EU. That is now also taking place in eastern Europe, and it could also happen in Cyprus.
I want to end my remarks here, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) has an important speech to make. I wanted to take part in the debate because Cyprus is so important, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
12.4 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I want to make four points about Cyprus. First, the status quo is not acceptable. It is easy to say that the situation is stable because there has been only one death on the green line in 22 years. Nevertheless, it is precisely the opposite. The recent tension between Greece and Turkey in Imia, and the fact that Cyprus is heavily militarised—and hence potentially explosive—and occupies an important part of the eastern Mediterranean between the Islamic and western worlds mean that the island of Cyprus is extremely important. Having a green line across the island separating two communities whose resentments for one another fester the longer the division goes on is therefore not sustainable.
Secondly, the approach adopted in the past 22 years—the UN overseeing intercommunal talks—has plainly been a failure. If one is to solve the Cyprus problem, although

295
one must leave the individual communities to discuss the basic substance, the strategic overview must be internationalised, as it was in Bosnia. Had there not been an intervention by the international community in Bosnia, we would not have got a successful solution there.
Thirdly, any such solution must now involve demilitarisation. We shall never build confidence between the two communities while enormous armies are facing each other across the green line and if one community—the Turkish Cypriot community—is effectively being deprived of its Cypriot character by the gradual process of annexation. The Turkish Government are practising almost racial apartheid in the area, as more settlers come in and more Turkish Cypriots leave.
Fourthly, the new opportunities presented by the accession of Cyprus to the EU must be grasped. The benefits of that might include the possibility of encouraging moderate opinion in the north side of Cyprus to speak in favour of a solution. That moderate opinion has been unable to express itself effectively in the past few years. We must also try to exercise through the EU some leverage over Turkey, which has not been prepared to accept the association agreement that it signed in December as a means of promoting a more rational approach to unity in Cyprus from Mr. Denktash. Any continuation of that association agreement, any further integration of Turkey into the EU and any benefits that the EU might have for Turkey must be made conditional on Turkey exercising effective pressure on the Turkish Cypriots to come to the negotiating table. The Turkish Cypriots must accept the agreement of the late 1970s that they now seem to have gone against, as Mr. Denktash talks about the sovereignty of northern Cyprus being recognised as a pre-condition of talks. That is obviously totally wrong. I look forward to hearing what the Front-Bench spokesmen have to say.
12.8 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on bringing the issue to the House. The debate is crucial, as we must discharge a responsibility that in many respects rests here in Westminster with the Government. I must apologise to the House on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), who has been detained in Europe on European business—the Minister is probably delighted to be so detained on some occasions, if not others—and is unable to join us for the debate this morning.
Every hon. Member has talked graphically of the personal stress caused by the division of the island of Cyprus. They are right to do so and all of us, either through constituency cases or, as in my case through personal contacts, can talk in exact terms about the personal loss, stress and bad memories that people will take with them for many years.
In his closing remarks, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) summed up well the important points that result from those divisions. First, there is a real danger of allowing the dispute and division to become institutionalised and the status quo to become normality for Cyprus. That imposes a responsibility on all of us to ensure that we are always trying to find a peaceful solution to the problem. If we allow the status quo to become institutionalised, two further risks are involved.
296
First, there is a substantial differential between living standards in the Turkish and Greek parts of the island, which will widen. We all know and understand the reasons for it, but it is unhealthy to have people with such wide differences in living standards living just a few miles from one another. In his opening comments, the hon. Member for Hendon, South referred to per capita income of $12,000 per year. The figure for the Turkish-controlled part of Cyprus is never very accurate and is usually never available, but would not be anywhere near that. We therefore need to do something about the economic imbalance.
As several hon. Members said, we also need to do something about the fact that too much money is spent on arms and too many people are involved in what is potentially an armed conflict. We need to avoid that, to demilitarise and to de-escalate. By maintaining the status quo, we always run the risk of moving in the direction of such a conflict.
Everyone has referred to the 1,600 missing people. The hon. Member for Hendon, South was right to refer to Mr. Denktash's weekend announcement about them. It seemed remarkably cold and callous to make the announcement in that context and without giving the relatives any indication of what has happened to their loved ones or of where their bodies can be found. The statement did not seem likely to build up trust between the communities. I hope that at some stage soon, Mr. Denktash and his authority can use the opportunity to make the information readily available to the Cypriot community so that people know exactly what has happened to their relatives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) displayed a remarkable optimism in his speech. I welcome optimism—those of us who have been in Labour party politics for many years have that as an endearing characteristic and perhaps that optimism is desperately necessary in the context of Cyprus. My hon. Friend was right to point out that we need a twin-track approach to push the Cyprus peace process along. He was also right to say that the Americans have a crucial role to play. I welcome the fact that President Clinton, above all other American Presidents, has recognised that Cyprus is an important political issue and put it on the map. I hope that he will continue to do so throughout and beyond election year, if he is successful in gaining re-election.
Richard Holbrooke has become a key player and we need to look for a Dayton process, which is the way to make progress. I note that Holbrooke has talked of three important conditions. I agree with those, but would add a fourth. Holbrooke said, first, that the leaders must have the authority to negotiate. That means that we need strong leadership and leadership in which the communities have trust. Secondly, he said that there is a necessity to remain at the table indefinitely, until we reach a solution. Again, that is a question of commitment on the part of all those involved in the negotiations. Thirdly—something that is crucially important in the Cyprus context—we need to maintain confidentiality. Hitherto, there has been no great success in maintaining the confidentiality of the discussions.
I would add a fourth condition, which is that confidence building and demilitarisation, to which all hon. Members have referred, is of crucial importance. It is almost a pre-condition to getting the talks started. We need to build up trust between communities. Throughout the world,

297
wherever there are divisions between communities, whether on ethnic or religious grounds or a mixture of the two, the only way to make progress, flesh out and add spirit to the meat of such negotiations is through confidence-building measures in the various communities. That is an important part of the process. We wish the negotiations well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South is right to be optimistic. We have to do all we can to push the process along.
The other track is that of the European Union, and it is important for the EU to continue to emphasise its role and for Britain to emphasise its unique role as regards Cyprus and the responsibilities of the EU. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in that respect. We can and should give a lead on the issue.
I wish Cyprus well in its application for EU membership and it seems to meet most of the economic criteria. I think that it is in danger of being one of the few countries that would meet the Maastricht criteria—that may well be a mixed blessing for its economy in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said that EU membership is essential to Cyprus. That may well be so, but it is not an alternative to a long-term peace solution; it is an addition to a long-term peace settlement. Logically, we must always bear in mind the fact that it is important to see EU membership as an addition. The Opposition would certainly not give Turkey the right to veto such membership.
I know that the Minister has some important comments to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green ended her speech by saying that she looks forward to the day when we can have a debate in which we can look forward, not back—a debate that allows us to celebrate the fact that Cyprus is again united and that the communities can live together. We can all sketch out constitutional models for the way in which that could occur, but the important thing about that day is that it would mean that this House of Commons—This Westminster, whatever Government are in office at that stage—had discharged its responsibilities towards the people of Cyprus. I look forward to that and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South on playing his part in that process.
12.17 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I must also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his consistent good fortune in the ballot for Adjournment debates. The House has rightly debated Cyprus many times, often in debates under his sponsorship.
We have heard many excellent speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House—the wisdom that we have come to expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), the sharp clarity of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and concise common sense from my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth). I look forward to receiving a copy of the poem from the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). I also welcome—this may seem unusual, but in this context I think that it is right—the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) if not to his baptism of fire, to his maiden speech on the subject. He showed great common sense.
298
As other hon. Members have had so much to say, I shall have to be extremely brisk. My remarks are still well meant for all that, however. As everyone has recognised, Britain has a special place in Cyprus and vice versa. The large Cypriot community is part of the landscape of British society and the island of Cyprus has a special place in the hearts of millions of British people. The history of our close ties does not need recounting here—I have recounted it on at least two previous occasions. The closeness between the two countries means that we shall always be centrally involved in work to end the divisions on the island. The presence and contribution of so many Cypriots in Britain mean that we feel the tragedy of division all the more acutely.
The House has heard of Mr. Denktash' s sudden illness and will wish to join me in wishing him a full and speedy recovery. The leaders of both communities play a central role in the search for a settlement. The recognition question, of course, colours the nature of our contacts with each leader, but it is essential that we listen carefully to the concerns of both communities, as several hon. Members have said. We shall continue to maintain contact with both leaders.
At times, the job of bridge-builder in Cyprus would try the perseverance of Sisyphus. I am sure that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South could give us an appropriate classical quotation. The divisions have gone on too long. The world has seen progress in other seemingly intractable and long-running disputes, so why not in Cyprus? I understand the impatience of hon. Members for progress in Cyprus. Cypriots themselves are understandably anxious for new initiatives to break the deadlock. However, neither we, the UN, the EU nor any other outside body has the solution in its hands. Only the two communities can decide what is acceptable and what arrangements are likely to last. The rest of us cannot laze around under the "tree of idleness" depicted so memorably by Lawrence Dun-ell in "Bitter Lemons", but our role is to offer advice, objective counsel and imaginative encouragement, not to impose a blueprint.
There has been a tendency to forget or belittle the painstaking work of the UN to bring the sides together. Talk, perhaps understandably, has been more of the prospect of accession to the European Union. I shall come on to the role of the EU a little later, but it would be a mistake to allow the UN's work to fade into the background as it remains a key reference point for negotiators in both communities. I am struck, for instance, by how central the principles of the 1992 UN set of ideas are to any discussion on the island about the Cyprus problem. The Government firmly believe that the ideas explored in the UN-led negotiations over the years will remain the building blocks of a settlement.
The United Nations has been closely involved in the question of people missing following the tragedy of 1974. No discussion of Cyprus can ignore a question that is rightly a source of anguish to many Cypriots. I know from today's debate and many others that that subject concerns the House. We recognise that it has caused untold suffering over the years. It is in the interest of both sides that the issue should be resolved as soon as possible.
The best way to do that, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central suggested, is through the UN committee on missing persons. It is encouraging that the committee has persuaded both communities to submit details of missing relatives. We must allow it to carry on its painstaking work, which we

299
repeatedly urge both sides to do their utmost to facilitate. We have noted Mr. Denktash's remarks in that context and the Government of course deplore the atrocities that have been committed in Cyprus. If he has any information, new or old, we trust that he will pass it to the UN committee on missing persons. We repeatedly urge both sides to do their utmost to facilitate the committee's work, as was noted by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, by my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton and for Hendon, South and by other hon. Members.
The UN's contribution to security in Cyprus through UNFICYP remains as important as ever. A walk through the buffer zone in Nicosia is enough, as has been said, to bring home the importance of UNFICYP's work. We can take some pride in the fact that Britain has been a major contributor to UNFICYP since its inception and that our contingent's present role in the sensitive Nicosia area is especially important. There is more to UNFICYP than security. Its humanitarian work has provided an important stimulus to both communities to improve the living conditions of the Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in the north and the Turkish Cypriots living in the south.
There is still some way to go. We see no reason to maintain the remaining restrictions on the Greek Cypriot enclave in Karpas. We should also not forget that the 400 or so British soldiers who, together with their colleagues, make up UNFICYP play a crucial role in creating the conditions of peace and security in which a settlement can be pursued. I say this clearly because I want the point to be taken: they are emphatically not there to perpetuate the status quo.
On the last occasion that the House debated Cyprus, we discussed the confidence-building measures, to which several hon. Members referred. The talks led by the UN Secretary-General came close to agreement on the resettlement of Varosha and the re-opening of Nicosia international airport. Sadly, the CBMs were a missed opportunity. The reasons for their failure have been well documented, but it would be a shame if they sank irretrievably into mutual recrimination. We believe that the package of measures could still play a useful role in the work of overall settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South made that point most persuasively and was reinforced by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South.
Another important staging post was the direct talks between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash in October 1994. The imaginative approach adopted by President Clerides brought new hope. Mr. Denktash helpfully reaffirmed his commitment to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Although those talks brought no concrete conclusions, they were a driving force for the confidential talks in London in May last year under the auspices of ourselves and the Americans. Their outcome was perhaps disappointing. The lesson from that experience is that nothing can be achieved in the full glare of publicity: privacy is vital to the success of such talks.
The task following the May talks was to ensure that the momentum was not lost. Our contacts with both communities sought to encourage a common perception of the sort of trade-offs needed to make real progress. Our high commissioner in Nicosia worked untiringly to maintain both communities' focus on the central issues. His efforts
300
and those of his US colleague and UN deputy special representative, Gus Feissel, proved invaluable for the visit to Cyprus in December by the US presidential emissary, Dick Beattie, who worked on a short round of shuttle diplomacy across the green line with modest expectations.
We were all heartened when it became apparent that Mr. Denktash was prepared, in certain circumstances, to support EU membership for Cyprus within the terms of a political settlement. Mr. Denktash acknowledged that this was a U-turn. We were heartened, too, that both leaders were still prepared to explore the ideas advanced by President Clerides in the last direct talks in October 1994. It was, of course, disappointing that Mr. Beattie's efforts did not make more progress, but the fact that the leaders were addressing issues at the heart of the dispute and Mr. Denktash's response provide a more encouraging basis for progress than hitherto.
The European Union's role must be seen in perspective. The decision at the 6 March 1995 Foreign Affairs Council to open accession negotiations with Cyprus six months after the end of the intergovernmental conference was a milestone. It envisaged what we all want: Cyprus joining the EU on the basis of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation.
Cypriots as a whole stand to gain significantly from EU membership. Both communities have a strong interest in finding an acceptable settlement, which we believe will bring EU accession within easy reach. That means hard work by both communities between now and the opening of accession negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton expressed the accession issues rather well. Both sides are aware that accession in the absence of a settlement, although by no means impossible, would be a much more difficult process and that neither side can insist on accession proceeding entirely on its own terms. There can be no veto.
Real progress has been made in preparing Cyprus for accession, as many hon. Members have said. The EU-Cyprus Association Council has set out a pre-accession strategy and a structured dialogue, which is going well. On 6 March the Foreign Affairs Council mandated the Commission to develop contacts with the Turkish Cypriot community. It has a duty to discover and to examine the community's detailed concerns about European Union membership and to consider how they can be met. Commissioner Van den Broek has just returned from a visit to the island to take forward the mandate. It is essential that Turkish Cypriots hear an authoritative account of the benefits of membership and how their specific concerns can be met.
I do not want the House to think that the tensions in the Aegean have discouraged us from keeping up our efforts to pursue a settlement. There are always excuses to do nothing, but the House is not interested in excuses. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary takes a close personal interest in Cyprus. He believes, as I do, that Britain can and must use its special position to maximum effect. At the Foreign Secretary's request, the political director at the Foreign Office recently visited Cyprus and the region for talks with political leaders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The time is up.

Driving Licences (Eyesight Tests)
12.30 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: This short debate is about the new regulations applying to eye tests for the drivers of heavy goods vehicles. I declare my interest at the outset: I am, and have been throughout my years of service in this place, a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I have always been very proud of my trade union connections. I approached the Transport and General Workers Union on the subject—about which there is much public concern—as it has a great deal of experience and expertise to offer.
I am the first to agree that safety must be the paramount concern when issuing driving licences. However, I am perturbed that the new regulations could put some of our safest and most experienced drivers off the road. Many could lose their livelihoods and be forced to join the bulging dole queues, without receiving any compensation.
The problem began with European Union directive 91/439, which stipulates that commercial vehicle drivers cannot be given a new licence, or renew an old one, unless they pass a minimum sight test without the aid of glasses or contact lenses. The argument is that a driver must be able to drive safely if his glasses are knocked off while driving—although there is no evidence that that has ever caused an accident.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) put down a series of rather interesting parliamentary questions on that subject, and received an answer from the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who will reply to the debate today. The questions, which were directed to the Department of Transport, were as follows:
"(1) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a passenger service vehicle and required spectacles or contact lenses;
(2) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a passenger service vehicle and was blind in one eye;
(3) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a heavy goods vehicle and required spectacles or contact lenses;
(4) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a heavy goods vehicle and was blind in one eye".
The hon. Gentleman received an omnibus reply to his four questions, which stated:
"This information is not available".—[Official Report, 4 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 25.]
The Minister is on record as saying that he decided to introduce the new standards. However, in the light of that answer, it seems that he based that decision on pretty flimsy evidence. The new eyesight test rules have been copied directly from the EC directive on driving licences No. 91/439.
The other important change in the regulations is the removal, from 1 July 1996, of the so-called grandfather rights. They give drivers the right to continue to drive buses or lorries if their eyesight falls below any new, higher standards that may be introduced. Under existing regulations, drivers may drive such vehicles if they continue to meet the eyesight standards which applied when they obtained their licences, despite the introduction of higher standards subsequently.
302
The Government now believe that grandfather rights for eyesight standards pose sufficient risks to road safety and can no longer be accepted. I have said already that the Government's conclusions appear to be based on pretty flimsy evidence. What is even more remarkable is the European Commission's admission that Britain is the only country in Europe that intends to enforce the new tests for older, more experienced drivers. Every other country in the European Union plans to retain grandfather rights which allow existing holders of licences that were issued before 1983 to keep them and to continue working. British drivers will be put out of work as a result of the Government following that absurd European Union directive—which, incidentally, came about while in pursuit of a common driving licence which would operate throughout the European Community.
The Government tend to play down the number of jobs that could be lost as a result of the directive. That was evident in the reply that I received from the Leader of the House when I raised the subject during business questions on 22 February. He suggested:
"some press reports have given an exaggerated picture of the impact of the changes and have caused unnecessary alarm".— [Official Report, 22 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 515.]
The Minister has estimated, after minimal research—to put it politely—that up to 3,000 jobs could be lost. However, the Transport and General Workers Union and other trade unions have conducted their own surveys and they believe that the number will be much greater. They suggest that the job losses will be on-going, as drivers who are currently all right experience deterioration in their vision and lose their licences in due course.
Sir Peter Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, under the new regulations, someone who acquires a passenger service vehicle or heavy goods vehicle licence at the age of 25, for example, will not be subject to the regulations until he reaches the age of 45? Within 12 months of reaching that age, he may need to wear glasses or contact lenses. That means that younger drivers could wear glasses or contact lenses and continue to work for some 19 years, while those aged more than 45 would lose their livelihoods.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: that illustrates the absurdity of the new directive. I shall give hon. Members some examples of the sorts of people who are likely to lose their jobs as a result of the directive. Mr. Jim Good is a chemical tanker driver from Southampton. He is a highly trained, highly experienced professional driver, with a perfect record and a clean licence. He is 51 years old and will apparently lose his licence in three years. Mr. Michael Kavanagh owns a small haulage firm in Huddersfield. He has only one eye and will be unable to afford to employ another driver in his place. His business is likely to fold.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has brought to my attention the plight of one of his constituents: Mr. Alan Forester, of Jarrow, feels that he is in danger of losing his job as a result of these new regulations. Fred Morse, 50, of Bristol, has an excellent record but he will shortly lose his licence.
Ms Joyce Quin: One of my constituents, who has a clean licence and an outstanding record—in fact, he has been recommended for safety awards—is likely to lose his job if the directive goes through unamended.
Mr. Hughes: That is yet another example of the type of people who will be affected. Mrs. Judith Pearman, of Buckinghamshire, wrote the following letter to her local newspaper:
"My husband Ken has been a heavy goods vehicle driver for 25 years but now seems likely to lose his job. Why? Redundancy? Sacked for theft or gross misconduct? No, none of these.
The European Union has decreed that all holders of LGV licences must pass an eye test, unaided, without glasses or contact lenses. Drivers who don't pass lose their licences and their livelihoods.
Is the Government concerned? No: Commons leader Tony Newton says it will affect only a small minority. Well, I've got news for him. One-third of my husband's colleagues wear glasses or contact lenses: that's 15 people about to join the ever-growing scrapheap of experienced workers. And I've even more startling news for bespectacled John Major: they used to be Tory voters.
Is this the Government's way of taking lorries off the road to ensure more goods are transported by Wisconsin Railway? … We mustn't let the road haulage industry be steam-rollered into submission like the late-lamented fishing industry. Watch out, left-handed people: you're next.
Judith Pearman
Hartwell, Bucks."
Another truck driver—who has proved to be one of the most skilled in the country—faces losing his livelihood after failing a mock-up version of the new eyesight text at his optician. Norwich-based Les Gaskins, a veteran with over 30 years' driving experience and a 1989 finalist in the driver of the year contest, has worn glasses all his life and will lose his licence because he is required to take part of the test without them. He says:
"With my glasses on I have good vision and my driving record shows that, but without them my optician says I will definitely fail. I am looking at losing 12 years' driving—nearly £250,000 in wages—and have less than a year left on my licence."
Mr. Gaskins says that if the Government class defective eyesight as a disability, the drivers affected should receive disability allowances.
On 31 January, Mr. Raymond Trotter, of Woodthorpe, York, North Yorkshire, wrote the following letter:
"I am writing to you about the new law concerning lorry drivers. I recently went for a medical, with my work's doctor, to renew my class 1 LGV licence. I was told that he could not pass me, because of a new directive from the DVLC.
This says that because I wear glasses, I have to be able to read the top letter on a wall chart from three meters, without my glasses. Even though I had been to the optician that morning, and had got a good enough reading on my eye test to pass the previous limit, my optician said that I was alright to carry on driving lorries. It was afterwards that my work's doctor showed me the new DVLC directive.
My optician was obviously not aware of this new directive, as were a few lorry drivers that I have spoken to since. I think this is something to do with if a driver breaks his glasses whilst driving. I can't think of any reason for anybody to be driving without his glasses if they need them to drive.
Yours sincerely,
R. Trotter."
Those are the sorts of people, from all over the country, who are likely to lose their jobs.
304
Why is Britain taking such a rigid line on this issue? I understand that no other country in Europe is to abolish the so-called grandfather rights, and the Commission is permitting them to follow that course. The Transport and General Workers Union is adamant that, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, the retention of the grandfather rights does not compromise health and safety. To some extent, the College of Optometrists backs up this point of view and says that it is difficult to understand the reason for a set standard of uncorrected vision.
The Government have made a mistake: it is a proverbial cock-up. I advise them of the old adage: when in a hole, stop digging. I urge the Minister to take a far more flexible line on this European Union directive. He would be wise to do so.
12.47 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for initiating this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to present the facts about the changes to eyesight standards for lorry and bus drivers that come into effect in July. I am afraid that the facts and objectivity have been sadly lacking in media coverage of this matter in recent weeks, and in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have read far too many newspaper reports that have completely misled their readers and grossly exaggerated the effects of the changes in the law by giving the impression—incidentally, an impression conveyed in some of the letters that the hon. Gentleman has just read—that most bus and lorry drivers who need to wear glasses for driving are to be forced off the road.
Some of those more highly coloured reports have even suggested that any driver who wears glasses will lose his licence. Inaccurate reporting is something that Governments have to get used to—but my main concern about some of the things that I have read is that too much unnecessary distress has been caused to large numbers of drivers and their families, most of whom have nothing to worry about.
Much of the press comment has written up the story as a Brussels bombshell, but the second driving licence directive was agreed by member states in 1991. It contains a number of measures designed to make life easier for motorists moving around Europe—for example, mutual recognition of driving licences—and generally to improve road safety. By and large, the measures represent a joining together of existing practice in member states.
To put the record straight on eyesight, the standards prescribed in the second directive are largely those that already apply in Britain. That is not surprising as we had a major input into them. The vast majority of bus and lorry drivers, including those who need to wear glasses or contact lenses for driving, will not be affected by them. The EC directive requires a minimum level of vision in both eyes with or without glasses. The United Kingdom already applies the identical standard. It requires a normal field of vision in both eyes, as does the United Kingdom. It requires that drivers must not suffer from double vision. That is already a requirement in the United Kingdom. Finally—this is where people seem to be getting somewhat carried away—it requires all drivers who need to wear glasses for driving to meet a minimum standard of vision without their glasses or contact lenses.
Let me make two points about that final requirement. First, we already require, and have done since 1983, a minimum standard of vision without glasses for bus and

305
lorry drivers. There is absolutely nothing new in that. The only change is that the standard will have to be met in both eyes rather than in one.
Secondly, the standard itself has not changed and is not a tough standard, as some reports have suggested. It is equivalent to reading the top line on an optician's chart from a distance of 3 m. I hope that the House will reflect for a moment on what that means. There is a practical reason for that: it is designed to ensure that, in the event of glasses or contact lenses being dislodged in an emergency or collision, the driver has at least the minimum vision needed to bring his vehicle to a halt or to manoeuvre it to safety. It does not seem unreasonable to require a driver in that situation—however rarely it might occur—to be able to see other vehicles or pedestrians and take the necessary precautions. Having to hand a spare pair of glasses or contact lenses is not the answer in an emergency. Apart from that practical consideration, it is likely that a driver who could not pass the test without glasses would require lenses so thick that he or she would not have a normal field of vision when wearing glasses, and would fail the standard on that account.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Norris: I shall not give way now as I have a great deal to say to correct the dreadful misinformation that has been put about, but I shall give way later, if I have sufficient time.
The standards in the directive, which, as I have said, are very much in line with current United Kingdom standards, represent the consensus view of road safety and medical experts in the EU member states as to what minimum eyesight requirements are compatible with road safety for the drivers of large and potentially dangerous vehicles.
In the light of that expert advice, the Government had to take a decision as to whether the new standards should apply only to new drivers—those who apply for a licence after 1 July—or to current licence holders as well. That is known as the grandfather rights issue. It is complicated by the fact that in the United Kingdom we have for many years operated a system of grandfather rights that allows drivers who continue to meet the eyesight requirements that applied when they first obtained their licence to continue driving even if they cannot meet the more stringent requirements that were introduced subsequently. So, for example, a person with sight in only one eye is already barred from applying for a licence to drive buses or lorries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) has left the Chamber, but I shall reply to him in his absence. A 25-year-old would not be granted a licence that did not conform to the requirements of the second directive. We have been applying that new standard administratively for some years. I should tell the hon. Member for Newport, East, who unwisely agreed with my hon. Friend, that the youngest driver likely to be affected will be about 32 years old.
Let me make it clear that we still allow relatively few drivers with sight in only one eye to continue driving simply because it was allowed at the time they obtained their licences. The standards in the directive add another stricter requirement to the current standards, so people driving on grandfather rights will fall even further behind the requirements considered compatible with road safety.
306
In considering the position of existing drivers, we were only too aware that some of those who would not now be entitled to drive were it not for the grandfather rights provision might well have an accident-free driving record, and for some the loss of their licence could mean the loss of their jobs. On the other hand, continuing with the grandfather rights system would effectively permit licences to be renewed by a few individuals whose eyesight fell well below what had been agreed as the minimum safe standards. Our view was that the system of grandfather rights carried significant risks to road safety.
It is difficult to justify on any objective criteria allowing a minority of drivers to continue to hold licences if they cannot meet the same standards that apply to the majority. Therefore, we put those points for consideration in a public consultation paper. We consulted 95 bodies, including trade associations, employees' representative bodies and motoring organisations as well as medical and road safety interests. The views expressed in response to that letter were fairly evenly divided between those who thought that grandfather rights should continue and those who felt that they should be abolished. After carefully considering those views, I personally took a decision, which I announced last October, that road safety would not be best served if drivers of those vehicles were allowed to continue driving on the basis simply of licensing history rather than of any criteria relating to safety.
It was not an easy decision, but we are not here simply to make easy decisions. I have no doubt that, had we reached a different decision, many of those who are now critical of the changes that we are introducing would be the first to complain about inadequate safety and Government intransigence if, for example, a bus driver with eyesight below the new standard had an accident in which schoolchildren were killed or injured.
Our estimate is that some 3,000 drivers will lose their entitlement to drive lorries or buses as a result of the change in the law. That represents about 0.2 per cent. or one fifth of 1 per cent. of those currently licensed to drive lorries and buses—considerably lower than figures such as 25 per cent. or the one third quoted by Mrs. Pearman in the letter that the hon. Gentleman read out and that has been quoted in the press. I wrote to the Daily Mail to point out the reality, but it declined to print my letter.
The drivers concerned will retain their current entitlement until their licences come up for renewal, when they will have to take the medical examination required with all renewal applications. Only at that point will those who cannot meet the new standard lose their entitlement.
Sir Harold Walker: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Norris: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished former Deputy Speaker. I hope that he will appreciate, however, that there are still a number of calumnies in the observations of the hon. Member for Newport, East and I should like to deal with them.
Sir Harold Walker: I would not question the importance that the Minister is placing on safety, but I wonder whether he will comment on the case of my constituent, who is a one-eyed lorry driver. As he was unemployed, he was encouraged to invest in a lorry which

307
he now owns himself. He will now be deprived of his livelihood and his savings that he invested in that lorry. Is there no possibility of compensation for people in those circumstances, such as was provided to the owners of fishing vessels?
Mr. Norris: No. I regret that there is no such compensation, but I should make it clear that I take such matters very seriously.
I have been concerned to take account of one particular issue. I can tell the House in quite unequivocal terms that no jobs have been lost in the sense that the reservoir of jobs available in Britain has been diminished. The Government occasionally agree to proposals that have the effect of reducing the number of jobs that are available, and no Minister would take such a decision lightly, but I stress that the availability of jobs has not been diminished by the measure.
Some drivers who fail the medical standards may be excluded from some jobs. I have genuine and great sympathy for the people to whom the hon. Member for Newport, East has referred, but I reiterate that in the difficult matter of having to judge the interests of safety against the livelihoods of a small number of individuals, I have taken a decision—I accept that it is not an easy one, but I am not here to make easy decisions. I listened to the evidence and read the 95 responses to the consultation paper, and I shall make them available to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes, so that he can see the arguments for himself.
Contrary to some misleading reports, most other EU member states simply have not yet reached a firm view on grandfather rights, although Austria is also abolishing grandfather rights. Press reports to the contrary are simply and unequivocally wrong.
I confirmed the Commission's view this morning with a Mr. Brisaer from DGVII. Its view is that any driver renewing a licence must comply with the requirements of the second directive, including the medical standards. The official even thought that there was an argument for making the new standards apply to all drivers immediately, but thought that might be too restrictive an interpretation. The official specifically denied that the Commission is prepared to
"view sympathetically any individual states wanting to keep current minimum standards"—
the claim attributed in the Daily Mail to Mr. Smolders of the international road transport union. It is simply not the case that we are being more communautaire than the Commission or applying standards in this country that are uniquely draconian to our drivers.
Let me reiterate the absolutely essential point: 0.2 per cent., or one fifth of 1 per cent., of those currently licensed to drive will be affected. In practice, what will happen in many cases is that those drivers will continue to drive for companies but will drive vehicles of under 7.5 tonnes, as they are perfectly entitled still to do. No doubt other drivers currently perhaps driving smaller vehicles will take their jobs and so on but, in the circumstances, I am clear that we have made the right decision.
I hope that I have been able to restore some sense of perspective after the quite hysterical reporting of the issue. I know the hon. Member for Newport, East very well—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

European Convention on Human Rights
1 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: There is a rising tide of anger in this country at the apparently increasing number of judgments from remote European courts that fly in the face of sound common sense. Increasingly, those judgments are defying the will of the House and are overriding law passed after due consideration here and voted on by elected representatives of the British people. We must deal with that dangerous phenomenon.
We must distinguish between the judgments of the European Court of Justice and those of the European Court of Human Rights. Only yesterday, a European judgment prescribed massive compensation payments to Spanish fishermen banned from fishing in British waters, and the compensation payments are to be at the expense of the British taxpayer. Not so long ago, there was a ludicrous judgment to the effect that the Ministry of Defence should compensate service women dismissed on becoming pregnant, despite the terms and conditions of service that they accepted before entering the armed forces. Both were judgments of the European Court of Justice. That court is a separate and major problem worthy of careful consideration, but that matter is not for today's debate.
This debate is concerned with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Let us consider some recent cases which highlight the problems and which have enraged a clear majority of the British population and, I am sure, of hon. Members.
First, in August last year, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that the legal costs of bringing a case should be paid by the British Government to the relatives of the IRA terrorists who were killed during an operation that they were carrying out to place a bomb in Gibraltar. Let us remember that that bomb would have killed or maimed many service men and innocent bystanders.
Secondly, it was ruled last month that the Home Secretary, who is answerable to the House, may no longer determine how long juvenile murderers must stay in custody for the protection of the public and that such decisions should be passed to the Parole Board. That means that, however strongly people and Parliament feel about a particular case, there will be no redress through our democratic system.
Thirdly, as long ago as 1982, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that corporal punishment in schools infringed the rights of parents. Some schools attempted to devise a parental authorisation form, but the resultant inequities among children were such that corporal punishment in state schools was effectively abolished. That was done in response to a legal requirement, not as a result of mature reflection or of that sanction being replaced with one just as effective.
More than 10 years later, it can be argued that the current problems of indiscipline in our schools stem from that decision. We have expected our teachers to maintain an orderly school environment without the adequate sanctions to enforce it. It was a triumph of idealism, enforced by remote and irresponsible judges, over the popular will and, dare I say it, over common sense.
Only yesterday, a Ministry of Defence report was published showing that 80 per cent. of service men oppose the lifting of the ban on homosexuality in the armed

309
services. Only 5 per cent. said that the ban should be lifted immediately. Common sense and popular opinion have spoken, yet four dismissed homosexuals are taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights. If they win, our courts, our procedures and the express wish of service men and of the House will be overruled yet again and taxpayers' money will be disbursed yet again.
There is a range of further cases in which law passed in the House has been overruled—I am thinking of anti-terrorist, contempt and blasphemy laws, among others.
Mr. David Nicholson: The point is that the European Court of Human Rights may well have been set up for sensible reasons some 50 years ago. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the circumstances in which it was established, but it has become increasingly political as a court. While I have no objection to British citizens taking matters to a final court when British legislation is ambiguous or when the administration of law in this country has not been satisfactory—as I fear is sometimes the case—it is unacceptable to hon. Members and our electorate that the definite will of Parliament, as expressed in legislation, should be overruled by a foreign court.
Mr. Arnold: That is precisely what is happening—the court is overruling the House. After such cases, Ministers have all too often come to the House to amend the law, not because it has proved right to do so after mature consideration and debate, but because we have to fall into line with the latest European Court ruling. Clearly, those are cases of judge-made law, not law made by representative democracy.
Why are we getting those increasingly bizarre judgments? I believe that it is because, as with so many of our European institutions, there has been a distortion of the original intentions of the founding fathers and because circumstances in Europe have changed out of all recognition in the past 45 years.
Let us consider the circumstances in 1950, when the convention on human rights was signed. Europe was recovering from the horrifying excesses of the Nazi regime and was only too aware of the fiendish actions of the Soviet regime with its gulags. Those tragic events coloured the views and actions of the politicians who were then responsible.
The late Duncan Sandys, then the right hon. Member for Streatham, told the House on 13 November 1950:
"The Government may, of course, say that human rights in this country are so safe in their hands that no outside protection is needed. We need not argue about that today. The fact remains there are certain countries in Western Europe with large Communist elements, which attach the greatest possible importance to the support which this Court can give them in certain circumstances."
Robert Boothby, the then hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, said in the same debate that
"the Communist tactic is a brilliantly devised technique of infiltration, treason and ultimate violence, and the destruction of the non-Communist world by the fomentation of disputes. Against this technique, which exploits all methods of democracy, there is only one answer—the Charter of Human Rights."—[Official Report, 13 November 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1412–27]
But, for all those concerns expressed at the time, the view of the House remained that human rights in this country, for which hon. Members have fought for centuries, were
310
safeguarded. That fact was best summed up the following week by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the then Attorney-General, who said:
"I think we are entitled to say that the law of this country has always been in advance of the laws of most other countries in regard to human rights."—[Official Report, 20 November 1950; Vol. 481, c. 16.]
Mr. David Martin: It is important to remember that when the court was originally set up, it was aimed at citizens of countries which did not have the parliamentary institutions that we have, but which had the most reprehensible and horrible regimes, with no individual redress for the lack of human rights. In practice, the convention has been applied because we respond to international judgments and often add extra measures to them. The convention has been applied in countries that are responsive to their people, as this country is, and it has been misused to clobber us on various occasions when it was originally intended for regimes very unlike our own.
Mr. Arnold: Yes. That is especially so, because the convention was signed when Germany was just emerging from its terrible experience on human rights and when France was recovering from the Vichy period, which saw considerable infringements in human rights. Those countries are western and civilised countries in the long term.
Today, Europe is totally different. Totalitarianism has gone, be it in the fascist form of Franco in Spain or Salazar in Portugal, or of the communist variety in Poland or the then Czechoslovakia and all points east. Membership of the Council of Europe and the European Union is dependent on democracy and human rights credentials. All new entrants from central and eastern Europe that have thrown off the yoke of communism are subject to those tests.
We have developed non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International and a series of others, which investigate and publicise such matters and bring facts to the attention of sovereign national Parliaments. However, those very organisations are themselves part of the problem. If they fail to win cases in the British courts, they use the European Court of Human Rights process as a means to override British courts. They foster many appeals to the European Court of Human Rights with a classical British efficiency, frequently funded by legal aid.
Such organisations are increasingly working through the European courts, and operating on a narrow, legalistic approach rather than bringing their cases to this democratic House. They are further encouraged to do so because European Court decisions effectively overrule the House through the requirement to implement consequential legislation. The reverse is not true. The cost to the British taxpayer is immense. Not only is legal aid incurred, but the cost of the defence case has to be paid. In the two years from 1993 to 1995 alone, the cost was a direct expense of £300,000 of taxpayers' money.
What are we going to do? The mere words "human rights" are such that mention of change brings forth terrible accusations of fascism, and Governments fight shy. However, the cases that I have raised today are not examples of a defence of human rights. They are politically correct judgments by remote and technically irresponsible judges. The place for political judgments is here in the House of Commons, where judgments and decisions are made by elected representatives of the British people.

311
We should fire a warning shot over the bows of this juggernaut. We should take a leaf out of the book of United Nations agencies reform, and look at the example of UNESCO. That organisation became inefficient, arguably corrupt, and in many ways ineffectual. We withdrew from membership. I believe that we should deal with the European convention on human rights in the same manner. It has become an anachronism, with its terms drawn too widely, which have been defined in a manner ever more detached and bizarre by the judges.
We, the mother of Parliaments, should determine that the Government should exercise their rights under article 65 of the European convention on human rights and denounce our participation, which would come into effect six months later. We lost a magnificent opportunity recently, when the Government could have refused to ratify protocol 11 and could have refused to renew our adherence. They did not.
The fundamental question before the House of Commons is whether we intend to uphold our sovereign rights and our centuries-old responsibilities to defend the right of the individual, or whether we shall increasingly cede those sovereign rights to unelected bodies that make pseudo-judicial but nevertheless political decisions. It is time that we faced up to our responsibilities in the House and to the British people.
1.14 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House today. The Government are, of course, aware of the concerns that he mentioned. I know that those concerns are widespread, and I shall deal with them a little later.
It is important to start by putting the entire issue into its full context. I wish to emphasise the clear importance that the convention has as an international instrument for the protection of human rights. I remind the House that, in 1950, Winston Churchill supported the court's establishment when he said:
"We have the Charter of Human Rights and we must have a European means of defending and enforcing it".
He argued that there had to be means whereby human rights abuses
"can be brought to the test of impartial justice."
That statement is as true today as it was then.
Winston Churchill saw the European movement, especially the parts that are now represented by the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, as the central unifying elements in post-war Europe. The sentiment that he expressed is indeed true today. He went on to say:
"The Europe we seek to unite is all Europe; and in our Movement we must strive, by every means in our power, to help bring about conditions in which our fellow-European, now living in the satellite states of Russia, will be united with us."
Of course, it is one of the great changes in recent years that those states are no longer under Russia's yoke and can seek the way and the means to become free in a true sense and to justify their positions in a democratic community by guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of their peoples. I have to say that in some instances, as the House knows, that has not yet been fully achieved. We believe that the convention is an extremely important part of the continued pressure on those countries to seek to achieve that goal.
312
The convention is now the code of good behaviour for the wider Europe. That is not just rhetoric. The new democracies are using the convention as a benchmark for their legal and political systems and they are amending their laws and practices to bring them into line with its standards.
Mr. David Martin: On the subject of legal principles, the difference between our country and others is that—in our definition of impartial justice—the sovereign Parliament has always had the last word on any decisions in court. The way that the European Court of Human Rights operates denies our centuries-old tradition that in the end the sovereign Parliament has a say. That is part of our definition of impartial justice, to which Sir Winston Churchill referred.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I accept that our country has been streets ahead—of most of the countries to which I referred earlier—in the establishment of justice and in the way in which we have been accustomed to applying it. None the less, the fundamental underlying principles whereby liberty is guaranteed are universal and international. I do not believe that my hon. Friend would wish to see a situation in which the House denied the application of international standards of justice and individual liberty.
We insist that
"respect for human rights and democratic principles"
forms part of the European Union's trade and co-operation agreements with third countries. There is a clause to such effect in all treaty documents now issued by the EU under trading arrangements. The limitation of the convention is not as narrow as perhaps some of my hon. Friends might have thought. We are using it as a mechanism to spread the principle of the freedom of the individual and the underlying message of the convention beyond the European bounds. As such, the convention is a useful tool to try to establish both democracy and freedom across the entire globe.
Under the Dayton agreement on Bosnia, for example, the convention is applied there directly. The convention is thus serving an important practical purpose, in an attempt to restore freedom and liberty to that very troubled area of Europe. The convention is playing a critical part in the re-establishment there of the kind of freedoms that we are discussing today. That is the crux of the matter. I accept my hon. Friends' concerns, but this country was one of the convention's original signatories and the first to ratify in 1951. If we now denounced it, that would have a devastating effect on the chances of establishing the convention as a basis that other countries are prepared to adopt.
The convention's role as a bulwark to protect the rights of the individual and to provide the yardstick whereby democratic values were to be established and measured was clearly enunciated by Duncan Sandys in 1949, when the draft convention first saw the light of day. Where I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is that I believe that that role applies today as it did originally, whereas my hon. Friend was suggesting that the world has changed so much that we should withdraw from it and change our views on the convention's underlying message. I cannot agree.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend said that human rights standards are imposed in a number of European Union commercial arrangements, which is precisely my point. The convention, with its system of interfering courts, has become an anachronism. We should take steps to bring about reform. Even the founding father said that there was no problem with the human rights record of this country or with the powers and determination of the House to uphold the rights of British citizens.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is time to review the terms of the European Court of Human Rights. I shall return to that aspect later.
The United Kingdom is fully familiar with the rights guaranteed in the convention, which include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to a fair trial. The first protocol also safeguards the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and requires that the philosophical and religious convictions of parents must be respected in the choice of their children's education.
As a founder member of the convention, the UK signed up to two optional articles covering the right of individual petition and compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court in 1966. In the time that has elapsed since, a number of cases have been held against us. However, the relatively high number of applications from the UK and the relatively low number of complaints upheld is a healthy sign of the level of awareness of human rights issues in the UK and of the Government's record in fulfilling their international obligations—not things of which we should be remotely ashamed.
The vast majority of cases brought under the convention are rejected in early stages and never see the light of day. Of those that did reach the European Court, it found against the Government in 40 cases. Countries such as France, Austria, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Switzerland have much higher figures than the UK, considered either by head of population or by the length of time that we have accepted the right of individual petition compared with those countries' much shorter time scales.
Up to May last year, France and Italy—which recognised the right of individual petition only in 1981 and 1973 respectively—incurred in the case of France 30 violations before the European Court and 51 before the Committee of Ministers, and in the case of Italy 83 and 347. The number of decisions awaiting remedial action is 40 for France and 330 for Italy.
Our successes often receive no publicity, as is so often the case. The phrase, "The Government win again," is apparently not one to which it is easy to make our media pay attention. There have been many useful decisions. In the context of Northern Ireland, it was extremely helpful to have it confirmed by an independent tribunal that special emergency powers are in line with convention standards. That happened in the case of Margaret Murray, which involved holding a suspect for interrogation. The same happened in other cases, such as that of Kelly, which involved the shooting of a joyrider, and Brannigan, when the question arose of the validity of the UK's derogation from the convention. The court upheld the fairness of our system of planning appeals in the Bryan case, and the immunity from libel action of Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in the Al Fayed case. Most recently, the Commission has rejected several complaints from pit
314
bull terrier owners about the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Where there are areas of contention, it is useful for the Government to have a non-UK arbiter acknowledging that this country is acting fully within the convention and reassuring world opinion.
Of course, I accept that there has been disquiet over some judgments, and that disquiet is fully shared by the Government. My hon. Friend mentioned several cases, so I shall not repeat the details. It is worth pointing out that we were particularly unhappy with last September's Gibraltar judgment on McCann, and we made that abundantly clear on several occasions in the House. It is worth bearing it in mind that the judgment was taken by only a narrow margin, and that the court found against the Government on one point only—the control and organisation of the operation. The court rejected the more significant claims that our law had breached the convention, that the inquest procedures were inadequate, that the killing of the three terrorists was premeditated, and that the action of the soldiers was in violation of the convention. In all those critical areas, the court found for us.
We should also remember that the court rejected the applicants' claim for compensation on the ground that the persons who were killed were terrorists intending to plant a bomb. The Government were left with the duty to pay costs, which we did in accordance with our practice of obeying international law. I repeat that we were not happy with that judgment. We were also profoundly unhappy with some other judgments, to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend did not raise the question of parliamentary scrutiny in this debate, but he frequently does so. I am aware that some hon. Members have questioned why—given that the convention affects the British people so directly—Parliament was not consulted before the Government decided to renew the two optional articles in January. If we had done so, that would have been contrary to previous practice. We have never at any time since 1966 put the question of renewing the articles to the House—although we kept the House fully informed, as we have on this occasion.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I intervene on that point?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have only three minutes left. I shall give way to my hon. Friend if there is time when I conclude my remarks.
The disquiet that we all share about some of the judgments of the Strasbourg court prompted the Government last year to review most carefully our continued adherence to the convention. There is a fundamental distinction between our dissatisfaction with certain judgments and our attitude to the European convention on human rights. The convention has our full support. We played a crucial role in drafting it, we continue to support it, and we believe that it remains an extremely important tool for ensuring that human rights are observed by the wide international community. However, we want changes—and I shall briefly outline them.
We want to ensure that judgments are not made against our national interests, while maintaining the defence of individual liberties within our society, and we want changes that ensure that the Strasbourg institutions take all relevant factors into account. To that end, we have in mind improvements in Strasbourg's fact-finding

315
procedures. We should like to sharpen the focus on the principal and relevant issues before the court. As a first step, we are proposing that the court considers introducing a new procedure under which it would make known its main areas of concern early enough for them to be addressed at hearings. If we had known the critical issue in the Gibraltar inquiry, we could have rebutted some of the facts on which the court based its judgment. That change would be a significant step forward in preventing the repetition of such an outcome.
We also want to ensure the quality of judges on the new permanent court that will be set up under protocol 11, probably in a couple of years' time. Good selection procedures for judges are important, and we want to start discussions soon in the Council of Europe, to see whether we can ensure that the court's judges are of the highest international calibre.
We shall argue for maintenance of the common standards of the European convention on human rights. At the same time, we shall seek wider and more consistent recognition of the need to respect different circumstances, traditions and laws and the ways in which standards are implemented in different countries. That, of course, will be extremely significant should the question of homosexuality in the armed forces arise. It is important that the standards of our approach to our military forces and the needs of the country are fully taken into account by the court when it reaches its conclusion. It is essential that these changes are in place before that occurs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Concessionary Television Licences
1.30 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister and the House the St. Tydfil's court sheltered accommodation scheme in Merthyr Tydfil, in my constituency.
More than 40 pensioners resident in the scheme are currently denied the benefit of a concessionary television licence by the television licensing centre at Bristol. I argue that, first, the television licensing centre should reverse its decision and, secondly, that my constituency case reveals—as, indeed, do others—the anomalous and arbitrary nature of the regulations governing the concessionary scheme.
Since becoming involved in this constituency issue, I have been surprised at the shared experiences of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I heard, for example, from my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), both of whom showed me papers from protracted battles with the television licensing centre at Bristol. Happily, the centre changed its mind and they won their cases.
More recently, my attention was drawn to a case in the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who, in the true tradition of the honourable nature of the House, helped me. I do not raise this matter in a party context. The information that the hon. Gentleman so kindly furnished me with has helped me to prepare my case, and I thank him sincerely for his patience and assistance.
I shall explain to the Minister the nature of St. Tydfil's court. It is a residential block of flats, with 10 floors, built in the 1940s. Progressively, it has become the home of pensioners. Realising that, Merthyr borough council sensitively and sensibly decided in 1990–91 to convert most of the block into proper sheltered accommodation and to provide a full-time warden resident in the block. Understandably, and following the example of all other sheltered accommodation schemes in the borough, the council and the tenants concerned had expected to qualify for the television licence concession. Indeed, the local authority advertised the concession when it issued tenancy agreements. It therefore came as a great surprise to the borough council, and caused considerable resentment among the tenants in the sheltered scheme, when the television licensing centre refused to grant the concessionary licences.
When the issue arose, I read the conditions—indeed, I re-read them in preparing for the debate—laid down in the regulations that govern the concessionary scheme. To qualify, sheltered accommodation should fulfil several conditions. First, it should be provided, or run, by the local authority or a housing association. The St. Tydfil's sheltered accommodation scheme is run and provided by Merthyr borough council. Secondly, it must be specially provided by way of erection or conversion for occupation only by retirement pensioners or disabled people. As I have explained, the borough council converted most of the block of flats into a proper sheltered accommodation scheme, so it qualifies under the second condition. Thirdly, the scheme must be served by a full-time or resident warden. At first, the BBC licence fee unit sought to deny the concession to my constituents on the ground of the absence of a warden,

317
but a full-time warden has been, and still is, resident in the block. St. Tydfil's court therefore qualifies under the third condition.
Fourthly, there must be a communal facility within the boundary intended to meet the needs of residents. There are such facilities at St. Tydfil's court. Those four conditions are fully met by the sheltered accommodation scheme at St. Tydfil's court. The pensioners of St. Tydfil's court are being denied the concessionary licence on a fifth ground, the condition which states that the accommodation
"must form part of a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary".
Since residents and the local authority raised this case with me, I have discovered that the words and phrases in the fifth condition have caused considerable confusion, created a number of anomalies and, in my opinion, led to arbitrary refusal to grant concessionary licences to pensioners who should qualify. The words have caused much confusion about who should qualify. It seems that the sole reason why residents at St. Tydfil's court are being denied the concessionary television licence is that, before the conversion of the block of flats, a number of residents purchased their flats under the right-to-buy scheme.
I should say straight away that the residents who bought their flats accept that they do not qualify under the present arrangements. They signed a petition and support representations made by their neighbours. They have shown traditional Merthyr neighbourly comradeship in supporting their neighbours' case. Indeed, the local campaign on behalf of the pensioners is remarkable because of the people who are involved, especially the redoubtable Mr. McNaughton. He has bombarded Ministers, the Prime Minister, officials at the television licensing centre in Bristol, and everybody within reach, to make the case on behalf of the residents and pensioners. That is all the more special because Mr. McNaughton is a registered blind person.
The Minister will understand the resentment that is felt that officials at the television licensing centre in Bristol have repeatedly refused our pleas. I am sad to report that they have also repeatedly refused to visit the complex. That failure to heed our pleas and to visit is resented all the more because it is clear that the fifth condition is open to interpretation and reinterpretation. I suspect that the Minister will know of cases, of which I am not aware, where there have been battles between pensioner groups, the television licensing centre and his Department.
I have already mentioned cases in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for Mansfield, which, after protracted discussion, were successful. The most recent case that has been brought to my attention is one in the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. He has kindly sent me the letter from the television licensing centre in Bristol, which eventually conceded the case that he made. In this case, it seems to be a mixed development. We are told, for example, that
"numbers 1 to 17 and 27 to 47 (odds) Homefield Close can be regarded as being within a common and exclusive boundary … From the site plan provided, it would appear that the warden can move freely between the two elements of the scheme via the car park which separates the scheme."
318
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in persuading the television centre that that case qualifies.
In the case of St Tydfil's court, the warden does not have to cross a car park: she is resident in the block. Pensioners who qualify are easily identifiable, because they pay into the scheme. It is a curious interpretation of "common and exclusive boundary" that rules out a concessionary scheme at St Tydfil's court for the simple reason that, before its conversion, a number of residents—rightly and understandably—purchased their properties under the right-to-buy scheme.
I plead with the television centre to reverse its decision and concede this case, as it has had to concede other cases. If it refuses to do so, however, we must concentrate on the fact that the regulations themselves deny pensioners in sheltered accommodation a concession that I think, in its heart of hearts, Parliament probably intended to allow them. I do not believe that the original intention was to exclude those in sheltered accommodation at St Tydfil's court.
Along with my hon. Friends who are present, I accept that many deserving pensioners will be deprived of the benefits of any concessionary scheme. Thousands who live alone in their own homes will not qualify. Once a scheme for those in sheltered accommodation has been proposed, however, we should ensure that it is simple: certainly, it should not create the anomalies and confusion that have been created by the "common and exclusive boundary" condition. A scheme for pensioners in sheltered accommodation served by a full-time warden would provide a clear definition of those who should qualify for the concession. I do not believe that any complications or anomalies would have been caused if only the first four conditions had provided the criteria, but the fifth condition will continue to cause such problems until it is changed. I do not think that a simple amendment or clarification of the regulations would bust the BBC or wreck the public sector borrowing requirement. The vast majority of properly organised sheltered accommodation schemes qualify.
I hope that the pensioners at St Tydfil's court will win their case. I ask the Minister to re-examine the concessionary scheme, and amend it. It was meant to offer comfort and assistance to pensioners in sheltered accommodation, rather than to cause resentment and bitterness. I hope that the Minister will heed our plea and accept our case.
1.43 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on obtaining time for the debate, and thank him for his generosity in allowing me to speak for a couple of minutes.
The hon. Gentleman spoke at length about anomalies and interpretation. I have read the leading judgment on the subject—the Crown and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Kirklees borough council. No doubt, the Minister is acquainted with it. Mr. Justice Taylor refers to interpretation throughout the judgment. As a lawyer, I believe that the law needs to be clarified, not only in the specific context of the people of Merthyr Tydfil—of whom the hon. Gentleman spoke so forcefully—but in a wider context. I am sure that many people in Wales, England and Scotland are in similar circumstances, and I, too, urge the Minister to reconsider.

319
Let me make two specific points. First, does the Minister think it fair that elderly people who are cared for at home by their relations do not qualify for the concessionary scheme, while those who are in registered homes do? Ultimately, the concession is allowed to the elderly person rather than anyone else. It is clear from the 1991 regulations—which I have read—that the matter could be resolved easily by means of an amendment of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
Secondly, the residents of Ganllwyd and Abergeirw, near Dolgellau, do not receive terrestrial television transmissions; they rely on satellite television. However, they must pay the licence fee. Is it right for people to pay for a service that they do not receive? Good sense and common law suggest that it is not. Is that being investigated? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar localities throughout Wales, because it is a mountainous country.
1.46 pm
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. fain Sproat): I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on securing the debate, and thank him for the courteous and persuasive way in which he put his case. I take what he has said very seriously, and, while I cede no principle or practice at this stage, I should be happy to speak to him about the matter. I should also be happy to speak to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). They may wish to talk to me, either together or separately. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) has an even tighter case: I believe that only one flat in 50 is owner-occupied in Severn house, but that prevents all the other people in the block from benefiting from the concessionary scheme.
I know that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has devoted considerable time to this subject over the years. He has campaigned long and hard in respect of the application for St Tydfil's court to be granted concessionary licence status, and this afternoon he has demonstrated that he is familiar with the general position as set out in the White Paper. He will also know that, since 1 April 1991, the BBC has been responsible for the administration of the television licensing system. That role is primarily exercised by way of its agents in Bristol, TV Licensing, and includes determining whether individual applications for concessionary licences can be granted. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in individual cases, other than to say, "Come and explain why you think that the arrangements should be changed."
Nor is there any option for the BBC to exercise discretion in how the relevant regulations are interpreted. That would erode the framework of general application provided by those regulations and would lead to numerous disputes. Although the circumstances of St Tydfil's court remain a matter on which the BBC must reach judgment, I am sorry that, so far, it seems to the people who have considered the scheme that it fails to meet the qualifying criteria set out in the regulations—the point on which the hon. Gentleman has sought to persuade me otherwise.
The House is familiar with problems raised by constituents who, understandably, do not always understand the reasons for the concessionary scheme
320
existing in its present form. The scheme is of particular concern, because it directly affects some of the more elderly members of society and disabled people. It is right therefore that the scheme should be kept under close scrutiny. The Government have done that and, although there has been no significant change since the last full, detailed review in 1988, it would be wrong to assume that we are not aware of the hard cases and anomalous positions that can and do arise.
That is an inevitable consequence with any position in which lines must be drawn, but it does not mean that the scheme as a whole is unfair, nor that it necessarily needs to be changed. It has been kept under close review and, while we accept that it does not always yield results that make everybody content, we find little advantage at the moment in conducting a further review of the scheme.
It may assist hon. Members if I give a little background about the introduction and development of the concessionary scheme. Its modern history may be familiar to some, but, oddly, the scheme originated by default more than 40 years ago as individual postmasters took it upon themselves to waive the requirement for certain old people living in old people's homes to pay a radio or television licence fee.
Later, Post Office headquarters stopped granting further concessions, thus creating an arbitrary distinction between individual cases. In 1966, the Postmaster General considered ending the concession altogether, but decided that that would be unjust, and offered the concession to all old people's homes. Importantly, at that stage, sheltered housing schemes for pensioners, with some communal facility that rendered them comparable to old people's homes, were included in the scheme.
In 1968, the plans for the concessionary scheme were put on to a formal footing and the first set of regulations laid. Incidentally, in that year, a separate colour television licence was introduced, making the possibility of a concessionary fee that much more attractive. The opportunity was taken to clarify the qualifying conditions, and further consideration was given to the precise definition of sheltered housing, which is crucial to any discussion of the scheme.
In subsequent years, external pressure for further reviews was exerted. All sorts of possibilities were given serious consideration—extending the scheme, introducing some discretion or abolishing it—but in no case did the Government in power at the time consider that the proposed solution would have enabled the concessionary television licence scheme to be operated more fairly, while remaining true to its original intentions. The proposals would have been too complex to administer, too expensive or simply unacceptable.
Nevertheless, as all hon. Members know, there is pressure even now for pensioners to be given a general concession against the cost of the full television licence, but often it is not realised that concessionary £5 licences for all the 7.75 million pensioner households would cost more than £500 million in lost licence fee revenue.
Mr. Rowlands: I never made that case.
Mr. Sproat: I understand, but it is important for hon. Members and the outside world to realise the context in which this matter is set. If time allows, I shall return to the application of my comments to St. Tydfil's court.

321
Of course, the Government recognise television's important role for people of pensionable age, but we do not believe that a general concession could be justified. That would necessitate an unacceptably large increase in the fee for everyone else, possibly raising it to almost £130 each year, and many of the people who would have to pay such a huge increase in their licence fee might be worse off financially than many pensioners. If the fee were not adjusted, the BBC believes that its capacity to fulfil its public service broadcasting remit would be severely threatened.
In the past 20 years, the only significant changes have been connected with the qualifying criteria for sheltered housing, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Those changes sought to retain an equitable approach, although remaining true to the scheme's original intentions. The Government believe that that is still the correct view to take.
In 1982, physically disabled and mentally disordered people, living in comparable accommodation to that already covered by the scheme, were brought within the scheme's scope. That was on the ground that it would be an unacceptable anomaly to treat them differently from pensioners occupying similar accommodation, and there has been no dispute in that respect.
Towards the end of 1984, Kirklees metropolitan borough council applied for concessionary licences for some of its residents in accommodation served by housing stewards, whose duties included rent collection, care of the housing stock and provision of advice and assistance to residents. The Home Office refused to grant the claim on the ground that that was not a valid interpretation of the "common facility" required by the regulations, but in 1987 the council won the case at judicial review. That had far-reaching and unacceptable implications.
In effect, that judgment opened the way for local authorities to bring many eligible categories of people living in ordinary council housing into the concessionary scheme. They would simply need to claim that these were "groups" of "specially provided" housing. The housing would not even have had to be sheltered, which would have been contrary to the concessionary scheme's intention and extremely costly.
Mr. Rowlands: That is not true in the case of St. Tydfil's court.
Mr. Sproat: I am trying to put the matter in its context, which is important to understand. People who do not have concessionary licences and who live close to people who do often do not understand why. It is important that they know that there is a logic behind the position. As I said, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to discuss the matter. A debate of this length is not the happiest way in which to discuss such an important matter and the detail that it requires.
Following the Kirklees case, the Government promptly conducted a major review of the scheme. Possible options were considered, but, once again, it would have been too expensive to extend the scheme. In contrast, it was deemed unfair to the many existing beneficiaries—I believe that there were more than 700,000 at that time—to take away a long-standing concession. The Government therefore
322
decided to restore the scheme's underlying intention, so that it would benefit retirement pensioners and disabled people living in residential homes or in sheltered housing that was directly comparable with such homes.
Eligibility for the concession was thus still linked to the type of accommodation occupied, as opposed to individual circumstances. In 1988, we introduced new regulations to define the qualifying criteria for sheltered housing schemes more rigorously. Those include all the criteria that apply today. First, in line with the established principles of the scheme and the need to be comparable with old people's homes, sheltered housing still has to be specially provided for retirement pensioners or disabled people and to be run by a local authority or housing association.
Secondly, such housing must form part of a group of at least four dwellings, which must lie within a common and exclusive boundary. If not, there would be no way of limiting the geographical spread of a so-called scheme and the Kirklees threat would still be a possibility. Lastly, the scheme must be served by a full-time or resident warden. That also relates to the desire to restrict the eligibility of sheltered housing to the sort of scheme that is directly comparable with an old people's home. A further requirement, for a communal facility for the residents within the boundary, has since been dropped as, in practice, it proved unnecessary in the context of the more tightly defined qualifying criteria.
I should like to return to the specific points on St. Tydfil's court that the hon. Gentleman properly raised. As I said, it would be inappropriate for me to make judgments in the BBC's place about applications from individual sheltered housing schemes. I am informed, however, that nine of the 66 dwellings in the block are privately owned, having been purchased under right-to-buy provisions. Thus, they cannot logically form part of the sheltered housing scheme. A "warden" works there for the requisite 30 hours each week, but it appears that St. Tydfil's court does not satisfy the common and exclusive boundary criterion set out in the regulations. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that, as a lawyer, he did not agree with that interpretation, but that is the current interpretation.
Legal advice on similar cases has been that it is not even possible to draw an artificial boundary so that part of such a scheme can qualify. That is the problem with laying down rules—there are always decisions to be made in what might most appropriately be called borderline cases. The alternative, however, would be either to give the BBC the power to operate a discretionary system, which would surely be even more unfair, or to relax the qualifying criteria.
As I have pointed out, any extension of the scheme would reduce the licence fee revenue necessary for the BBC to continue to provide the quality and range of its services. We are thus left with the option of retaining a scheme which costs some £50 million each year in lost licence fee revenue and more to run, but which benefits about 600,000 people in line with the spirit of the original concession.
It would be unfair to draw to a close without discussing so-called preserved rights. The change in qualifying criteria that followed the Kirklees decision would have meant that many of those qualifying under the old rules would no longer have continued to do so under the new ones. Just as the Government did not wish to abolish the

323
scheme, nor did we want to take the concession away from anyone who had previously held it. The new regulations therefore included a provision to preserve the rights of existing beneficiaries for their lifetime, as long as they continued to reside in accommodation that would have met the old qualifying criteria.
That, I recognise, is a source of much confusion. It leads to positions where neighbours are treated differently due to past and not present circumstances. That is by no means ideal, but it is not logical simply to claim equal treatment with one's neighbour, even if one's first
324
impression is, perhaps understandably, that the position is not fair. That is an inevitable consequence of the saving provision in the regulations and the Government's determination not to take the concession away from anyone who already had it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions>
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Cyprus
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations for the accession of Cyprus to the EU. [17257]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The accession negotiations will start six months after the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference and take account of its results.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the United States Administration's view that 1996 should be the year of Cyprus? Does he further agree that Cyprus's merits, both economic and otherwise, in making the application, should be viewed entirely in isolation and that, therefore, no third party, least of all the Turkish Government or the Turkish Cypriot regime in the north of the island, should have any right of veto over the process?
    Mr. Rifkind: I believe that the application by the Republic of Cyprus for accession to the European Union should, as my hon. Friend said, be considered on its merits, and that no third party should have a veto. It is of course unavoidable that, if there is a continuing division of the island, that will make the success of the negotiations far more difficult. It is timely to try to bring about a resumption of dialogue in Cyprus, so that work can go forward towards a resolution of the political divisions that have damaged the interests of the island for so long.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Can the Foreign Secretary explain how Cyprus could be admitted to the European Union when some of its national territory is occupied? Surely if it acceded to the EU, that would mean that some of the EU's territory would be occupied, which would be intolerable. Does not something have to be resolved before we can realistically discuss Cyprus's admission? Surely the question of its independent sovereignty over the whole of its territory must be settled before we can countenance its admission.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government of the Republic of Cyprus are recognised as the Government of a country that covers the whole island—although the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the de facto division of the island makes accession to the European Union far more difficult than it would normally be. That is why I emphasised the fact that any political progress towards resolving the division would not only be desirable in itself but would make a major contribution to the success of the EU accession negotiations when they begin.
    Dr. Twinn: I am grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. Does he know that his statement that neither party to the negotiations for a peace settlement
    326
    would be able to veto Cyprus's entry into the European Union will be welcome on the island of Cyprus? Does that not therefore make it even more important for Britain to renew its efforts to ensure that there is a settlement this year, before the negotiations are due to start? For Cypriots of all communities, the future of Cyprus will be more secure within the Union.
    Mr. Rifkind: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom has given its view—that a resumption of dialogue between the two Cypriot communities should be possible this year. With other interested parties, we are actively exploring ways in which progress can be identified. United Nations forces have now been on the island for more than 27 years. When one considers the progress that has been made on major problems in other parts of the world over that period, there is no convincing reason why, with the right political will, the two Cypriot communities could not resume dialogue and work towards a common solution.

    West and South Asia (Strategic Weapons)
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to prevent the proliferation of strategic weapons and their delivery systems in west and south Asia. [17258]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): We are concerned about the possible proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems throughout the world. We urge all states to accede to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the chemical weapons convention and the biological weapons convention. We play an active part in efforts to control the spread of missiles and the supply of equipment related to the development of weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister recognise that, in the 1980s, Britain passed to Iraq nuclear weapons-making technology and Vickers tanks that could have been converted into launch vehicles for missiles, and that British expertise contributed to the development of Scud missiles into long-range weapons? Now that, in the same region, there are five or six countries with nuclear weapons-making capacity and six or seven with the ability to deliver those weapons in long-range missiles, what specific guidelines do the Government have to prevent the further proliferation of that evil technology in that unhappy region?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman's retailing of a tired old story demonstrates his lack of judgment and why he was sacked from the Labour Front-Bench team some time ago. We have been active in the United Nations special commission on Iraq, which has raised continuing concerns about Iraq's ballistic missile, chemical and biological weapons programmes, and in the International Atomic Energy Agency in trying to put in place on-going monitoring and verification. Similarly, elsewhere in the area, we are encouraging countries to join the non-proliferation treaty. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps do better to join that encouragement rather than just attack this country.
    Mr. Forman: Since the development of strategic weapons in west and south Asia—or any other part of the world—can sometimes be a consequence as well as a cause of very grave regional problems, is my hon. Friend aware of the urgent need for Britain to do even more to try to help reach a solution to the vexed problem of Kashmir, which is in that geographical zone? Can he bring the House up to date on how the Government are trying to bring together India and Pakistan, two prominent members of the Commonwealth, and reach a satisfactory peace for Kashmir?
    Mr. Davis: There is no new initiative with respect to that part of the world. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the potential of weapons of mass destruction destabilising that part of the world. We have put a great deal of pressure on Governments there to ensure that they join the non-proliferation treaty as non-nuclear weapon states.

    "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take following the publication of the Scott report to ensure that guidance in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" is not breached. [17259]
    Mr. Rifkind: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February.
    Mr. Cunningham: If, as Scott has found, Ministers should have told Parliament the truth, have not the Government been treating the matter in a light-hearted manner and should not the Secretary of State apologise on behalf of his colleagues?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what happened. I do not think that I can usefully add to the matters that were very fully debated in the House not very long ago.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, but does he think that, in the light of the decision taken in principle by the Public Service Committee to look at "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and the civil service code, following the Scott report's recommendations, his Department should wait on the Committee's recommendations?
    Mr. Rifkind: We await with interest any recommendations of the Public Service Committee. It is worth remembering on behalf of those concerned with open government that the last Labour Government never thought of publishing "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". The Government published, and can therefore claim credit for it.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" places an obligation on Ministers to tell the truth? Will he further confirm that Sir Richard Scott details not one, but seven occasions when his ministerial
    328
    colleagues breached that duty? Will he condemn those colleagues, or do those constitutional guidelines also have a flexible application?
    Mr. Rifkind: I believe that Ministers complied with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", and I do not believe that untruths were told. The hon. Gentleman has no foundation for making such a suggestion.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Scott report teaches us that it is always dangerous for the Government to impose greater restrictions on British industry than are imposed by other Governments? Do not those restrictions make it more difficult for people to determine whether to allow a licence? In the light of the Scott report, will the Government bring this country into line with the rest of the world on the issue of restricting the sale of arms and non-lethal military equipment to other Governments, thereby allowing British companies to sell goods and services that they are currently prevented from selling—despite the fact that the goods can be bought from other western nations?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the Government showed more self-restraint on the sale of equipment to Iraq than almost any other western Government, but we have received little credit for that act of self-denial. Nevertheless, we will take policy decisions based on what we assess to be the right course of action. Although that may often coincide with what other Governments are doing, we will not feel bound to change our policy simply because other Governments have reached different conclusions.

    Chechnya
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Russian Foreign Minister to discuss the situation in Chechnya. [17260]
    Mr. Rifkind: I last saw Mr. Primakov on 27 February. On that occasion, Chechnya was not discussed.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since Sunday, Russian troops have been bombarding and strafing a village 30 miles from Grozny called Sernovodsk? Is he further aware that a corridor has had to be created to allow refugees to leave, and that the pall of smoke can be seen for many kilometres? What representations are the Government making before the Russian presidential elections to help find a peaceful and humanitarian solution? Does he agree that the people of the world will not tolerate the present situation for much longer?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that a political solution in Chechnya is likely to bring lasting peace and stability to that part of the Russian Federation. We hope that the Russian Government have now realised that a purely military approach is simply not working and that it is necessary for them to consider alternative means of ensuring the peaceful integration of Chechnya into the Russian Federation, to bring the violence to an end.
    Mr. Elletson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to study the report by the Quaker representative in Moscow on the assault by Russian troops and mercenaries on the village of Sernovodsk? Is he aware that that report suggests that there are more than 7,000 refugees from that village, and that the Russian troops and mercenaries involved have waged a sustained campaign—involving the use of artillery and helicopter gunships—that is continuing as we speak? Does he agree that it is time the civilised world said to the Russian Government, "Enough is enough. We will no longer turn a blind eye to the continuing barbarity in the northern Caucasus"?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have not seen the Quaker report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I agree that the kind of military action that we have seen recently is to be deplored and condemned, and will damage Russia's reputation in the international community.

    Export Promotion
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the Foreign Office and its posts overseas in promoting British exports. [17261]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Promoting British commercial interests is our largest single activity overseas, occupying 35 per cent. of the time of frontline staff. Our network of 218 commercial posts in 140 markets provides vital help to British firms developing their export business.
    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer probably explains why—in contrast to a few years ago, when it was difficult to find a company with a good word to say about the role of our posts overseas—there has been an increase in the number of large, medium and small companies that are happy to pay tribute to the work done by those posts, both in trade promotion and in encouraging inward investment? In this respect—as in so many others—does not that show that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget represents excellent value for money?
    Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for that last remark. There is little doubt that the four Ministers on the Front Bench were shouting, "Hear, hear!" My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The chairman of Rolls-Royce said recently that many of his company's overseas contracts had been won with the help of Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts. British Petroleum says that the British embassy in Baku and the FCO have made a tremendous contribution to the development of its business in Azerbaijan since 1992. The British high commission in Islamabad has helped National Grid to win a contract of more than $700 million.
    My hon. Friend is right: small companies need help too—and they get it. The director of a small Sussex company, Wylam Hill, says that, without the help of posts overseas, about 80 per cent. of his exports would not have happened.
    Mr. Eastham: What assurances can the Minister give that, when hon. Members write to the Foreign Secretary—as I did in 1988 about some of the exports to Iraq—they will get an honest answer? I received cock-and-bull stories denouncing and denying the facts that I laid before him. Does the Minister think that we are entitled to some honesty in this House?
    Mr. Hanley: Everything I just said is the truth and I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to celebrate the success of our exports and inward investments in recent years.
    Mr. Batiste: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the best way in which the Foreign Office can help British exports to Israel is by bringing the peace process back on the rails? Can he confirm that he is giving all help to Israel in supplying the information needed to deal with the threat from the Hamas terrorists? Is he encouraging the United States to do the same?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend that stability and growth in Israel and in the economies of both Israel and the Palestinians are vital in helping to underpin the peace process. Indeed, we are increasing our exports to Israel in a remarkably successful way and I pay tribute to all of those who have increased their efforts in recent years. The answer to the other point my hon. Friend raised is yes, we will of course supply such information as comes to us.
    Mr. Fatchett: While every hon. Member applauds the efforts to increase British exports, will the Minister give us some sign of the priority that his Department attaches to the human rights record of a potential trading partner? For example, is he aware that the House was told that the Government's policy was to provide no specific encouragement to British firms to trade or invest in Burma—a country with an appalling human rights record? How does he square that with the fact that, only last week, the Government sponsored a trade mission to Burma, regardless of that country's human rights record? Is not he embarrassed by the statements by the Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, that the Government are more concerned with making money than with encouraging democracy and human rights in Burma? Is not it time that the Government stood for democracy and human rights, not just in Burma but throughout the world, and put it at the top of the list of priorities?
    Mr. Hanley: Our absolute priority is to support democratic reform in Burma. We continue to make it clear to the State Law and Order Restoration CouncilSLORC—that the resumption of normal relations is conditional on progress in key areas, including human rights and political and economic reforms. We work very hard indeed leading the international community to help bring about change in Burma, and we will continue our efforts—including at the forthcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It is entirely wrong to suggest that our support for reform in Burma is weakening just for commercial reasons. It is not.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend endorse the great importance of having defence attaches with a combination of adequate rank and sufficient

    331
    commercial nous to open doors at the right level in the countries to which they are posted? Will he work closely with his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the 400,000 jobs in this country that are dependent on defence exports are protected?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff overseas devote more than 42 staff years each year to promoting inward investment to all parts of the United Kingdom and securing jobs through exports. Eleven overseas posts have dedicated inward investment teams as well. He is right that the number of jobs that are secured in Britain by our efforts abroad is remarkable and has increased dramatically in recent years. In addition, he has put his finger on the point that our diplomats abroad are now often specially trained in trade matters. Many of our ambassadors and high commissioners have acted as specialist trade diplomats beforehand and they now regard trade as part of their diplomatic work and not just as a chore that they have to add to their diplomatic efforts.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the arrest of those held responsible for crimes against humanity in former Yugoslavia. [17262]
    Mr. Rifkind: We believe that those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law should be brought to justice. We strongly support the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it intended that the implementation force should apprehend Karadzic and other criminals wanted by the international tribunal in The Hague? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that bringing such war criminals to justice would be a lesson for other war criminals such as those who are masterminding the terror in Israel against Israeli civilians—men, women and even young children? Perhaps they would be taught that, if they inflict such terror, the time will come when they will appear before the international tribunal at The Hague.
    Mr. Rifkind: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, 52 persons have been indicted on a charge of alleged war crimes in Bosnia. If IFOR has the opportunity to arrest of any of those 52 persons, it is under a responsibility to do so. I am sure that it would carry out its responsibilities. I agree that any success in those matters would have a salutary effect in other parts of the world.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that those who have been indicted will, under the terms of the Dayton agreement, be ineligible to stand for any elected office?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the case. It is clear that, under the Dayton accord, an alleged war criminal cannot stand for office in the forthcoming elections.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary mentioned that more than 50 Serbs and Croats have been indicted before the war crimes tribunal. Does he agree that it is unsatisfactory that only two have so far been arrested? Does he recognise that it is difficult for the public to understand that, with 60,000 troops in Bosnia, it is not possible for IFOR to arrest such high-profile figures as Mr. Karadzic, even when he passes through its checkpoints? Will he urge IFOR to accept that bringing the top war criminals to justice is not a distraction from its work, but central to any hope of restoring peace and reconciliation to Bosnia?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I do not think that there is any disagreement about the importance of apprehending alleged war criminals. Of course, there are practical problems that have to be taken into account. People such as Karadzic and Mladic ensure that they are well protected by heavily armed men when they move around. That is a practical consideration that must be borne in mind. I agree that IFOR must use any opportunity that presents itself to achieve their apprehension.

    Iraq (Nuclear Weapons)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date Her Majesty's Government first received reports relating to Iraqi nuclear weapons development programmes. [17263]
    Mr. Rifkind: Although there had been suspicions for some years that Iraq had a programme for developing nuclear weapons, no evidence was found until the International Atomic Energy Agency's sixth inspection in Iraq in September 1991.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Secretary of State recall that, on 19 April 1990, when Saddam Hussein was known throughout the world to have three nuclear weapons programmes going, in answer to a question of mine to the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury that called for the IAEA to beef up its inspections of the nuclear weapons installations, I was told that inspections by the authority would not be increased and that, as Saddam Hussein had signed the non-proliferation treaty, the British Government had full confidence that he would abide by his international obligations and not develop nuclear weapons? Was that a misleading answer?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to check Hansard to identify the precise words that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary used. With regard to evidence about the nuclear weapons aspirations of Iraq, it is to the IAEA that one must look. It had made five previous inspections and been unable to find evidence. Only on its sixth inspection, in September 1991—some time after the exchange to which the hon. Gentleman refers—did it report that it had discovered evidence that supported the claims.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a major problem with attempts to discover and confirm whether such programmes existed—although there was plenty of good, hard evidence that they did—was that many of the programmes were farmed out to neighbouring countries, such as Pakistan, which

    333
    undertook quite a lot of technology and research that was subsequently transferred to Iraq, and North Korea, which provided the launch technology? Does not that help to confuse the issue and confirm that proliferation is, and has been, taking place?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. For obvious reasons, the Iraqi Government wished to conceal any indication of their true intent. We know that they sought to conceal their efforts in many ways. It is interesting to note that the international community discovered only a few months ago the extent of the Iraqi Government's biological weapons programme, which they concealed for several years—even following the Gulf war. That is an example of the means that the Iraqi Government employed in an attempt to deceive the world.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As the United Nations special commission has now given the British Government the names of British companies that supply the components of chemical and biological weapons and that have assisted in the nuclear warfare programme, what action do the Government intend to take against those companies? Such companies have been prosecuted in the United States and in Germany, but no prosecutions have yet occurred in this country. What will the Government do about that situation?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady will accept that prosecutions can take place only if there is evidence of a company having broken the law. Prosecutions are normally brought if there is such evidence.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Prime Minister Begin deactivated the Basra reactor in 1981? Should he not receive posthumous praise from the Foreign Office to compensate for the condemnation that he suffered then?
    Mr. Rifkind: As I said earlier, we were suspicious of Iraq's true intentions for many years. I am not able to speculate about what hard evidence the Israeli Government may have had at that time. It is clear that they also had great suspicions but, if they had hard evidence, they did not share it with the rest of the world. It was inevitable, therefore, that their actions gave rise to criticism then.

    Cyprus
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to facilitate a settlement of the Cyprus dispute within the terms of United Nations Security Council resolutions. [17264]
    Mr. David Davis: We remain committed to an active search for an overall settlement in Cyprus. The process of UN-led negotiations and discussions with both communities and the relevant decisions of the Security Council are at the heart of that search.
    Mr. O'Hara: There is an increasing tendency to view the Dayton model as a possible way of achieving a solution to the Cyprus problem. Does the Minister agree that there is a danger that that would result in a quick fix
    334
    that would not produce a lasting solution? Will he give a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that any future negotiations regarding a solution to the problem—irrespective of whether they are founded on the Dayton model—will be based on existing United Nations resolutions and its set of ideas, with particular reference to one undivided island, one people, one federal Government and undivided sovereignty?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I addressed that issue during the Adjournment debate this morning. We believe that any achievements will be based on the United Nations' set of ideas and the notion of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. The hon. Gentleman made a very good speech in the debate this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as did a number of my hon. Friends. The Government are pursuing every possible avenue towards achieving that end.
    Sir George Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend tell me what incentive there is for the Greek Cypriot Government to reach an accommodation with the Turkish Cypriot community? As things stand, they benefit from the fiction that they govern the whole of the island, rather than just a part of it, and any international development aid to the island is channelled through them, to the detriment of the Turkish Cypriot community. Are not we more likely to achieve a settlement by adopting a more even-handed approach to the two communities?
    Mr. Davis: It is a pity that my hon. Friend did not attend this morning's Adjournment debate, because a number of the virtues of settlement were put by hon. Members who were arguing the Greek Cypriot advantage. Therefore, his original premise does not stand. It is clearly in the interests of the whole island that there is a peaceful and lasting settlement of the problem.

    Bosnia-Herzegovina
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the prospects for stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina following the withdrawal of the implementation force. [17265]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): The key to lasting stability remains in the parties' hands. They have to support the peace agreement, implement it fully and maintain it after IFOR leaves. However, we shall be working with our allies and partners throughout the year to help maximise the prospects for stability after IFOR's withdrawal.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister face up to the fact that the timetable for the withdrawal of IFOR is unrealistic and dangerous? Even with the best will in the world—there is not much of that in Bosnia just now—it is almost certain that there will be a return to ethnic conflict if there is a withdrawal of international forces without proper safeguards, and a visible and credible international presence in 1997. It has taken four bloody years to get to where we are in Bosnia. Is it worth putting that peace in jeopardy just to keep to an artificial timetable that has been set to meet the American electoral cycle?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The best hope for peace in Bosnia is that we keep firmly to the timetable to which the hon. Gentleman referred—we have to keep the focus on peace firmly in place for the rest of this year. Recently, I visited Serbia and I spoke to President Milosevic. I believe that the pressure from Serbia and Croatia on the Bosnians to maintain peace will be very strong. I hope that we can withdraw IFOR at the end of this year as planned, and that we will then be able to take it forward with the civilian implementation that we look forward to helping them achieve.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that we shall be better able to assist political stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the withdrawal of the implementation force if the European Union has a co-ordinated foreign policy towards the country? Would not the Foreign Secretary's welcome and entirely sensible suggestion last night for a foreign policy co-ordinator for the European Union be a valuable contribution towards that objective?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal for a co-ordinator responsible to the Council of Ministers for the decisions made collectively by those Ministers. I hope that it will be of great assistance in achieving a lasting peace in Bosnia when IFOR withdraws at the end of the year.
    Ms Quin: The Foreign Secretary, in his statement to the House on 22 November, talked about ending the arms embargo on Bosnia in two phases—the second of which will include artillery, heavy weapons, mines, and so on. In view of the horrific injuries that are inflicted on civilians in Bosnia because of land mines, will the Minister give a firm commitment that Britain, even after the ending of the arms embargo, will not export land mines to Bosnia? Will the Minister also give a commitment that he will play an active role within the European Union to ensure that European Union countries do not export land mines?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The United Kingdom resists any supply of such weapons in areas where they are likely to cause danger to civilian life, and that will continue. I cannot give an absolute assurance for the long term, but I give an assurance that so long as IFOR troops are there the United Kingdom will neither re-arm nor supply such weapons to any party in Bosnia.

    Arms Exports
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines on the export of arms to individual countries are currently applied by his Department. [17267]
    Mr. David Davis: It is our policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. We consider applications for licences to export defence equipment on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria, including the international guidelines and obligations to which we are committed.
    Mr. Cohen: Paragraph D4.30 of the Scott report says that the former Prime Minister was inaccurate and misleading in parliamentary answers to me on the guidelines, and paragraphs D4.5, D4.6, D4.11 and D4.12, among others, refer to the untruthfulness of the then Foreign Minister. Therefore, how are Parliament and the public to know that the current guidelines are interpreted properly and have not been secretly changed, revised or flexibly interpreted? Until trust can be restored, would it not be best to have an open register, perhaps in the Library of the House of Commons, listing all the exports of weaponry or weapon-making equipment to countries that are in the guidelines?
    Mr. Davis: I might surprise the hon. Gentleman. The DTI policy guidelines in such matters are under review. It will take a little time to conclude that review, but when it is concluded, I shall put a copy in the Library of the House of Commons.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in his Department are currently working on matters related to the IGC. 117268]
    Mr. Rifkind: We set up an intergovernmental conference unit last January. It has a staff of nine, including support staff. A number of other FCO officials in London and at European Union posts spend part of their time on intergovernmental conference issues.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Are any of those civil servants considering whether there should be a commitment in the IGC White Paper to a referendum on a single currency? If so, does he agree that such a commitment should be made and does he, therefore, support the rabid right of his party in demanding the sacking of the Chancellor?
    Mr. Rifkind: The intergovernmental conference is concerned only with proposals to amend the treaty; therefore, questions relating to European monetary union will not arise.
    Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is growing anger in Britain about the judgments and powers of the European Court of Justice? Will he make it a priority area for the IGC and will he introduce proposals urgently for the House of Commons and House of Lords to assert their rights against the ECJ, bearing it in mind that the German constitutional court limits ECJ judgments in Germany?
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend that, in the terms expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday, it is clearly important to respond to the very unwelcome judgment that was made in the Factortame case. We have a number of ideas for improving the working of the European Court of Justice that we will submit to the intergovernmental conference. We are also willing to consider other ideas whereby both Houses of Parliament can have additional influence in seeking to ensure that the fundamental traditions and requirements of our country are taken into account.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Foreign Secretary made a number of interesting points in his speech in Paris yesterday. They included the idea that there should be a European Union figure to represent foreign policy. As he supports that view, is it the Government's view and will it be proposed at the IGC?
    Mr. Rifkind: I said in my speech, and am happy to repeat, that on issues where British foreign policy coincides with that of other countries—for example, in the middle east, Hong Kong and other parts of the world—it is sensible to use the added weight of the European Union in furthering our interests. When 15 countries have committed themselves to a single foreign policy objective, it is necessary to co-ordinate that policy on a day-to-day basis. That is why we believe that the appointment of a civil servant or official to assist Foreign Ministers would be a useful innovation.
    Mr. Dykes: As senior Ministers have promised yet again to become more enthusiastic about our membership of the European Union, instead of leaving it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or occasionally the Deputy Prime Minister, is it not important that my right hon. and learned Friend puts the record straight on the European Court of Justice, bearing it in mind that in the latest dispute on fishing matters, in order to dampen down the temperature of some of our colleagues, we should remind the public that many Spanish fishing boats are owned by British companies?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is as may be, but there is a widespread belief which I am sure is shared on both sides of the House that the purpose of national quotas was to benefit national fishermen. In so far as that has not been the case, as a result of the decisions of the European Court of Justice, it is right and proper that the Government should give priority to seeking to rectify the position and ensuring that national quotas operate in the way that was clearly intended by the Council of Ministers when the policy was first introduced.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I commend to the Foreign Secretary the excellent leaflet by the Chemicals Industries Association entitled "Why Europe matters to you"? It warns that, if we are to keep chemical factories and jobs in Britain, we must take a positive role in Europe. Does the Foreign Secretary endorse that conclusion? If so, will he recommend another reading of the pamphlet to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who ripped up his copy when it was presented to him? On the verge of the IGC, will the Foreign Secretary take this last opportunity to advise some Conservative Members that it would be better if they rip up their prejudices before they break up Britain's business links with Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have not had the pleasure of reading that leaflet, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not tear it up before reading it. I will withhold judgment on what to do with it until I have read it.
    On business links with Europe, the hon. Gentleman should consider the damage that would be done to our business interests by the imposition of the social chapter, as advanced by the Labour party. A couple of days ago, I was interested to read in the press that the Labour party is now in secret discussions about limiting its commitment
    338
    to implement the social chapter. It is clearly beginning to recognise the intense damage that the social chapter would do to British jobs. We hope that there will be an early opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to explain to the House why the Labour party is now admitting what it has spent the past year trying to deny.

    Taiwan and China
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his office has taken to reduce tension between Taiwan and China. [17270]
    Mr. Hanley: We are very concerned about the increased tension in the Taiwan straits and its potential effect on the stability and development of the region. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised those concerns with the Chinese Premier, Li Peng, when they met in Bangkok on 29 February. We urge both sides to resolve their differences peacefully.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that extremely helpful and comprehensive reply. However, has he had an opportunity to read reports in today's press which give details about Chinese guided missile tests taking place in the Taiwan straits, with a resultant substantial increase in tension between China and Taiwan? Given the importance of China and Taiwan to that region, is my right hon. Friend able to place before those two nations the resources of his office in an effort to reach some form of mediated settlement?
    Mr. Hanley: We certainly saw the reports to which my hon. Friend refers, and they are worrying. We will have to consider carefully what other steps we will take if there is a danger to shipping, for example, from such activities. The activities are regrettable. It would be far better if Taiwanese politicians lowered their rhetoric and if the Chinese Government lowered their overreaction.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that it would help to lower tension if China followed Taiwan in moving down the road to greater democracy and open elections, and that the free world at large is not terribly impressed by any attempt to be bully boys?
    Mr. Hanley: Democracy in Taiwan is certainly an important development, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows how the British Government view the status of Taiwan. That view remains unchanged. It is sad that tension is rising during the democratic elections in Taiwan. We urge the Chinese not to overreact as a result.

    European Union
    Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the German Foreign Minister to discuss the future development of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [17271]
    Mr. David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend regularly discusses EU issues with his German counterpart.
    Sir David Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that the priorities for discussions with our German partners are the renegotiation of our respective budget contributions to the European Union, the cost of enlargement of the EU and the need to reform the common agricultural policy, and that those matters must take precedence over the question of a single currency?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend very accurately summarises the serious policy issues that run in parallel with the intergovernmental conference and that equate to it in importance. We must firmly address and resolve those issues before enlargement, which is probably the biggest single issue facing the EU for the next couple of decades.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that, some months ago, the Germans put forward the idea of a Mr. Europe for foreign affairs? In fact, that was first proposed by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who wants the job himself. Although we may congratulate the Foreign Secretary on trailing behind the Germans and French, it would be a pleasure if we had a Foreign Secretary who could take the lead in shaping Europe. Is not that job, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman endorsed yesterday, a perfect come-back job for the Governor of Hong Kong, Mr. Chris Patten—that solid pro-European, whom we would all welcome back to our Benches?
    Mr. Davis: I start from the first point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, which is that the function is for an official, not a gifted politician. Secondly, it is for someone—not as suggested by Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—with no right of initiative, someone who has to obey what the Council says and who would represent our policies, not decide them.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, in his discussions with his German counterpart tomorrow, he will make it perfectly clear that the future development and security of the European Union depend very largely on the security arrangements that we make on a transatlantic basis?
    Mr. Davis: I can give that undertaking without reservation. Throughout our dealings with the European Union, we have made it clear that we view NATO as the pre-eminent organ for protecting Europe and that a major part of that organisation is, of course, the transatlantic dimension which we will preserve at all costs.

    Scott Report
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the findings of the Scott report relating to his Department. [17272]
    Mr. Rifkind: Improvements in a number of areas identified in Sir Richard Scott's report are already in place or are under active consideration by Ministers and officials.
    Mr. Hain: Despite the damaging criticisms on page after page of the Scott report to the effect that Ministers, including the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—who was
    340
    then a Foreign Office Minister—deliberately and designedly misled Parliament, why has no one in this arrogant Government even bothered to apologise?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might at least have had the courtesy to read the report before making such comments. He suggests that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary deliberately misled the House; Lord Justice Scott explicitly exempts my right hon. Friend from such a charge.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Government's priorities for the European Union's intergovernmental conference. [17273]
    Mr. David Davis: The Government have set out their approach to the forthcoming intergovernmental conference in the House on a number of occasions. The forthcoming White Paper will provide a comprehensive review.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he give greater priority to introducing greater openness in the decision-making process within the various institutions of the European Union? If he agrees with that basic proposition, will he give some idea of how greater transparency could be introduced into the decision-making processes of the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Davis: We are already at the forefront of increasing transparency in the European Union. So long as it is within our practical range, we are always willing to pursue that. By "practical range", I mean that I do not want to see transparency to the extent that it drives negotiations into corridors, which would be self-defeating. An example of what we have done is that, after each Council meeting, we always put down a parliamentary answer that reflects our votes and opinions in the Council.
    Mr. Sumberg: Should not one of our priorities at the IGC be to deal with the widening gap between public opinion and Governments throughout the European Union? Would not that gap be closed in this country if we were to offer the people a referendum on any substantial change to the Maastricht treaty or if there were a single European currency?
    Mr. Davis: The position on a single European currency has been made very clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I have already made clear our position on the IGC. I do not expect the IGC to create a major transformation of the Maastricht treaty. It should therefore not lead to a major constitutional change, which is usually the premise on which referendums are based. However, the idea of trying to bring together the Union and the peoples of the Union—trying to make people understand, or allowing them to understand, the benefits of the Union and what it is trying to do—is very much part of our strategy in dealing with the IGC and one that is crucial to the success and longevity of the European Union.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Minister goes across to the next conference and, subsequently, to the intergovernmental conference, will he make it plain—it is time somebody did—that the majority of the British people are fed up to the back teeth with talk of federalism? They are fed up with fraud in the Common Market, they are fed up with the fisheries policy which is throwing thousands of people out of work, and they are fed up with all the talk about a single currency. The truth is that the threads that held the Common Market together are now falling apart. It has been an unmitigated disaster and it will be a good job when we have got rid of it.
    Mr. Davis: I am not wholly clear whether the hon. Gentleman was addressing those remarks to me or to his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although my constituents feel annoyed when judgments from the European Court of Justice overrule sovereign law made by the House, they are maddened and enraged when retrospective judgments are made, especially those with the potential for large amounts of compensation? Will my hon. Friend make it a priority that this country should seek a treaty change at the IGC to outlaw all retrospective judgments of the European Court?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend may have seen some proposals that I put forward on behalf of the Government, when I attended the reflection group in the summer, for reform of the European Court of Justice. Two of the items put forward addressed directly the judgment that was made yesterday against us. One was about retrospectivity, and I shall supply a copy of the paper to my hon. Friend; indeed, it is in the Library. The other item made the point that Governments should not be subject to damages if they act in good faith or, in other words, they have not deliberately transgressed the law. Had we had that change before yesterday's decision—although that was not possible—it would not have arisen.
    When those proposals were published, we did not get one jot of support from any of the Opposition parties, whatever hypocritical nonsense they produce in the next few days. They gave us no support on the solutions to those problems.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that, last week, the Foreign Secretary was good enough to meet an all-party delegation from the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats on behalf of the European Movement? The Foreign Secretary told us that the forthcoming governmental White Paper would be mature, constructive and positive and would make a serious contribution to the debate about the European Union. Given that, plus the Foreign Secretary's positive speech in Paris last night, with its interesting foreign policy ideas, could the Minister confirm that he now shares the new-found Euro-enthusiasm in the Foreign Office?
    Mr. Davis: After my previous reply, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman stood up next, because he and his party are the best demonstration of the sort of unthinking Euro-centralism that will end up destroying faith in Europe, thereby undermining Europe's best achievements.
    Sir Roger Moate: Will the White Paper clarify the role of the new European Union foreign affairs spokesperson? Will that person speak only when there is general agreement and then will he represent our views? In those circumstances, will our Foreign Secretary agree not to speak? What happens when there is disagreement? Is it then understood that the spokesperson will say nothing and our Foreign Secretary will be allowed to speak? Will my hon. Friend clarify the relative positions?
    Mr. Davis: I venture to say that there are few circumstances in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary would undertake not to speak on matters that relate to the important interests of this country.
    My hon. Friend should read the excellent speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend in Paris yesterday. It makes the status of that spokesman very clear: he will work solely under the control of the Council of Ministers, he will not have the right of initiative, and he will not be able to overrule individual countries because there will be unanimity at all points. In other words, he will be the servant of the Council of Ministers and, therefore, the servant of the national interests of all the countries of the European Union.

    European Union
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of the European Commission to discuss the function of the European Union. [17284]
    Mr. David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last met Mr. Santer on 28 January.
    Mr. Betts: Was there discussion on that occasion of comments by the French European Affairs Minister, Mr. Barnier, that there was no possibility of agreeing in the intergovernmental conference to any expansion of the European Union without serious discussion of the possibility of extending to all countries that want to join the EU the veto on all matters that the veto currently covers? The French position appears to be that, if the British are not prepared to discuss the veto, the French are not prepared to discuss the expansion of the Union.
    Mr. Davis: That is not the way that the matter was presented in the study group.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policies Her Majesty's Government will adopt at the forthcoming IGC on how best to enhance democracy and transparency within the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [17287]
    Mr. David Davis: We are committed to making the European Union more transparent, and to enhancing democratic accountability—especially by increasing the role of national Parliaments in the European Union. We are considering a number of proposals to achieve that. including an idea proposed by the European Legislation

    343
    Committee of a minimum period for documents to be available for scrutiny by national Parliaments, with procedures for urgent legislation.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister tell me what will be the Government's strategy if they fail to renegotiate the fisheries policy at the intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. Davis: I am tempted to say no, but the Government's strategy in respect of fisheries policy is straightforward and was set out by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. He said that we would take the matter to the IGC, if necessary; deal with it in other forums, if necessary; deal with treaty amendments, if necessary; and deal with protocol changes, if necessary. We will not be the only country in that position. Other countries suffer from quota hoppers, and those countries' interests are similar to our own.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my hon. Friend, to enhance transparency and democracy, have a word with the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on the White Paper before the IGC—not least because that would provide the Opposition with an opportunity to have their seventh, eighth, ninth or 10th European Union policy change?
    Mr. Davis: I will relate my hon. and learned Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. My hon. and learned Friend is right, although I am not sure that he was talking about seven, eight or nine changes of policy in a decade or—the way that it is looking now—in a few months.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the Minister agree that
    "Britain cannot stop or divert the rest of the Community taking what they believe to be the next logical steps"?
    Those were the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, writing in 1989.
    Mr. Davis: The Maastricht treaty is clear. Any changes to it can be only by consensus—by unanimity. In that, every country has a veto and an equal say, but the group cannot change without the consensus of the whole European Union.
    Mr. Riddick: Returning to the proposed new foreign affairs spokesman, does my hon. Friend agree that there are already enough people in the European Union speaking on a range of issues and that we do not need yet another supremo—whatever he or she may say or whatever his or her brief may be?
    Mr. Davis: This is the first time in history that my hon. Friend has been on the same side as the European Commission, because it does not like the proposal. One reason is that the proposed spokesman will not be a supremo but will be subordinate to the nation states of Europe—and that is the way it is going to stay.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that the principle of ministerial accountability is upheld. [17288]
  Mr. Rifkind: I refer the hon. Lady to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February.
  Mrs. Clwyd: As Scott demonstrated time and again that Ministers were accountable neither to Parliament nor to the British people, will the Minister have a second go at answering the question that I asked him earlier? The United Nations special commission has given the Government details of the British companies that supplied chemical, biological and nuclear warfare components to the Iraqi people. What investigations are the Government undertaking into that information?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady's question relates to the prosecutions. She knows that prosecutions are not a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; therefore, she must make inquiries of the relevant authorities.

  Middle East (Peace Process)
  Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [17289]
  Mr. Rifkind: Despite the recent tragic events in Israel, we very much hope that the peace process will continue to make progress.
  Mr. Ross: The whole House will be glad that we have managed to reach this question, so that it can express its condolences to the families after the latest terrorist incidents in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
  Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the courage and vision shown by Prime Minister Peres in his determination to stick with the peace plan? Does he share the concern that we need to do more in the hiatus between now and 29 May, when Israeli elections will take place, to ensure that the peace negotiations continue, if at all possible? Will he join me in sending the best wishes of this Parliament to the inaugural session of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which will meet in Gaza tomorrow for the first time?
  Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the most impressive responses to these ghastly incidents was the demonstration by Palestinian women against terrorism, showing that they support the peace process pursued by Prime Minister Peres and President Arafat and by all those who have the best interests of Palestinians and Israelis at heart.

Common Fisheries Policy (Factortame Judgment)
3.30 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang(by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the judgment of the European Court of Justice as its affects Spanish and other fishing interests and the British taxpayer.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): It is helpful to have this opportunity to develop further the points that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I made yesterday in immediate response to the text of the Factortame judgment.
Let me first deal with the court's judgment. It is a stage, albeit an important one, in the action brought in the divisional court against Her Majesty's Government for damages in respect of the losses that Spanish and other owners of fishing vessels incurred as a result of their exclusion from the UK register and consequent inability to fish.
The divisional court sought guidance from the European Court, and the latter has now ruled that member states are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to the state where the national legislature was responsible for the breach in question and where the breach is sufficiently serious. Importantly, the court also ruled that it is for national courts to decide whether such a breach has occurred and what damages are available.
There has been speculation about the damages that might be payable. It is far too early to comment, because it is for those involved—the Factortame applicants—to decide whether to proceed with their claim and, if so, to substantiate any claim to the full. The court's judgments in this and the earlier Factortame cases have highlighted the fact that quotas allocated to each member state do not always benefit the fishing communities of that member state. That is because the eligibility for quotas and their administration by member states have to take account of general treaty provisions—for example, on the right of establishment and the freedom of movement. That has certainly undermined the benefit that the United Kingdom fishing industry has been able to secure from the fishing opportunities available to it under the common fisheries policy.
It is clear that we should not go on as we are. That is why both the Deputy Prime Minister and I explained to the House yesterday that the Government are looking at all the options. They include pursuing treaty or other changes at the intergovernmental conference. We want to achieve measures that enable member states to ensure that fishing opportunities arising from their national quota provide real benefits to their own fishing communities and not to others.
Dr. Strang: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is deep anger throughout our fishing communities at this judgment? Surely he is aware that it will be very hard indeed to persuade British taxpayers that it is a justifiable use of their money. Is not this another demonstration of the indefensible workings of the common fisheries policy?
346
May I put two specific questions to the Minister? First, does he now accept that the relevant provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 were ill advised? It is true that we all wanted the legislation to succeed in preventing quota hopping—[Interruption.] That is what we wanted, but let me ask the Minister a legitimate question. Did any of the advice that he received—and the Government surely have access to a great deal of advice—give the slightest indication that we could be liable for compensation of this nature? [Interruption.] That is a perfectly reasonable question.
Secondly, we welcome the Government's declared intention of raising the matter at the forthcoming European intergovernmental conference, but can the Minister confirm that by that he means securing an amendment to the treaty, and that such an amendment will require unanimity—that one member state, Spain, for example, will be able to block it?
Finally, may I point out that there is great demoralisation throughout our fishing communities, to which this incident can only add? That demoralisation should be a matter of great concern to the House of Commons. We cannot go on like this.
Hon. Members: What would you do?
Mr. Hogg: The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman does go on like this. I interpret his response as a pretty ungracious gesture of support for the Government, but in so far as he did support our decision, I welcome that support. As I have made plain, we shall do what we can to ensure that changes are made in the treaty if necessary, so that quota hoppers cannot take advantage of national quotas.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the 1988 Act. Let me tell him that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who was the Opposition spokesman at the time, strongly endorsed the Act. The hon. Gentleman spoke at length about the failure of the common fisheries policy, and about quota hopping in particular. His observations would have more force if his party had even mentioned the common fisheries policy in its 1992 election manifesto—or, for that matter, in its 1994 Euro-manifesto.
Mr. David Harris: I warmly welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government are trying to do, especially in the context of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. Will he confirm that this step represents a real turning point in our dealings with Europe and, indeed, our handling of the common fisheries policy?
This dreadful, diabolical decision by the European Court—along with all that led up to it—has rightly enraged our fishermen. It has also united hon. Members who take different views on Europe, including Euro-sceptics in my party and people such as me who regard themselves as pragmatic Europeans. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also confirm that we have one tremendous fight on our hands if we are to bring about the necessary changes? Will he assure us that the move has the backing of the Prime Minister and the whole Government, and that the Government are determined to see it through in the interest of justice for our fishing industry?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, and for the thought that he has devoted to the problem

347
over many years. He has frequently spoken of the need to deal with quota hopping by means of treaty changes; as he will note, we are responding to his suggestions.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that the negotiations will be difficult: there is not a united view in the Council. Let me give a specific answer to his question, however. The policy has indeed been strongly endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed yesterday.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Of course the Labour party backed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and it was right to do so. What now concerns us is that it appears that Spanish owners, or other owners for that matter, can improperly sue us for loss of trade. Although there is shared anger among hon. Members on both sides of the House about what has happened, I am not sanguine about the Government's chances of changing things at the IGC or elsewhere as, the last time the Spanish were involved in fishing discussions, the Government were weak-kneed, caved in and gave the Spanish early access to Irish waters. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that, when discussions take place, the Government will not trade off some bargain to avoid such disputes, by giving the Spanish further access?
Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not try to dissociate himself from the 1988 legislation, because I have the copies of Hansard here in which he gave vigorous support to that legislation. The Labour party would have cut a better figure had it chosen just to mention the common fisheries policy in either its 1992 or its 1994 manifesto. Labour Members are Johnnies come lately to this business.
Mr. David Porter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the cause of this deplorable state of affairs is not so much that the Government tried to do something about it with the Merchant Shipping Act, but that we have the phrase, "The seas are a common resource, open to all"? Only when we get rid of that can we begin to reassert the sovereignty of British fishing waters, and we need to do it quickly while there is still some industry left to save.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for what the Government have announced. He is right to draw attention, by implication, to the importance of safeguarding the six and 12-mile limits, and that is our intention. The court has come to its judgment as a consequence not just of the common fisheries policy, but of the general treaty provisions that provide for other member state nationals to set up business in the United Kingdom. It is the overlap between the CFP and the treaty of Rome, and not the Single European Act, which has given particular difficulty in this case.
Mr. James Wallace: I accept that we also supported the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and I agree with the Minister that the Factortame judgment is inconsistent with the principle of relative stability that is at the heart of the common fisheries policy. I welcome the fact that he intends to take the matter to the IGC. What proposals does he hope to make there, which the British Government could not have made when we had the European Union presidency in 1992,
348
when the CFP was under review? Has he considered what other countries have done? Any Spanish vessel with a British licence has it only because a British skipper has sold it. Why do other countries not have the same problem? Given that the veto will apply to Spain as well as to Britain, does he believe that a renegotiation of the CFP will be easier or more difficult with the continuation of the veto?
Mr. Hogg: I have already said that Labour Members are Johnnies come lately to this business. I have to say—although it gives me pleasure to do so—that the Liberal Democrats can be accused of being Johnnies come lately as well, because their 1992 manifesto and 1994 Euro-manifesto make no reference to the problems of quota hopping. They are simply opportunist in this matter. As to what we shall seek to do in the IGC, it is important for us to try to negotiate, within the context of the IGC, an agreement to the effect that there needs to be a close identity of interest between the ownership of the vessels that are taking advantage of national quotas and the country whose national quotas are being drawn on.
Sir Michael Spicer: Is not the relevant issue at stake the power of the European Court of Justice to make laws superior to those of national Parliaments? Should we not amend the treaty in that respect? Is not the relevance of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 the fact that it was passed precisely to counteract the judgment of the court, but that after the Factortame case it failed to do so?
Mr. Hogg: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Two questions arise. The first relates to the judgment itself. If we put the Factortame question to one side for a moment, there is much in the judgment that we would welcome in the context of pursuing the single market, notably the fact that it enables nationals of member states whose rights are infringed by another member state's legislature to seek compensation for damage. I can identify a particular case—for example, the United Kingdom beef producers, who are adversely affected by the actions of the German Government or Lander. It is at least possible that they may have a claim as a result of the judgment, and that is a good thing. As for my hon. Friend's other question, the problem lies essentially not with the European Court, but with the treaty. The court is there to interpret the treaty, so if we are to remedy the problem, we must seek to change the treaty itself, either by amendment or by protocol.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: As I am the son of a fisherman and a fishergirl, I hope that the Minister will not accuse me of being a Johnny come lately to the fishing industry. Successive Administrations, with the common fisheries policy, are largely to blame for the parlous condition of the British fishing fleet. May I offer the Minister a practical suggestion? Will he give the House an assurance that at the IGC he will argue for the freedom of establishment to be circumscribed and the concept of relative stability to be emphasised? I hope that he can get across to his colleagues at the IGC and in the Council of Fisheries Ministers the fact that relative stability would help our fishing industry enormously. That is what the fishing industry argued for in 1987.
Mr. Hogg: I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman as an individual of being a Johnny come lately. I accept that he has a long-standing interest in the matter. However, I accuse his party of being Johnnies come lately, and for good reasons.
The hon. Gentleman is right that relative stability needs to be emphasised, and we take every opportunity, such as that offered by the interim review of 1992, to do just that. As for what we seek to achieve within the IGC, obviously we must formulate our negotiating position against the background of what we are likely to get allies for. In broad terms, as I said, we seek to achieve a close relationship between ownership of the vessel and the country upon whose fishing quotas it draws. That is what we seek, although it represents another way of expressing the same thing, when we talk in terms of economic benefit. Clearly, there must be a close relationship between the vessels drawing on national quotas and the countries to which those quotas belong.
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government will have no alternative but to pay compensation, funded by the British taxpayer, if the British courts find in the Spanish fishermen's favour? Does he agree that the decision is not untypical of decisions by the European Court, which consistently overrules the sovereignty of the House? I welcome his proposal to try to secure changes at the IGC, but will the Government be completely ruthless and threaten to veto everything else unless they get their way? But if they are not successful at the IGC, what will they do? Will we have to sit and watch our fishing industry die?
Mr. Hogg: On compensation, as I said earlier, it is for the applicants to prove first that there is a breach, secondly that they have suffered loss, and thirdly the quantum of that loss. Until those three elements are proved, there is no liability to pay compensation. As for parliamentary sovereignty, I return to the central point: the court seeks to interpret treaty obligations. For that reason, if we are to be effective in achieving what we would like to achieve, we must seek to bring about change in the treaty itself.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Minister must recognise that the European Court of Justice decision adds insult to injury in this country, especially affecting our fishermen. Furthermore, it illustrates the total humiliation of Parliament that we suffered when the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was struck down by the European Court. We must be frank with ourselves and the country. It is no good the Minister saying that he can go to the IGC and plead with it to make amendments to the common fisheries policy. Whether it is decided by unanimity or by a qualified majority, there are overwhelmingly good reasons why other European countries should relish the common resource of British fishing. We shall therefore get nothing from that.
Will the Minister face that fact, get on to the real issue and be prepared to take any action, including the denunciation of the part of the treaty that affects our fishing, so that we can restore our self-respect and the control of our own resources?
Mr. Hogg: I have a great regard for the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have known in this place for 19 years
350
or thereabouts. I always have a high regard for what he says, but I am bound to say that I do not agree entirely with what he has just said. Of course, the negotiations will be tough. I certainly do not exclude the possibility that we shall be able to make alliances on the matter with other countries that also face the problem of quota hopping. We shall try to make such alliances on the issue.
I cannot commend to the right hon. Gentleman the policy of denouncing the common fisheries policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am just going to say why. First, I do not think that it is achievable in real politics. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Of course it is."] Secondly, it is probably undesirable. For both those reasons, I am against it. Although all of us dislike the judgment in so far as it relates to the common fisheries policy—the Factortame situation—it has the advantage of promoting the single market, as I described to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.
Mr. John Wilkinson: How many more humiliations will our country have to face at the hands of the European Union before Her Majesty's Government face the reality of the common fisheries policy—that they have no hope at the forthcoming IGC of amending the treaty, because the other countries will not agree it? So long as European law has primacy over British law, there will not be remedy, even in our own courts. Will the Government therefore do the honest and proper thing and give notice at the IGC of our intention to withdraw from the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Hogg: The negotiations will be tough—nobody tries to pretend otherwise—and it is possible that we shall not succeed. I am not trying to conceal that from the House. I shall certainly not start the negotiations on the assumption that we are bound to lose. That is not my opinion.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Why not?
Mr. Hogg: "Why not?" I hear from behind me. I shall say why not. We have an extremely good case to make. There is no doubt that quota hopping derogates from the principle of national quotas. That is an extremely good argument to make, and we shall make it vigorously.
Denouncing the common fisheries policy is an illusion. First, it would be almost impossible to achieve; secondly, we would have to make such concessions as to make it unlikely to be in our interests; and thirdly, we would be in a demandeur position in many bilateral negotiations, where we would want to try to trade access to other people's waters. In my view, people should not peddle such an illusion.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Minister looked at the report of the Committee debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill on 18 February 1988. when both the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and I argued that the Government should not rely on a nationality requirement on ownership to stop the quota hoppers, but should impose a residential requirement on the crews of such vessels?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have the humility to accept that not taking that advice might have been an expensive blunder? It has been expensive, not in

351
terms of what the Spanish will get from the English courts, but in terms of the lost fishing opportunities for Scottish and English fishermen in the past five years. The Government are to call for treaty changes at the IGC. Why did they not do so five years ago, when the quota hoppers got back on the register and started pillaging the stocks once again? Why was the matter not a priority at that time?
Mr. Hogg: That question is of the normal quality that I have come to expect from the hon. Gentleman. His principal claim is that we should have applied a crewing criterion, but that would have been manifestly illegal.
Mr. Christopher Gill: All hon. Members who have taken an interest in the fortunes of the British fishing industry will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to seek treaty changes at the forthcoming IGC, and his decision will be applauded by the general public and by the fishing industry. When he meets our European partners at the IGC, will he stress that what is at stake is not just a vital British interest, but the supremacy of national Parliaments and the survival of the fishing stocks?
Mr. Hogg: During the negotiations, my right hon. and hon. Friends will assert the importance of giving real effect to the concept of national quotas, which in my view is being abrogated by the practice of quota hoping. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asks me to recognise that there will be general applause for what I have said. Although I welcome general support, I particularly welcome his support.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister referred to the Committee debates on the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1988, but he quoted selectively from them. Will he confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) warned the Government on behalf of the Opposition that the provision would fall foul of European law? The Government were warned, but ignored that. Is not that why we have the present debacle?
Mr. Hogg: I have not been quoting selectively. I have before me a copy of the Second Reading speech made by the hon. Gentleman who led for the Opposition—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North—in which he made it plain that the Opposition gave us their wholehearted support and expressed the hope that the regulations would be introduced as soon as possible.
Mr. Robert Hughes indicated assent.
Mr. Hogg: I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Through no fault of his own, my pright hon. and learned Friend is fast approaching a rock and a hard place. He must honour his obligations either to the European Union or to the people of this kingdom, but he cannot do both. In what way will he resolve the matter?
Mr. Hogg: I am not such a pessimist as my hon. Friend. Quota hopping seems clearly to derogate from the principle of national quotas. Almost every hon. Member
352
accepts that and, as it is a rational argument, there is a good chance that we shall get people outside the House to accept it also. We shall certainly do our utmost to achieve that highly desirable objective.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it any wonder that the British people are full of cynicism about the Government and about politics generally when an issue such as this stares them in the face? We are an island nation, surrounded by fish—and anyone can get the fish, bar the British. Fishermen have been chucked on the scrap heap. Why does not the Minister face up to the only realistic thing that can be done, and tell those tinpot people in the Common Market that we shall withdraw from the CFP? There could be some debris floating in the wake of that decision—we should leave the Spanish and the rest to clean it up.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman gets more eccentric with age. He has almost reached retirement age, and he should take his own advice and go as soon as possible.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's particular points, to start off with, he would like us to leave the common fisheries policy. I have already made the case for not doing so. In any event, there is a gulf, as there is between himself and no doubt many of the people in the Labour party, between him and those on the Labour Front Bench. They are riven top to bottom on the subject.
Mr. Barry Field: I served on the Standing Committee that considered the 1988 Act. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it ill behoves the Liberal Democrats to lecture the Government today when they could hardly put in a full day's attendance on that Committee? Is not it a fact that we are no longer elected to the high court of Parliament? This House has been reduced to an annexe of Brussels, and it is a very sad day. It is frustrating our fishermen and the British people.
Mr. Hogg: And that is why my hon. Friend supports so enthusiastically the policy position that I have just announced—that is, a desire and intent within the context of the IGC to renegotiate, if need be, the part of the treaty that would tackle the problem of quota hoppers.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: But is not all this insecurity in the industry and the failure of Parliament and the Government properly to deal with Spanish access completely undermining confidence in the industry? So much so, that constituents of mine who are trawler owners are told when they approach the banks that they are no longer prepared to lend because they have no confidence in the industry. Should not Ministers be trying to restore some of the banks' confidence, so that trawler owners can look into the future with some hope?
Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that there is a great deal of anxiety in the fishing industry, but the essential reason is the fact that fish stocks are falling and there are too many vessels chasing what there is in the water. That is the essential problem, and until it can be addressed satisfactorily—it will be extremely difficult to do so and it will certainly involve multinational action of many kinds—the hon. Gentlemen's constituents and his constituents' bankers will be lacking confidence.
Sir Hector Monro: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's strong stand and efforts to

353
resolve the issue. Does he accept that quota hoppers are fishing in our waters with our quota only because of a decision of the European Court, and now they want compensation on top of that? I think that he has the backing of the whole House to go to Europe and resolve the matter in the interests of our United Kingdom fisherman.
Mr. Hogg: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the support that he has just given. There are few people in the House who know more about fisheries policy than my right hon. Friend, who had a responsibility for that function for many years when in the Scottish Office. I find his support particularly welcome.
Ms Joan Walley: Why will the Minister not agree that he is quoting selectively from Hansard? It is a question not just of the Second Reading debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1988, but of the Committee stage of the Merchant Shipping (Registration Etc.) Bill in 1993, when Conservative members along with other members of the Committee pressed the Government to deal with the Factortame case. The Minister could have dealt with it then.
Mr. Hogg: I am bound to say that that is whingeing and whining of a particularly ungracious kind. I know that the Labour party is on the hook on this matter. The Opposition want us to accept that they have been treating the matter seriously, yet there was not a word about it in their 1992 manifesto or in their 1994 Euro-manifesto. I refuse to take them seriously, because they are not serious people.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not one of those things that the Foreign Office should see as some technical matter requiring a bit of deft footwork, to overcome a temporary problem? This is one of those watershed moments. My right hon. and learned Friend and the Fisheries Minister started off like bulldogs. Let us all hope that neither the Foreign Office nor the Commission will convert them into poodles. If they become poodles, the fishermen and others may demand that they take a visit to the vets, with a rather nasty outcome. My right hon. and learned Friend should say no, no, and no again, because the more unpopular he becomes in Brussels, the more popular he and our Fisheries Minister will become in this country. He should recognise this moment for what it is and dare to be popular.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right that this is not an occasion for subtle or diplomatic approaches. That is probably why I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have charge of this business; we shall not be guilty of either.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the root cause of the problem is that the common fisheries policy, as negotiated in the early 1980s, was not subject to unanimity, and that the matter was not discussed in Committee or at any other stage during the passage of the European Communities Act 1972? Moreover, Ministers of the Crown deliberately and
354
designedly misinformed Members of both Houses, as was pointed out at the time by the late Lord Jay. The fact that we were delivering ourselves into the hands of qualified majority voting from that time was obscured from the British public and from our fishermen. If the Minister does not agree, will he look up the record and confirm what I have said, or let me know where I have made a mistake?
Mr. Hogg: If there was real substance in what the hon. Gentleman was saying, it is passing strange that the then Labour Prime Minister, Lord Wilson, did not put the matter on his renegotiation agenda.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Is not the Factortame case yet another example of judges in the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights—and even our own judges—using their powers of interpretation to second-guess almost everything that the Government do? Is it not time for the House to send a clear message to the judges that the sovereign authority in this land is Parliament and no one else?
Mr. Hogg: Speaking generally, the business of judges is to interpret treaties or Acts. It is not the business of judges, as a general proposition, to determine policy. Although the matter goes rather wide of the subject, I agree that where judges seek to determine policy rather than to interpret statute, they exceed the powers that the House expects them to discharge.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is it not true that when an advocate resorts to bluster and insult, it usually means that he has a weak case? Will the Minister respond directly to a direct question: in relation to compensation, can he say directly whether the Cornish boats that were damaged in the so-called tuna war and claimed compensation from the Spanish authorities 18 months ago have or have not received full compensation?
Mr. Hogg: That is a serious matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to a claim for about £100,000. I raised it personally with the then Spanish Minister on several occasions. We have got an assurance that the Spanish Government will make a payment. I very much regret that we have not yet received it, although it was, of course, a socialist Government. Now that the socialist Government have been excluded from office, perhaps we shall receive rapid payment.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: In a spirit of helpfulness, and as the whole House wishes to get behind his rhetoric about saying no to the judgment, may I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that, to send a serious message to both the Commission and our partners in Europe, we should put a one-clause Bill through Parliament, which blocks off access of the courts to the judgment? That will demonstrate to the courts and the European Community that we mean business when we go to the IGC. He will have full support for that.
Mr. Hogg: That is an interesting proposition, but it might have the unfortunate effect of preventing British litigants from suing, for example, the German Government in the German courts.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the rule of law and the authority of any court flow partly from a broad public acceptance that the court is acting fairly and justly, and that, if any court makes manifestly unfair judgments too often, that court might begin to sow the seeds of its own destruction?
Mr. Hogg: I think that my hon. Friend is probably right about the general proposition. However, I am not sure that I would apply it to this judgment. The fault lies not with the European Court, but with the treaty. Whatever else may be clear, the European Court must interpret the treaty and we can hardly blame it for doing so. That is why we are seeking changes.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If the Government lost a case before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, would my right hon. and learned Friend expect the Minister concerned to describe it publicly as "crazy" and the House of Commons to be up in arms, or would he expect a rather more respectful attitude to be adopted towards a judicial decision? Is it not clear from the attitude of the Minister, the House and the public that none of us accords to European law the same respect that we accord to domestic law? Is it not also clear that, in the end, we, as a nation, will disobey the laws of the European Union and that that will be part of the route towards a looser relationship between us and Europe?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is being somewhat disingenuous. He and I have practised for years at the common law Bar and we have appeared before many judges—some wise and some foolish. When we received foolish judgments, he and I never hesitated to say so.

Emergency and Intensive Care
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the emergency and intensive care services of the national health service.
The health service exists to provide health care to those with a clinical need. No aspect of its work is more important than its capacity to respond promptly and effectively to emergency need as and when it arises. This winter has seen those emergency services put under considerable strain. At times of peak pressure, some parts of the country have seen increases in the emergency work load of up to 20 per cent. compared with the same period last year.
In those circumstances, resources have inevitably been stretched, but, despite the pressure, the clinical needs of the overwhelming majority of patients have been met. That is a testament to the skills and dedication of the professional staff of the NHS. All of us, and particularly those who have needed to rely on the emergency services, owe them a debt of gratitude.
I told the House earlier this year that I would undertake to ensure that we learn the proper lessons from the general pressure on the emergency services this winter. I shall set out to the House this afternoon the steps that I am taking to ensure that that happens. First, it is important to separate consideration of emergency care from consideration of intensive care: they are separate, although related, issues.
Taking emergency services first, I have today charged the chief executive of the NHS with a specific responsibility of reporting to me at the end of June and again at the end of September on the plans being made by each health authority for emergency services in its area. The chief executive has written to all health authorities and trusts setting out the ground that he expects those plans to cover. In the short term, they will need to show how resources will be managed to meet short-term fluctuations in the work load. They will need to consider the use of admission wards; improving access for patients in the accident and emergency department to hospital diagnostic facilities; the relationship with local social service departments; and a number of other issues that have been shown by experience to contribute to the efficient running of emergency services.
Health authorities must also address a number of longer-term issues. First, they need to consider how they intend to strengthen the purchasing function in emergency care in order to bring a clearer focus on patients' expectations of those services. Secondly, a considerable amount of work must be done in work force planning for A and E services.
Thirdly, I have asked the chief medical officer to undertake a review of emergency care services outside hospital. It is important that health authorities plan for a full range of services, and do not rely only on hospital accident and emergency departments.
Finally, in relation to emergency services, there is one measure of quality of service about which most patients feel strongly: the time spent waiting in an accident and emergency department. The patients charter already contains a standard that calls for a person's immediate

357
assessment on arrival in the department. The chief executive's review of health authority plans for the emergency services will also examine the scope for developing other standards that are understandable by patients and accepted by the professional staff as relevant indicators of quality.
I turn now to intensive care provision. Today I am publishing the report of a professional working group that has been examining best practice in the use of intensive care. The report underlines the need for a clearer professional consensus on the most effective use of intensive care facilities, and it sets out proposals for the development of that consensus. It also stresses the importance of specific discussions between health authorities and trusts about the allocation of resources to intensive care. Decisions about the resourcing of intensive care cannot be subsumed into general arrangements for other areas.
The report makes two other important recommendations. First, it recommends that plans for intensive care services should make provision for high-dependency beds that can offer care that is more intensive than ward-based care, but less intensive than a fully staffed intensive care unit.
The report concludes that, in those hospitals that have them, these intermediate facilities relieve the pressure on the intensive care unit with the result that NHS resources, both human and financial, are used more effectively. I shall be looking to health authorities to apply these findings in their own areas.
Secondly, the report recommends that the case for a national database to improve the management of intensive care bed availability should be examined. There is no doubt that the emergency bed service has been responsible for a major improvement in intensive care bed management in London and in the south-east since the system was extended last spring. The NHS will now be considering the proposal for a national register, and I shall announce the conclusion of that process this summer.
Finally, I turn to paediatric intensive care. The report of the inquiry into the treatment of Nicholas Geldard, which was published yesterday, highlighted some important failures in the service that he received. The sympathy of all hon. Members will go to Nicholas's family, who have suffered a tragic loss. The north-west region of the NHS has already made clear its determination to address the local issues that were highlighted by the report.
The main national issue that arose from the case was the availability of paediatric intensive care beds. The NHS is already committed to increasing this provision. I agree with the finding of the inquiry that
"the time for talk and discussion about this issue … is over".
I have asked the chief executive to prepare a specific report on the implementation of these plans. It will be presented by the end of April, and it will be published.
Health authorities have a difficult task in balancing the competing priorities of different parts of the NHS. This year is not yet 10 weeks old, and already the House has considered three important aspects of health care in its debates: the emergency services, the mental health services and the primary health sector. The hospital
358
service must also meet the needs of patients who are put on waiting lists. These are all important services, and patients' needs must be met.
The Government have already announced that the real revenue resources of the NHS will increase next year by £500 million—that is new money available to increase the level of care available to NHS patients. The process that I have announced today will allow us to ensure that a proper proportion of that growth money is used to address the needs of the emergency patient, whose needs must be met without sacrificing the other important objectives of the national health service. I commend them to the House.
Ms Harriet Harman: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. On the casualty crisis, I welcome the fact that he has adopted three of the proposals in the five-point plan that I set out following his statement in January. Although he rubbished our proposals at the time, now—three months later—he says that he will monitor the problems carefully.
Will the Secretary of State please report to the House on the information that he receives from the chief executive in June and September? He says that someone will be appointed in each area to examine how local resources can best be used to address the problem and that specific attention will be paid to those people who are in hospital, but who could be cared for at home or in residential care.
We welcome all that, but the right hon. Gentleman has still failed to address two central problems in the casualty crisis. First, it is the cuts in hospital beds that leave patients waiting on trolleys in accident and emergency departments. Whatever his charters say, why can we not have a moratorium on bed closures? Secondly, there is still a shortage of accident and emergency staff. He said that health authorities must undertake work force planning, but does he plan to do anything about it?
It is hard to find words to express the sense of outrage and betrayal that everyone must feel on hearing how 10-year-old Nicholas Geldard died. The North West regional health authority inquiry team was shocked and dismayed by what happened to him. Although there are many organisational failures that the Secretary of State must address, does he acknowledge that the Geldard inquiry team concluded that, while Nicholas's life was hanging by a thread, no intensive care bed could be found for him, so he had to be taken by ambulance across the Pennines through a blizzard in the small hours of the morning?
Will the Secretary of State admit that the Geldard report confirms that it was not a one-off, tragic case, but that, every week in the north-west, children are turned away because there are no intensive care beds for them? Will he admit that the problem is not only in the north-west, but throughout the country?
Is it not the case that, having heard what happened to Nicholas Geldard, every parent in the country thought, "That could have been my child—it could have been me"? Every parent in the country will now fear that, if a child falls ill, the NHS might not be there.
Will the Secretary of State tell us how many children are turned away from intensive care units throughout the country each day? Should he not give the House that information today?

359
Why, when the Government trumpet patients charters for dozens of minor NHS procedures, will they not guarantee an intensive care bed for a child who is gravely ill? Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the shortage of intensive care beds means that patients face cancellations of heart operations—sometimes repeatedly? How many patients each year have operations cancelled because of the lack of intensive care beds? Is that not information that he, as Secretary of State, should know? Should he not tell the House today?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that patients waiting for transplants die because, when an organ becomes available, the operation cannot go ahead if there are no intensive care beds? Is not the final irony the fact that, although seriously ill patients are waiting for liver transplants, Leah Betts' liver could not save a life in Britain, but had to be flown to Spain?
The NHS must have the spare capacity to respond to emergencies. The Government do not understand that it is not slack in the system; it is a safety margin. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he believes is the safe occupancy level for intensive care beds? Many operate at up to 100 per cent. occupancy. The Intensive Care Society believes that there should be an occupancy level of no more than 70 per cent. Does he agree with that?
Today, the Secretary of State says that he will publish another report in April, but have there not been numerous reports on intensive care? Eight years ago, the Association of Anaesthetists for Great Britain and Ireland produced a report entitled "Intensive Care Services: Provision for the Future".
In December 1993, a report was published by the British Paediatric Association's working party on intensive care and, on behalf of the Department of Health itself, came the Metcalf McPherson report. The problem is not that there have not been enough reports; the problem has been the lack of action.
Will the Secretary of State admit that there are not enough intensive care beds, and tell us how many more he believes there should be? The Intensive Care Society says that we have only 1,500 such beds but that we need 2,000. Does the Secretary of State agree with the society?
The Secretary of State referred to high-dependency beds, but will he admit that the development of such beds, although welcome, does not solve the problem of too few intensive care beds? Why does he fail to acknowledge and tackle the shortage of specially trained intensive care nurses? That failure is a disgrace and an insult to doctors, as they are the ones who have to turn away very sick patients, knowing that it might cost those patients their lives. Doctors have to make those decisions every day, yet the Secretary of State implies that they have to do so because they are somehow mismanaging their beds. The plain fact is that there are not enough beds.
Does the Secretary of State remember that the NHS changes were the Government's response to the 1988 intensive care beds crisis? The Government imposed the internal market on the NHS, with the result that there were more managers than ever before, but the problems got worse.
Why does the Secretary of State think that providing more managers is the answer to every problem in the NHS? A sick child needs a hospital bed, not a manager. Why should anyone be turned away from intensive care
360
when an extra £1.5 billion is being spent on managers? Does the Secretary of State recognise that this is a question not of technicalities but of fundamental principle—the principle that, in an emergency, one can count on the NHS?
We cannot accept that a critically ill person whose life could be saved should be turned away. This more than anything else symbolises the Tories' failure on the NHS—if they cannot run the emergency service, how can the NHS be safe in their hands? Why does not the Secretary of State understand that it is not a matter for managerial adjustment, fiddled figures or more reports? Now is the time for him to face up squarely to the depth of the crisis and take action. If he cannot, he should not be running the NHS.
Mr. Dorrell: The final point that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) made in her long tirade was very close to the final point that I made. I quoted the report on the availability of paediatric intensive care beds and said:
"the time for talk and discussion about this issue … is over".
That is precisely why I have set up a process that will demonstrate publicly by the end of April the delivery of our targets for the availability of paediatric intensive care beds. There is no doubt about the need now to deliver a proper level of paediatric intensive bed space. It will be done and accounted for to the House by the end of April.
The hon. Lady began by welcoming a number of the announcements I made about the emergency services. I am grateful to her for that. She asked what was being done about staff in accident and emergency departments. She might like to know that, since 1990—this information is not based on some politically convenient figure—there has been an increase in the number of doctors and nurses committed to accident and emergency care. That shows that we have been increasing staffing resources, and we shall continue to ensure that staffing resources available to accident and emergency departments are sufficient.
The hon. Lady was confidently expecting at the end of last year that there was going to be a shortage of junior doctors at 1 February this year, when the rotations came through the accident and emergency departments. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health took action just before Christmas to ensure that there would be sufficient junior doctors to man accident and emergency departments.
Ms Harman: There are not.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady says that there are not, but we have conducted a census of accident and emergency departments. Senior house officer vacancies are currently running at 4.5 per cent., which does not imply a service with a massive inability to recruit.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome for the steps we are taking to strengthen the emergency services and to ensure that the lessons which must be learned from this winter's experience are learned. The hon. Lady was keen to argue that we need more intensive care beds.
If it were true that we had 1,500 intensive care beds in the health service, the hon. Lady would be right, but we have 2,500 intensive care beds—as I published in a parliamentary answer to her predecessor—including beds that provide coronary care. Every definition of intensive care facilities includes those that are used for planned

361
surgery need as well as those that meet emergency need. That is precisely why I said in my statement that it is important to distinguish the emergency services from the intensive care service, which meets both emergency and planned need. We have 2,500 intensive care beds in the health service.
There is not much point in setting up a review engaging the professional expertise of those who work in the service, as we have done, and then ignoring its conclusions. The conclusion of the professional review, which I am publishing today, is that the best way to ensure that we meet intensive care need in the health service is to provide the high-dependency beds—which I mentioned in my statement—behind the intensive care facilities.
I would have hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome that provision as a step towards the delivery of an intensive care service for adults and children that will meet the needs for intensive care of the emergency patient and the planned patient of the health service.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. After that very long initial exchange, there will have to be brisk questions and answers.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is it not clear that, when distressing problems arise, they are due not to any fault on the part of clinicians or to lack of resources, but to shortcomings in bed management? May I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and, in particular, his strengthening of the patients charter, which will give an incentive for better and more efficient use of beds?
My right hon. Friend may recall that, when I initiated a debate on intensive care bed provision in London last July, following the incident in which one of my constituents had to be helicoptered to Leeds, I suggested that there should be some form of national computer register of intensive care bed availability. I welcome his statement that that is now being considered, and I hope that it will be brought into effect as soon as possible.
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said in my statement, exactly that principle is now working in London and has improved intensive care bed management in London and the south-east since it was extended last April. Against the deadline that I announced, we shall review the idea that the computer register should be extended to cover the whole country.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend welcomed the charter proposal. We need to ensure that the charter sets out clear standards for service that are acceptable to patients and are also recognised by those who work in the service as relevant measures of quality.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not deeply shocking and grossly unacceptable that 64 hospital beds are now being closed in south Manchester, including four intensive care beds about which I tabled a parliamentary question to the right hon. Gentleman last Wednesday for priority reply today? While we both know the reasons given for these closures, is there anything he can now do against the background of his statement today
362
to help, and, more especially, to save the four intensive care beds—because, as he knows, and indeed as we all know, closing intensive care beds costs lives?
Mr. Dorrell: The number of intensive care beds in the north-west, Liverpool and Manchester is being not reduced but increased. Paediatric intensive care provision in the north-west has risen from 20 to 30 available beds since 1993, which reflects the investment in available space. I have already announced to the House the steps that I am taking to ensure sufficient paediatric intensive care beds and that they are effectively used.
Dame Angela Rumbold: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the use of intensive and emergency care beds in the Greater London area. When he writes to chief executives in central and outer London hospitals, perhaps he will address a problem identified by my two local hospitals. A number of elderly people admitted to intensive care beds have been unable to move elsewhere, so continuing to occupy beds that could be used to better purpose. There must be closer co-operation between local care in the community social services and health services. If that were given high priority, it would help enormously.
Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend is precisely right, which is why the relationship between hospitals and social services departments will be specifically addressed by the review.
Mr. Simon Hughes: If some of the improvements that the Secretary of State identified are delivered, that will be welcome. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the test of whether the health service is working is whether it meets the needs that are clearly apparent? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ensure enough A and E consultants throughout the country?
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the rising demand for intensive and paediatric intensive care beds because of the health service's success in keeping alive people who previously would have died? Some regions have an overall bed shortage. If the review concludes that more money is needed to buy what are expensive NHS resources, will the Secretary of State go into battle in the forthcoming Treasury expenditure round for money to meet the service's basic care needs?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am committed to ensuring sufficient A and E capacity to meet demand. The answer is yes. At consultant, junior doctor and nursing level, we have seen the fastest growth among professional staff in A and E departments in recent years, with a 35 per cent. increase in A and E consultants.
We need to ensure that, if demand continues to increase, as it seems reasonable to expect, we have growing professional resources to meet it. We shall keep a close eye on intensive bed capacity, although the position is more open. One conclusion of the review that I am publishing today is that one in six patients currently occupying an intensive care bed do not need the level of care provided in intensive units. In those circumstances, a substantial increase in capacity is available if we can meet those patients' needs in the kind of high-dependency bed described in my statement.
Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when a Labour Government were

363
in charge, hospital admissions were at the whim of the union convener? He said who should go into hospital, and his friends would not bury the dead that resulted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does my right hon. Friend agree that emergency intensive care and what has become routine intensive care should be used as flexibly as possible—but that such flexibility will lead to even more smears and less help from the Opposition?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. The reaction of Labour Members is a reminder of how much they dislike being reminded of their record in government in respect of the national health service. Labour was responsible for the only cut in recent years in funding available to the NHS, and for cutting nurses' pay during its time in office. My hon. Friend reminds the House that Labour was responsible for a state of affairs in which access to hospital was determined not by doctors but by the local NUPE official, as he or she then was.
That is the record of Labour in office. My hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House of that, and to draw a sharp contrast between what used to happen and what happens today, when the overwhelming experience of NHS patients, whether they need emergency care or planned care, is that care is delivered to a higher standard than ever before in the history of the NHS.
Ms Ann Coffey: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for offering the sympathy of the whole House to the Geldard family, but that really does not go far enough. The inquiry into Nicholas's death was a damning indictment of the health service on that night. The right hon. Gentleman should apologise to the Geldard family for the failures of that night, because ultimately the responsibility is his, and the situation should have been sorted out a long time ago.
Mr. Dorrell: Hon. Members' sympathy is real and is felt on both sides of the House—I agree with the hon. Lady on that. It is important, following the inquiry, that all necessary steps are taken to ensure that such circumstances do not happen again. The regional health authority has made a series of announcements since the publication of the inquiry, stating that it will take the various measures that the inquiry recommended to improve the quality of care. I have announced what I intend to do about paediatric intensive care units around the country.
A further matter that local interests in Manchester must address is the fact that some of the report's most stinging criticism was aimed at the failure of the health service and local authorities to allow the reorganisation of neurosurgery services and paediatric services in the city. The health service has proposed plans for the consolidation of neurosurgery and of paediatrics. Those plans were opposed by Manchester city council, and that has delayed their implementation.
We need to ensure that all the lessons are learned, not just some of them. The regional health authority is learning them. I have made it clear to the House that I am learning them; I hope that others will do so, too.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I strongly support the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) about hospital beds, especially in south-west London.
364
Is my right hon. Friend aware that my local hospitals in Kingston have a logjam of 40 beds—St. Helier hospital has a logjam of 60 beds—caused by elderly patients who are not acute or emergency patients but who are awaiting assessment and placement in nursing home beds by the social services department? Will he do something about those social services departments, particularly in Surrey county council, in Richmond, and in Merton? Or can we introduce some new form of bed—a nursing home bed—to cope with this state of affairs, because it is truly affecting the desperately needed acute services?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right to stress the importance of the relationship between hospitals and social services departments. In both the cases to which he referred, councils that are controlled by Liberal interests were responsible for those social services departments.
My hon. Friend asked what we are doing to ensure the best possible partnership between the NHS and social services departments. Part of the answer is contained in my statement: the need to ensure that accident services are planned in conjunction with social service departments. Another part of the answer is the huge increase in the resources that the Government have voted to social services departments throughout the country.
Social services departments in local authorities are some of the fastest growing programmes in any part of government. In looking for the partnership that my hon. Friend rightly says is necessary, we are entitled to look at the level of resources that have gone to social services departments, and then look for the partnership that is indeed necessary to ensure that we deliver an efficient and effective hospital service.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Why do Ministers never say sorry and never take responsibility? It is always someone else's fault. Nowadays, people have heart attacks, or are knocked down, and no one can find a hospital to take them to. Surely those people do not need a patients charter; they have a patient's right to receive treatment speedily, close to the communities in which they live.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our experience in Yorkshire shows that people no longer feel that that is a guarantee. When will he accept that, after 17 years, it is his Government's responsibility? Our local managers say that they have been knocked sideways: junior doctors are telephoning around the country in the middle of the night trying to find beds. What a way to run a health service.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I have sought to avoid my responsibility. I have done no such thing. I accept responsibility for ensuring that, within the health service, we have emergency services that continue to provide care of an extremely high quality, and intensive care facilities that meet the need and are properly and efficiently structured.
I was not trying to shuffle off my own responsibility when I reminded the House of the responsibility—mentioned in the report on the Geldard case—that rests with local interests in Manchester which have resisted change that the committee considered necessary. I am concerned to ensure that my responsibility is discharged, while seeking partnership with others to ensure that theirs is also discharged.
Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend commend Southampton hospital trust on the construction of a new neurological unit, which will be among the finest in the country? After all, time is often the difference between life and death.
May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a phenomenon that I observed at first hand at St George's hospital here in London? School child after school child, returning home from school, popped into the accident and emergency unit to ask for aspirins, and to ask whether there would be a dishy doctor to dispense them. On inquiry, I have found that that is not untypical at a number of inner-city hospitals.
Doctors face double jeopardy. If they refuse to treat the children, they may be criticised for doing so; on the other hand, such a "pop-in centre" must constitute a complete misuse of the resources and facilities of the health service.
Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Health has reminded me, my hon. Friend's local hospital provides a showcase example of the way in which a modern hospital service should work. As for the less desirable service that he has discovered in London, I shall gladly look into it and see whether I agree with his comments.
Ms Jean Corston: Last month, Southmead hospital trust in Bristol announced the closure of eight paediatric intensive care beds. That leaves 25 such beds for children with acute medical conditions, and represents a 25 per cent. cut in the service. The aim is to save £43,000 between now and 1 April.
The trust has acknowledged that children from the city will have to go outside Bristol for treatment. Is it not the case that we now have an 11-month health service? Does the Secretary of State accept that Bristol parents do not want another report or review, or more delay? They want a properly funded health service.
Mr. Dorrell: I remind the House that the Government have voted £500 million of new money to develop the NHS further next year. I am not referring to the huge increases in resources that have been provided in earlier years. I agree with the hon. Lady that we should not have another plan for paediatric intensive care, and I have been working on a very short time scale in order to demonstrate that that aspect is being delivered.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend remind us of the difference in cost between an intensive care bed and a high-dependency bed? Would not an arbitrary moratorium on the closure of hospital beds, as recommended by the Labour party, slow down the creation of high-dependency beds?
Mr. Dorrell: On the second point, my hon. Friend is right. To impose a moratorium on the closure of beds that local health authorities and local trusts believe do not represent the highest priority use of resources must, by definition, mean that fewer resources are available for higher priorities.
In round terms, the figures are that an intensive care bed costs between £250,000 and £300,000 a year, and a high-dependency bed about £100,000 a year. There is therefore a substantial saving. If a patient does not need
366
intensive care and can be cared for clinically and effectively in a high-dependency bed, there is a significant saving in making that shift. The result will be a better use of health service resources, both financial and human.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that the increase in the intensive care bed occupancy rate may look good on the accountant's balance sheet, but that it is both insufficient and dangerous if, at peak periods, there are not enough beds for patients?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on the Intensive Care Society's recommendation that the maximum occupancy level should, on average, be no more than 70 per cent? Is he committed to that figure? If so, how will he achieve it? Does he agree that, when the NHS fails to provide emergency treatment at a time of need, it means that we no longer have a comprehensive national health service?
Mr. Dorrell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the health service's central functions is to deliver emergency care as and when it is needed—that was where my statement began. I do not accept his proposition that I should accept an essentially arbitrary ceiling for the average intensive care bed occupancy rate, for this reason. Frankly, it is sensible to look for ways of increasing the average occupancy rate of a bed that is costing the health service between £250,000 and £300,000 a year.
Apparently, those on the Labour Front Bench are not interested in the efficient use of that money. I am interested in ensuring that we use the resources as efficiently as we safely, clinically and effectively can. The advice of the work that I am publishing today is that one of the ways of improving the effectiveness with which we use that resource is to ensure that, behind it, there is an intermediate resource—the high-dependency bed, into which the patient who no longer needs intensive care can be moved. Of course I will look for ways of increasing the effectiveness with which NHS resources are used.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not a case simply of resources? If it were, there would be no problem, as there has been a massive increase in NHS funding. If the Opposition believe that extra money should be made available, they have a duty and an obligation to say how much, and where they would obtain that money.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that people in the north-west, and in Ribble Valley in particular, will welcome today's announcement, because it is not a matter simply of Manchester? Blackburn, which covers part of my constituency, does not have sufficient paediatric intensive care facilities. Over Christmas, there was the tragic case of young Lewis Jackson, who had to travel from Clitheroe to Stoke-on-Trent to receive the care that he needed. Unfortunately, he tragically died.

Lewis's parents had to travel back and forth to see him there. They and other parents will therefore welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today, that the time for talking is over and that action is needed.
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that we now need to demonstrate in a short time scale how a sufficient level of paediatric intensive care beds will be delivered. That is what I have undertaken to do.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: Does the Minister not realise that his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was worrying? He seemed to imply that high-dependency beds would be in place of other acute beds. If that is the case, it will not solve the problem. In the same way that an intensive care bed can be freed up by moving to high-dependency beds, so a high-dependency bed must be freed up by moving to acute beds. If the number of acute beds has been cut, we are back to the problem we started with.
Mr. Dorrell: Unless, by addressing the relationship between the hospital and the social services department, we could reduce the current inappropriate use of ward space and ward beds. The answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was not intended to suggest a trade-off between high-dependency beds and ward beds. That is not my position.
If, at the level of the individual hospital, managers conclude that there are higher priorities for the use of NHS resources than maintaining the prevailing level of ward bed space, it would be wrong for me to seek to second-guess them. The question that every manager must address all the time is: what is the most effective way of using the money? There is not a direct trade-off—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but nor is there an insistence that the introduction of high-dependency beds must be accompanied by the maintenance of the same number of ward beds. That would be equally absurd.
Mr. John Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said about accident and emergency departments. In view of the increase in the number of people using such departments, will he agree to reconsider the proposal that the Edgware A and E department be replaced by a mere minor accident unit?
Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend knows, that was the subject of a decision announced many months ago. As he also knows, work is currently taking place concerning the range of services to be provided in the new Edgware hospital. I am not in a position to announce a premature conclusion to that process, but I note what my hon. Friend says.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, before his letter to Sheffield children's hospital just before Christmas, there was no national monitoring of the occupancy of intensive care paediatric beds? Does he agree that that absence of monitoring was nothing short of disgraceful? Has his announcement superseded the monitoring work that the children's hospital was asked to do only one month ago?
Mr. Dorrell: No, it has built upon the work that the children's hospital was asked to do at the end of January.
368
The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that, if I had not believed that there was a need not currently being met, I would not have written to Sheffield hospital.
Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the idea that hospital trusts must pay proper attention to how they manage intensive care beds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that health authorities have a responsibility to consider carefully the level of resources that they allocate to trusts in their areas? Although we rightly try to switch resources from secondary to primary care, and succeed in bringing down waiting lists, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that health authorities do not forget the pressing need to ensure that we deliver a first-class emergency and intensive care service?
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree. An important conclusion that I hope health authorities and others in the health service will draw from the document that we are publishing today, is that health authorities need to address directly, within their local areas, the balance between acute services and primary care services, mental health services and other aspects of the NHS. Within the acute services, they must also address the balance between elective and emergency care.
Mr. Keith Bradley: The Secretary of State's response to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said about the financial crisis that, because of management incompetence, faces south Manchester, was completely inadequate. Will he intervene today to stop the closure of 64 beds in south Manchester, and ensure that the inquiry set up by the regional health authority is made public? Will he belatedly agree to meet me to discuss bed occupancy and health care as a whole in south Manchester, to ensure that my constituents do not suffer because of the incompetence of the management over the past nine months?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman talks about my belatedly agreeing to meet him, but he and I know that we have met once to discuss the position in Manchester. As for the changed structure of service within the city, when the hon. Gentleman reads the Geldard case report, he will clearly see the emphasis that the inquiry team places on the need for a quick resolution of the difficult issues—I do not deny that they are difficult—surrounding neurosurgery and paediatric services in Manchester. I hope that he will agree to support those necessary changes. Of course my office is open to him—as it was last time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are now going to move on.

BILLS PRESENTED
  PREVENTION OF BREAST CANCER
  Ms Mildred Gordon, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mrs. Helen Jackson and Mrs. Bridget Prentice, presented a Bill to enable women over the age of 65 years to have routine checks, including mammography, for breast cancer: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
  ADOPTION LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS
  Mrs. Helen Jackson, supported by Ms Tessa Jowell, Ms Ann Coffey, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Angela Eagle, Ms Janet Anderson, Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Ms Joan Walley, presented a Bill to permit the Secretary of State by order to confer rights on adoptive parents in relation to employment similar to those enjoyed by parents whose children are born to them; to make provision for adoptive parents to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

  Stalking
  5 pm
  Ms Janet Anderson: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a new criminal offence of stalking and for a prohibitory order with criminal sanctions against stalking; and for related purposes.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue of importance to women in the week of International Women's Day. There has been much publicity this week about Tracey Sant, who suffered a three-year hate campaign of a former colleague Anthony Burstow. The details almost defy credibility. Burstow's unpleasant activities included sending Miss Sant a soiled sanitary towel, stealing her underwear from a washing line, pouring solvent over her car and writing her sinister notes—all because when Miss Sant decided to end their friendship, Burstow refused to accept it. He embarked on an excessive campaign that has left an indelible mark on her health and life. Earlier this week, Reading Crown court gaoled him for three years for inflicting psychological grievous bodily harm.
  That was the first case of a stalker being convicted of grievous bodily harm, but it took five days of tortuous legal wrangling before the court was able to reach a decision. The reason is simple: the law is inadequate to deal with the problem. That is why the police sergeant involved in the case has called for action to make it easier to prosecute stalkers.
  The Police Federation has also come out in favour of a specific crime of stalking. The editorial in Police last month revealed that the police annual conference will call on the Government to introduce laws to combat such criminal harassment. As it pointed out:
  "it is frightening enough knowing your every move is being watched, that you are being followed. But what if you are being trailed day after day, bombarded with unwanted letters, flowers and gifts, plagued with telephone calls and even go to collect your child from school to find a stranger has beaten you to it. It can ruin your life and that is what is happening now to ordinary people, mainly women."
  Vanessa Kennedy, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), was subjected to an eight-year ordeal that she describes as psychological torture. She still lives in fear of the man who has forced her to change her identity, destroyed her family and driven her to move house. She has attempted to commit suicide four times. Vanessa claims that Laurence Hammond threatened to cut her into pieces and make her pay for her rejection of him. He would describe in detail how he would torture her and other women; the images were terrible, and still give her nightmares.
  Those who describe stalking as merely a nuisance should try speaking to a victim. They are mistaken if they think that just celebrities and members of the royal family suffer. The stories of ordinary women's lives that are devastated by the actions of obsessive former partners, or sometimes complete strangers, go largely unreported. Only victims who can afford to or who are entitled to legal aid can resort to civil law. Even then, an injunction is often not worth the paper on which it is written.
  When ordinary victims turn to the police for help, the police are sympathetic, but tell them that, other than giving them a mobile phone, possibly installing a panic

  371
  button in their home and driving past their house every so often, there is very little that they can do. Stalkers know that; when they are convicted of offences such as breach of the peace and making nuisance telephone calls, they learn to restrict their behaviour, keeping just within the law.
  The unwanted attention can go on for months, even years. Some victims close to breakdown have felt that the only way in which to escape their stalker is to flee abroad. Others, their lives in tatters, can only pray that their tormentor will tire and move on, or be imprisoned for another offence. While the targets of obsession go on suffering, police officers throughout Britain are frustrated and angry about the absence of a specific offence of stalking.
  During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, an amendment that would have introduced a new offence of stalking, which was supported by Labour members of the Committee, was voted down by the Government. At the time, we deplored the Government's failure to take the opportunity to provide protection for women who are subjected to obsessive and frightening harassment.
  British women who have been stalked are frustrated by the inadequacy of British law. In the words of one:
  "You get to the stage where you think the only way the police will take action is if he sticks a knife in you".
  It is time that Britain followed the example of Canada, America and Australia, where stalking is a crime.
  The National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign recently submitted detailed proposals to the Home Office that would give greater protection to victims of stalking. If stalkers are not stopped, they can go on to assault the object of their obsession; in extreme cases, they may commit rape, and they may even commit murder, with which the family of Catherine Ayling is still struggling to come to terms. We must have new legislation to put an end to such a travesty of justice, which destroys the lives of many women. Stalking must be made a crime.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Janet Anderson, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Ann Coffey, Mrs. Margaret Hodge, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Don Touhig, Mrs. Anne Campbell and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.

  STALKING
  Ms Janet Anderson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a new criminal offence of stalking and for a prohibitory order with criminal sanctions against stalking; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 March and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
Orders of the Day

  Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I hope that the House will allow me first to speak as the hon. Member for Battersea and to pay tribute to my predecessor but one, whose death has been announced today. Douglas Jay, more recently known as Lord Jay, represented my constituency—or most of it—for almost 40 years. Tributes will no doubt be paid for his work in government on other occasions, but today I should like to represent my constituents in saying that I know that he was held in great affection and respect in my constituency, and we shall miss him.
  One of the principal aims of community care is to enable people to cope with their problems of disability or frailty so that they can remain in their own homes whenever that is feasible and sensible, and they wish to do so. Making that possible is the challenge to families, informal and formal carers, local, private, voluntary and public organisations and agencies.
  Today, we are taking a further significant step down the road of responding to people's wishes and enabling them to lead as normal a life as possible. Direct payments are a natural progression in community care towards that aim, giving users more control and more choice. They put the people who need community care services in the driving seat and allow them to make important decisions about how their needs are met. We are adding dignity, independence and choice to care and support, and I believe that we shall have the support of the whole House in speeding the measure towards the statute book.
  In line with our policies, local authorities have increasingly been involving the people who use community care in the planning and development of their services. Experience shows that this approach leads to more flexible and more appropriate services. We have also been listening to people who have been asking us to go further. They want to have more control over the money that is spent meeting their needs. Time and again, I have heard from people who have a disability, but also hold down a job or voluntary work and whose working lives are obstructed by the rigidity of a council service rota; or people who do not like to complain, but would really like a different range of menus from the meal service; or people who have responsible jobs, but are treated by the care workers as if they were rather tiresome and untidy children. They have no real independence, no real choice and no real dignity.
  The Bill will change that. Local authorities will be able to give people in defined categories cash instead of services. Those people will be able to choose within the available resources how and when the services that they need will be provided. They will be able to decide from whom to buy services, or whom to employ to assist them in leading more independent lives, and they will manage directly the services that they receive.

  373
  Members of both Houses do not need me to extol the virtues of direct payments. I pay particular tribute to my noble Friend Lord McColl, who introduced a Bill on this matter in another place, and of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), whose Disabled Persons (Service) Bill sought to take us down this road. He and our then hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) have continued to press hard for such a measure, and I am sure that they will both be pleased that we have been able to stride forward for the benefit of disabled people.
  Mr. William O'Brien: What guidance will the Minister offer to local authorities regarding people who are receiving social benefits to ensure that those benefits are not impinged upon by the provision of direct payments? Does he intend to introduce regulations that will offer guidance on what local authorities can offer with regard to the needs of those requesting community care? Will he offer assistance on the schemes that may be adopted by local authorities?
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to refer to a number of matters that I shall mention later. We will produce guidance for local authorities introducing the schemes and for the people who will be seeking to manage their own affairs through direct payments. He also mentioned the benefits system, and any necessary clarification on that will be forthcoming. Our intention is that direct payments should in no way change the situation of someone receiving direct services.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: The House will welcome what my hon. Friend said about the right of independent living, dignity and choice. Can he assure the House that that will apply also to people aged over 65?
  Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend may know that our consultation on the precise eligibility criteria has just finished. One of the matters that we looked at was whether the eligibility should, in the first instance, be limited to particular categories of people. In so doing, we shall certainly consider whether passing a particular age should exclude a person from the schemes—again, I must say, in the first instance. I shall return to that point, and my hon. Friend may get a clear response later.
  I was referring to the twins of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who were pressing similar measures upon us. They will understand if I add that, even more importantly, the introduction of direct payments has been warmly welcomed by the people who will be most directly affected—particularly by disabled people who may receive payments, and by local authorities that may make payments.
  Representatives of both groups were involved in a technical advisory group that helped us think through the issues as we worked out the details of the Bill. We are very grateful for their contribution, and look forward to drawing on their expertise again as we work on the guidance that we intend to produce. I should also like to thank all those who have responded to the consultation
  374
  exercise on the matters to be covered in both regulations and guidance. It is very important that we get the framework for direct payments right, and we are now carefully considering the responses.
  Clauses 1 to 3 apply to England and Wales, while clauses 4 and 5 make corresponding provision for Scotland by adding new sections to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Clause 6 allows for this legislation to be extended to Northern Ireland by Order in Council using the negative resolution procedure. When the Bill comes into force, its power will be available to local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.
  The Bill starts from the local authority's assessment of someone's needs under the existing law on community care. If it appears to the authority that someone may need community care services—whether that is a person to provide care, an adaptation, special equipment or any other service that the authority might provide—it has a duty to assess that person's needs. If it concludes that services are needed, at present it can generally either provide those services itself or purchase them from another agency. Under the provisions of the Bill, the local authority will in certain circumstances also have the option to make a direct payment to enable the individual to buy his own services.
  The Bill does not impose on local authorities a duty to offer anyone direct payments instead of services. Local authorities will still have to decide the most appropriate way of meeting an individual's needs, but they will now have a new alternative to offer. Equally, no one will be forced to accept direct payments. People will be free to choose to continue to receive services instead. They could also receive a mixture of both cash and services.
  Clause 1 and the Scottish equivalent in clause 4 enable the Secretary of State to specify in regulations which groups of people may receive direct payments. It makes sense to restrict the initial size of the client group for this new and largely untested development. That will enable local authorities to identify and address any initial problems while making direct payments on a limited scale, and the Government will be able to see clearly any adjustments that may be needed to the national framework. The Government think that this approach will give direct payments the greatest chance of being implemented successfully.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister will be aware of the different circumstances that apply north of the border, which is why clauses 4 and 5 are needed. He will also be aware that there are circumstances where, under the 1968 Act, Scottish local authorities can already apply some of the provisions in the Bill. Will he assure us that nothing in the Bill will further restrict the provisions that already apply north of the border?
  Mr. Bowis: I shall return to the Scottish measures in a moment.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I understand that physical disability will be the initial criterion used for eligibility. Bearing it in mind that disability does not come in neat packages, can the Minister tell us whether a person who may have learning difficulties in addition to a physical disability will qualify? Clearly, a number of people will not fit neatly into the definition that the Government appear to be offering.
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to prejudge the results of the consultation, and I will not do so. He is right, however, to suggest that a proposal was set out on which people could put their views, so that we could find out whether it was right or should be extended. It is fair to say that, if the younger physically disabled were to be the first category to benefit from the measure, people in that category with other disabilities or needs would still be eligible because they are eligible under that category. I hope that that is helpful.
  Mr. Roger Berry: Does the Minister acknowledge that it would be discriminatory to exclude large groups of disabled people from the provision? What conceivable reason can there be for denying local authorities the discretion to make direct payments to people over 65, or those with learning disabilities? The Minister is introducing another example of discrimination.
  Mr. Bowis: Far from discriminating, we are trying to provide opportunities. It is a question of the pace at which the measure comes in. We must consider the results of the consultation, which has only just been completed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be considering the results and, in due course, the proposals linked to the regulations will come back to the House, when we will have an opportunity to study all those matters.
  Our consultation paper set out a number of alternatives for specifying the eligible group and asked for views. It explained that the Government are inclined to the view that, in the first instance, eligibility should be limited to adults aged under 65 years, who are physically disabled and able and willing to manage direct payments, with help if necessary. We made it clear that that group would include people with physical disabilities who also had some other form of impairment, which answers the question of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). It would also allow people who have been receiving direct payments before the age of 65 to continue to receive them when they reach that age, and I hope that that answers my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden). There would not be a cut-off once people reached that age.
  No final decision has yet been taken on the eligible group. In particular—this has been raised on a number of occasions, not least in another place—we are committed to considering carefully whether all adults under the age of 65 with learning disabilities who are able and willing to manage direct payments, with help if necessary, should be eligible. I hope that that also answers the hon. Member for Wakefield. We have received more than 300 responses to the consultation from throughout the United Kingdom and we are considering what has been said on the question. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members, not least in this debate, before reaching a final decision.
  Whatever we decide, the reason for selecting an eligible group is to keep direct payments on a manageable scale in the first instance. We are making no assumptions about who might or might not be able to manage. We shall keep the eligible group under review once direct payments are available. Specifying eligibility in regulations will, of course, allow us to adjust it in the light of experience without the need to amend primary legislation.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: How many people are included in the group of those who are
  376
  immediately to be considered eligible and how many will be left out on grounds of either mental handicap or being over the age of 65?
  Mr. Bowis: It is difficult to answer that question, but if one based the calculation on the number of households in which some form of home help is provided for people in the under-65 category who have a physical disability, one would be talking about something like 30,000 households. I think that the figures for learning disability would be around the 4,000 mark. I hope that my hon. Friend will not hold me precisely to those figures. I am giving round figures to give him some idea of the numbers. He will know the overall figures for people with disabilities. One then has to assess the number who would want, and feel able to have, a direct payment, which is more difficult to do. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.
  I shall briefly explain how direct payments will work. Following assessment of need and the person's decision to ask for a direct payment, the local authority will decide how much the direct payment should be. It will not be able to set direct payments at a level that is insufficient to meet a person's assessed needs. Nor should it set direct payments at a level that it knows is less cost-effective than the services that it would otherwise arrange. Equally, it still has a responsibility to ensure value for taxpayers' money. If it costs someone £200 to buy the service that he needs, the local authority cannot arbitrarily decide to give him only £100. If the person could get a perfectly satisfactory service for £200 but prefers a service that costs £300, there is no reason why the local authority should be required to provide the extra £100.
  In setting the level of payments, the local authority can also take into account people's financial circumstances. Just as the authority has discretion to charge for its non-residential services, it has discretion to consider whether someone can afford to make a financial contribution to the cost of his care. The authority is not required to do that; it is given the discretion to decide whether, and if so how, to ask someone to make a financial contribution to the cost of his care. The Government intend that people who receive direct payments should be treated no more or less favourably than people who receive services.
  The aim of direct payments is to give people more choice and control over services that they would otherwise receive from local authorities, not to replace existing support given by families and communities. We propose to make regulations specifying certain categories of people who may not be paid to provide care using direct payments. That is the purpose of clause 1(4).
  The consultation paper proposed that that category should include a spouse, partner or close relative living in the same household. In addition, it proposed that statutory guidance should say that local authorities should not make direct payments where the recipient intends to contract with close relatives who live elsewhere, or other people living in the same household. There would, however, be discretion to make exceptions to the rules set out in that guidance in exceptional circumstances, where there was no suitable alternative.
  Clause 1 also contains a power to make regulations to limit the length of time for which direct payments may be used to pay for residential accommodation. That will allow local authorities to make direct payments for respite

  377
  care, but not for permanent residential care. We suggested the maximum period should be four weeks in any 12-month period and here, too, we are considering the responses.
  The final provision under clause 1 enables the local authority to require direct payments to be repaid where it is not satisfied that they have been spent properly.
  Clause 2 and its Scottish equivalent in clause 4 remove the possibility that a local authority that makes direct payments might also have to arrange the services unnecessarily, but the local authority will remain the carer of last resort.
  Clause 3 is a consequential amendment to include direct payments in the list of social services functions. Importantly, that means that people receiving direct payments will have the same access to the complaints procedures as service users and that the Secretary of State will have the same powers to intervene should a local authority fail to carry out that function properly as he does in other cases. An equivalent clause is not needed for Scotland as the Scottish provisions will form part of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which already provides for a complaints procedure and other functions—that answers the question of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
  I am confident that many disabled people who have been asking us to allow them to manage their own care will cope well with the responsibilities of doing so. Some people, however, may benefit from help and support to enable them to do so. The Government intend to issue practice guidance—that is the guidance about which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked—to encourage local authorities to provide support to people who receive direct payments. We are also considering the possibility of producing a guide to managing direct payments for the people who receive them.
  The Bill is an imaginative and innovative measure, which has the potential to make a major difference to many people's lives. It will enable people who are on the receiving end of services to take charge and manage their own care. They will be able to decide for themselves, when, how and by whom services should be provided. It has been welcomed by people with disabilities and by local authorities, and I commend it to the House.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Under-Secretary for his most gracious tribute to the late Douglas Jay. We share the hon. Gentleman's sadness. As a former young socialist, I remember Douglas Jay. At one point I actually disagreed with him. He suggested in the Labour journal "Forward" that we should change the name of our party. However, I forgave him later when he joined the Harold Wilson Government and was responsible for an excellent regional policy, from which Scotland as a nation, and many other regions of Great Britain, benefited and which we shall always remember.
  I thank the Under-Secretary, too, for the outline that he gave us—not that I necessarily aim to praise him or his policies. However, there is no difference between us over whether there ought to be legislation.
  I must suggest to the Under-Secretary that he keep an eye on Ministers in other Departments. Before we begin to consider the issues in this debate, he should watch his
  378
  back. Just half an hour ago, we found in the Press Gallery a press release issued by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People explaining that there would be much consultation on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. He seems to be concerned that the Under-Secretary, for whom we have enormous regard, will make real strides on disability. In the interests of the hon. Gentleman's reputation, I am worried about that, but I am even more worried about his colleague, who ended his press release, which I have read in the past 25 minutes, by saying:
  "The document is also available in braille, on audio tape and in Welsh."
  I am delighted to hear that. There are other parts of the United Kingdom that might welcome other versions of what the Government have to say.
  The Bill offers the possibility, but thus far only the possibility, of a significant step forward for thousands of disabled people. There are signs that Parliament has come to recognise the importance of the 6.5 million disabled people and 7 million carers. On average, each hon. Member represents about 10,000 constituents in each of those categories. More than one in five of the British population have a direct, personal interest in how we legislate on this subject.
  In welcoming the broad principle behind the Bill and laying out the Opposition's criticisms and concerns about some of its aspects, I should recognise the extent of cross-party agreement on disability that we have enjoyed in the House and also its limitations. The Minister was right to pay tribute to those such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and hon. Members from other parties who made contributions in the fight for direct payments. They, too, would welcome the behind-the-scenes contribution of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). This must be a happy day for him.
  It is worth noting that the Labour party has enjoyed broad and effective support from other parties in Great Britain for progressive legislation on disability. It is true that there remain on the Government Benches a number of hon. Members who have supported Labour initiatives on the matter in the past, although the number has diminished with every passing defection from their ranks. That, too, we welcome. That does not mean that the Government and the Opposition are entirely at one on the Bill.
  The Government have a record of coming late and reluctantly to recognise the strength of the case that disabled people make for legislative change. We welcome the introduction of this measure unreservedly, but its shortcomings offer further evidence of the Government's less than whole-hearted commitment and explain the frustrations of many disabled people, organisations of and for disabled people, and Jane Campbell, who may be listening to our deliberations and who has made such a wonderful contribution to our achievements on disability.
  We and the Government start from opposite principles. We start from the position that it is right to use legislation to end social discrimination against those with mental or physical impairments. They start from the position that legislation should be introduced only when there is no alternative and that it should go no further than the minimum required. That is why the Government have chosen to introduce a good Bill but intend to hamper its

  379
  fulfilment by tying it down with bad regulations. To prevent that, we will lay down today the matters in respect of which we believe the Bill can and should be changed.
  Disabled people have long campaigned for greater control over the design and delivery of their care. They have argued that they are better placed than anyone else to understand what they need and to choose the levels and nature of personal assistance that will free them from the constraints of disability. They are right. That is why the campaign for direct payments has been supported by Labour, as was demonstrated by our colleagues in another place. We recognise that for direct payments to work, they must have the support and commitment of local authorities. Disabled people's organisations have generally recognised that, too.
  The Under-Secretary said something about the historical context in which the Bill has been introduced. It is more than 20 years since the first group of disabled people persuaded their local authority of the merits of giving them direct control over their care by making cash payments. That initiative was followed by the first establishment of a centre for independent living through which disabled people in receipt of cash payments were enabled to provide advice to others who were considering going down the same route. It is eight years since the setting up of the original independent living fund, under which social security resources have been used to assist the growth of disabled people's autonomy and control.
  The Government have recognised that the demand for cash payments has outstripped existing legal provision. That is why we have the Bill. Several hundred disabled people benefit from the initiative shown by up to 60 local authorities that have found indirect ways of supporting independent living through third-party agencies. The Minister's colleagues in the House of Lords said that it was not the Government's purpose to make legal such schemes where their legality was in doubt. I regret that Ministers take that approach. I do not know whether the Minister will confirm that approach when he replies.
  It is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that their actions are within the law, but it would be a great pity if the opportunity provided by the Bill to assist them in so doing were not taken. I know from the experience of the social work authority that covers my constituency—which, until the end of the month is Strathclyde region's social work department—that much can be done within the limits of existing law to provide cash payment to disabled people able and willing to take responsibility for management of their care. What is true of several social work departments in Scotland is also true of many social service authorities in England and Wales. However, it is not always clear beyond peradventure that such schemes are on a sound legal footing. I hope that that will be clear by the time the House has concluded its consideration of the Bill.
  It is six years since the idea of direct payments was first mooted in this place and we welcome the fact that it is now possible to move forward and make that a reality. It is not a heavy parliamentary Session in terms of legislation brought forward by Ministers—we all know the reason for that—but it will not be long before we see the kind of busy parliamentary schedule that follows the election of a new Government. Along with millions of others, I look forward to that day with great anticipation.
  380
  In light of that prospect, it is even more important to get the Bill right. It is difficult to envisage another comparable opportunity to address the matter through primary legislation in the immediate future. That is the first requirement that the Bill fails to meet. By saying that they will impose restrictions on the operation of direct payments which will leave the legal status of some existing third-party schemes in doubt—the Minister did not assist us in responding to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—Ministers are neglecting their best opportunity to clarify, and thereby strengthen and improve, the law.
  Mr. Bowis: It might assist the hon. Gentleman if I confirm at this point that nothing in the Bill will make illegal any scheme that local authorities and their legal advisers have deemed to be sufficiently legal to put into practice. Schemes that are in place now should not be affected. We are not seeking to undermine such schemes; they may continue. Local authorities must always check the legality of schemes with their legal advisers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that illegal schemes are operating at present.
  Mr. Clarke: I am extremely interested in the Minister's comments; we shall study his words very carefully. However, his remarks seem to be somewhat inconsistent with the response that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, who raised the specific issue of people with learning difficulties and those aged over 65.
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) asked me whether someone who was young and physically disabled—such a person would qualify under the eligibility criteria on that basis—and who also had a mental illness or some other type of disability or need would be eligible. I said that that person would. It has nothing to do with any current schemes.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but he has not addressed the issue of people with learning difficulties and those aged over 65 who benefit at the moment from indirect payments that are paid to them by a third party but whose future is now in doubt because, thus far, the legislation does not spell it out.
  That brings us to the central problem with the Government's approach. In the consultation paper that they produced in January, Ministers made clear their preference for limiting eligibility—I shall quote carefully from that paper, as I wish to be fair to the Minister and to the Government—to
  "Adults who are physically disabled (including people with sensory impairments), who are under the age of 65 and are able and willing to manage direct payments (with help if necessary). This does not exclude people with both a physical disability and another condition (such as learning disability). Those aged 65 or over who began to receive direct payments before age 65 could continue to do so after that age".
  I shall cease quoting at that point because it is very important to register what the Government have said. The consultation document justifies that preference on the basis that
  "Restricting the size of the eligible group will allow local authorities to test out direct payments on a limited scale, identifying and addressing any problems before the Government considers whether eligibility should be extended to others who are able and willing to manage direct payments".

  381
  A case can certainly be made for testing direct payments: we recognise the value of a flexible approach there. However, the Government have gone about it in the wrong way. Ministers clearly accept the view that some local authorities are better placed than others to run direct payment schemes as they are already providing cash payments to disabled people through third parties, as I mentioned earlier. That is the basis of the Government's argument for making direct payments discretionary. Under the Bill, local authorities are not obliged to provide direct payments if they do not believe that they are ready and able to do so.
  Some disability groups believe that access to direct payments should apply throughout the country and that councils should be under an obligation to make such payments available. We have a good deal of sympathy with that point of view. We believe that the services and the opportunities available to disabled people should not depend on where they happen to live. At the same time, we have listened to local authorities.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the question whether local authorities should have the discretion to fulfil the wishes of local people. I think that organisations and individuals will bring such strong pressure to bear on local authorities that they will have no choice other than to operate the scheme. There are very influential disabled groups in Brighton in my constituency, and woe betide Brighton council—or any other local authority in the area—if it does not implement the full provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Clarke: I am delighted with the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As I proceed with my speech, he will find that we agree absolutely on that point.
  We have listened to local authorities that have said that they want direct payments to be payable at the discretion of the council in question. We have also considered the evidence of a recent national survey—which I believe the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) will welcome—which was conducted for the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People by the Policy Studies Institute. It found that more than 90 per cent. of responding authorities would make direct payments if they were confident that legislation permitted them to do so.
  Direct payments are likely to be so successful and efficient that we believe that all local authorities will want to join the system within a very short period. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) will explore, in winding up today for the Opposition and in Committee, what can be done to avoid a patchwork of provision in different parts of the country.
  If Ministers are to sustain the case for a discretionary scheme, they must follow the logic of that case to its proper conclusions. They propose to exempt those authorities that are least able to undertake direct payments from any immediate obligation to do so. However, at the same time they are preventing those authorities that are best placed to undertake direct payments from providing them to all those who are able and willing to take them up.
  I have already mentioned the Opposition's concern about Ministers' reluctance to take the opportunity to clarify the position of existing third-party schemes—some
  382
  of whose recipients include people aged over 65 and those with learning disabilities but no physical disability. Associated with that is our concern that the freedom of all local authorities to provide new cash payments will be inhibited by unnecessary exclusions of those aged over 65 and those who are not physically disabled. If it is right that local authorities should have the discretion to decide whether to have schemes and if the professional judgment of local authority social work and social services staff is the right basis for making decisions about individual cases, local authorities should have the discretion to decide whether disabled persons are willing and able to manage their own care and should meet with a positive response.
  That view has overwhelming support, which will be borne out by the consultation process when Ministers are ready to publish the findings. For example, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People said:
  "Restricting eligibility is unnecessary and would be contrary to all principles of equality."
  The council pointed out the difficulty created for local authorities in making judgments in relation to different kinds of disabilities. It also drew attention to the problem of being obliged to turn down people who are otherwise qualified and capable of receiving direct payments because of an exclusion imposed on the council by central Government regulation.
  Equally, local authorities have not welcomed the Government's chosen method of limiting demand on the new schemes. The Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, representing councils responsible for the implementation of this measure, have pressed for the removal of what they regard as tight national constraints. The Disablement Income Group has outstanding experience in this field and has pointed out that one third of its clients of the original independent living fund were over 65. It points out that there is no logic or common sense in using retirement age as a boundary in limiting the right or assessing the ability of someone to make choices and to take control over his or her personal care.
  I could go on, but I would have great difficulty in finding anyone—those representing disabled people, local authorities, social service professionals or care providers—who agreed with the Government's approach of blanket exclusions of whole categories of disabled people. This is a serious issue because, in principle, such blanket exclusions amount to discrimination. In practice, they prevent the further development of best practice, place artificial limits on the growth of direct payment schemes and run the risk of creating ludicrous anomalies. I have quoted the Government's preferred option from their consultation paper—which I shall repeat, for the sake of hon. Members who may have doubted that they heard me correctly:
  "This does not exclude people with both a physical disability and another condition (such as learning disability)."
  I refer to the hypothetical case of three disabled people who are seeking to take advantage of the opportunity to receive direct payments: one meets the medical definition of physical disability; another has learning disabilities; and the third has both physical disabilities and learning disabilities. Under Labour's approach, each person would be assessed on an individual basis and would be eligible to receive direct payments if he or she were found to be able to and willing to manage his or her care.

  383
  Under the Government's approach, the individual with a learning disability but with no physical disability would be automatically disqualified from consideration as the Bill now stands. The individual with both physical impairment and learning disability would qualify to be considered. That is surely an anomaly, and one that was never satisfactorily explained in another place or in the Minister's speech today.
  Mr. Bowis: There is nothing in the Bill that restricts anything. Regulations will outline how the system should be put in practice to begin with; once the initial implementation has been made effectively, the House will, with the minimum of inconvenience, bring forward regulations to extend it further.
  Mr. Clarke: The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Government's consultation document makes it perfectly clear that the Government intend to exclude people with learning difficulties. We have had consultation and we have a Bill, but we have been told absolutely nothing about the Government's views on or responses to the consultation document. I listened to most of the debate in another place and the Government would not give one inch on that issue—the Minister ought to worry that that may be the instruction to him as we proceed with the other stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Berry: What would have happened if the Minister had suggested that these provisions should apply to people who have learning disabilities but not to those who have physical disabilities? Is not the obvious answer to that question a reflection of the fact that the Bill, in the light of the proposal that will come forward in regulations, is systematically discriminating against people with learning disabilities—they are being treated like second-class citizens?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has enormous experience in these matters, and he has got it absolutely right. Until the Government offer us a different explanation of their approach to each individual who is assessed, the Minister will have a great deal to do in the House and in Committee to clarify the issue.
  The situation is further complicated by the intention to exclude those who are over 65. However, more anomalies will arise along these lines when the issue of what kind of disability a person has is crossed with the issue of whether the person is over 65 when first seeking a direct payment. No doubt, the Government's proposals will create anomalies and fly in the face of the Government's support for local authority discretion. They have missed the opportunity to have a genuine piloting of the new scheme.
  If Ministers are really concerned to limit provision to the capacities of local authorities to meet demand, they should give more, not less, discretion to local authorities. That is precisely what Labour Members argued in the House of Lords. My colleagues in another place made the case against blanket exclusion on principle, and went so far as to offer the Government a compromise position, whereby Ministers could ensure that only those councils most experienced in cash payments could offer them to those with learning disabilities or to those over 65. In that way, the majority of councils would have to live with the Government's blanket exclusions for only a year or two, but those that were already geared up for making direct
  384
  payments could do so right away if they could satisfy Ministers that they knew what they were doing. That compromise was offered to Ministers in another place, but they were not prepared to take it. I hope the Minister says why his colleagues in another place rejected that compromise and whether he is prepared to accept it or why he is not prepared to do so.
  Today, the Minister has been unable to say what conclusions he has reached as a result of the consultation exercise. It is a great pity that this legislation has been rushed and that it began in the wrong place at the wrong time. Members of the House of Lords found themselves considering a Bill without having had sight or knowledge of the results of the consultation with the interested parties—that is totally unacceptable. In spite of the protests of noble Lords, the Government insisted on completing the House of Lords stages of the Bill before the consultation was completed—never mind the findings being published.
  Proper parliamentary scrutiny of the measure would have been assisted had the Bill been introduced in the House a week or two from now. That would have allowed the Government to publish their conclusions after consulting interested parties. The House would then have been able to consider the Bill with full knowledge of the relevant facts and the House of Lords could have played its proper role of reviewing the legislation after it had been considered by hon. Members.
  Instead, the Bill has completed half its parliamentary consideration and all we know of Ministers' intentions is what their preferred options would be. We do not have firm commitments on the contents of regulations and guidance on which the Bill is heavily based. It appears that their preferred options remain the wrong ones. They are too cautious, too conservative and too unwilling to learn the logic of local authority discretion and to permit different authorities to progress at different speeds, yet they continually talk about choice.
  I focused on the blanket exclusions that Ministers intend to put in regulations, but that is not our only problem with the Government's intentions. Ministers want to maintain the distinction between formal and informal care, and we agree. We accept that direct payments must not result in making informal care and support structures provided by family and friends into formal paid employment; few disabled people would want it to work that way. So we recognise that it is important to avoid the danger of disabled people or their carers being locked into such a relationship against their will.
  Again, the Government's intentions, as outlined in the consultation paper, go beyond what is necessary to achieve those ends. They propose to place a general prohibition on the employment not just of members of the immediate family within the same household but of all members of the recipient's extended family wherever they live. It makes no sense to treat in-laws or the partners of nieces and nephews in the same way as a husband or wife living in the same house.
  The Government's approach to the measure is clear. They have at long last conceded that direct payments work and that the individual life styles of disabled persons and elderly disabled persons can be met by the services that local authorities provide. However, the Bill, which we all welcome, diminishes the impact of direct payments by its approach. It represents a dilution of the measures that the Government promised and excludes people with learning difficulties and those over 65.

  385
  Happily, the Bill, which I hope will receive a Second Reading tonight, will be considered in Committee where there will be a thorough examination of its contents. In due course, it will return to the House for consideration and, one would assume, Third Reading.
  Opposition Members regard as most important the views of disabled people in a pluralist society. In that spirit, I welcome the Bill, but I give the Minister notice that we shall examine everything that is proposed so that we have a true, progressive and forward-looking development of care in the community.
  6.3 pm
  Sir Nicholas Scott: I thank the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for his gracious remarks earlier. We understand that it is the duty of the Opposition carefully to examine legislation and other Government proposals, but the hon. Gentleman made quite a meal of his objections today. The vast majority of hon. Members will welcome the Bill, introduced by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who deserves congratulations. Having been through part of the process some years ago, I suspect that some of the constraints that may be apparent in the present proposals may have come not from his Department, but from another Department on the other side of Whitehall—an experience that I frequently had during my time in office.
  I certainly welcome the Bill, and I shall briefly explain to the House why. We may have some reservations about the way in which regulations may put constraints on the operation of the Bill. It will be up to those of us who take a close interest in these matters to keep a careful eye on them. I hope and trust that the scheme proposed in the Bill will expand and develop in future years, as did the independent living fund, which was launched in a modest way and then grew at a tremendous rate over the years of its existence. That may have been a cause for concern in the hearts and minds of those who keep the books, which may have had an impact on the plans of my hon. Friend and his colleagues.
  I cannot claim direct responsibility for the ideas contained in the measure, but perhaps I can claim some grandparental responsibility, because the independent living fund was the precursor and the proof that such an approach to cash payments was a feasible way of meeting the needs of disabled people.
  It is worth recalling that when we proposed the independent living fund, virtually all the organisations of and for disabled people were hostile to it. The Disablement Income Group was almost alone in supporting it. Pauline Thompson, its director, showed great courage in responding to and rejecting the opposition and complaints of many other organisations. It enabled us to launch the independent living fund and make it a growing success over the years. Other organisations tended to stand aside.
  The Disablement Income Group has done a great deal to encourage the spread of third-party schemes, which play an important role. I doubt whether there are any legal problems, because I cannot think that any local authority would have launched such a scheme without taking careful legal advice from its own legal advisers, the town clerk and others. The schemes have not been challenged, so my
  386
  suspicion is that they will all turn out to be soundly legally based and could provide a pattern for provision under the Bill.
  The success of the independent living fund has undoubtedly shown that disabled people can be trusted to use the power given to them by such an approach to control their own lives. Before the independent living fund—and the practice continues in many parts of the country—disabled people had the choice between institutional care and services provided by some local authorities that said, "We shall get you out of bed at 10.30 in the morning and you have to go to bed at 4.30 in the afternoon, as that is the only way we can fit you into our pattern of provision." Disabled people do not want that. They want to be empowered to control their own lives and to make their own choices about their life style and the pattern of their activities. Cash payments have made that possible for thousands of disabled people over the years. I am delighted that the Bill will extend and develop that concept.
  By 1993, when the original scheme was replaced, some 23,000 disabled people had benefited from the work of the independent living fund. That in itself is a tribute to its success.
  In summary, inadequate statutory provision by local authorities for all those people was replaced, enabling them to make their own choices about their lives. The other important aspect of cash payments and the way in which the independent living fund, third-party schemes and the new schemes will operate is that they are between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. cheaper than the provision of sometimes inadequate services by local social services departments.
  Of course, some disabled people require not only cash to buy services for themselves, but support and guidance on how to deploy the resources with which they have been provided. I was particularly grateful to the Minister for making it clear that the Government will play a part in the provision of that guidance and support. I hope that they will stay in close touch with the Disablement Income Group, which has already produced two excellent documents on how people can purchase packages for personal care. If the Government stay in close touch with that organisation, they will not go far wrong.
  The Government produced some advice under the old scheme, and they are prepared to play their part in the new arrangements. Of course, books and pamphlets can help, but I hope that the Government, in addition to such advice and support, will be able to encourage, through local authorities, the development of local support groups of disabled people and their carers. Those groups could develop plans locally, to enable disabled people to make the best possible use of the cash help that they receive through this system, by sharing their experiences and providing advice and help to those who are contemplating accepting cash-based services rather than opting for the pattern of social services provision. They will require help in developing ideas on how to recruit care assistants, how to cope with payroll problems and on the other little detailed matters in relation to employing care assistants, which will enable them to live a full life.
  Direct payments have substantial advantages over present provision. As I said, they are cheaper to administer and cheaper for the local authority to provide. I very much hope that schemes that will be supportive of disabled people will develop throughout the voluntary sector.

  387
  I rejoice that the Bill has come before the House. I do not mind if I have to limit my rejoicing slightly because of some of the scheme's constraints, as I believe that, as it is developed, it will increasingly become a common pattern across the country.
  I should like to put three points to my hon. Friend the Minister. The first is that, where there is real local demand for the service, there ought at least to be a presumption, if not an obligation, that local authorities should have to provide schemes that are cash-based—in addition to or in replacement for the social services schemes that are currently the common pattern.
  The second point is that the payments of cash should normally be made directly to disabled people. I accept that that may not always be possible or appropriate, but I believe that the normal pattern should be that payments are made to them. I was slightly worried by the provision in clause 1(4), which

  "allows the Secretary of State to specify in regulations categories of people who may not be paid to provide a service using direct payments."
  I hope that that was not meant to prohibit a disabled person's relative from receiving cash in order to provide support to him or her. I do not know what categories the Secretary of State or the Minister has in mind, but I should be very disappointed if that prohibition were to include relatives.
  Mr. Bowis: The purpose of that provision is to preclude payment for services along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), not to preclude people receiving payments on behalf of the individual, if that is what the individual wishes.
  Sir Nicholas Scott: We shall need to look carefully at the regulations when they come out, to ensure that they cover that point.
  The last point that I should like to make is that the payments of cash to disabled people should, when calculated, provide not only for the actual cost of the provision of care, but for matters such as national insurance, statutory sick pay and insurance, which are necessary for a comprehensive and effective package.
  I wish the Bill well and congratulate the Government on introducing it. I hope that, as matters progress, the concerns that I and other hon. Members have expressed about the scheme's future can be answered.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I want, first, to thank the Minister for his clearly heartfelt words, which could not have been more felicitously chosen, about the life and passing today of Douglas Jay. For many years, Douglas was my close colleague in this House, and I kept in touch with him after he departed for another place. There are still some right hon. and hon. Members who will remember just how closely at times I worked with him. They will know how very moved I am by his death. I loved his humour and benefited much both from his learning and parliamentary skills. I mourn his passing and will ever cherish his memory.
  It is, of course, a pleasure for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in this debate, and I pay warm tribute to the depth of his concern to improve the Bill in ways that disability
  388
  organisations want to achieve. At the same time, I am delighted to see by his side on the Front Bench our good and hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), in pursuance of his abiding commitment to the cause of extending choice and enhancing the freedom and independence of disabled people.
  The intensity and extent of interest in the Bill among disability organisations is demonstrated in all the helpful briefing we have had from them. There should be a word of gratitude also today for organisations which, while they may not have lobbied the House in recent days, were very much involved in the earliest campaigning for direct payments like, for example, the Association of Disabled Professionals, who, five years ago, on 21 March 1991, met the then Secretary of State for Health to press for a nationwide scheme of direct payments. Their concern then, like mine in this debate, was to quicken the pace of progress from paternalism to partnership in addressing the problems and needs of disabled people.
  Five years ago, direct payments were being made to disabled people only by a few pioneering local authorities. The fear that they were acting illegally prevented other councils from following suit: in their areas disabled people had to rely for help with personal and domestic tasks on whoever the local authority sent and, as the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) said, at times that best suited the council. The people sent to help would only do what they had been trained to do in the way that they had been trained. Often this did not meet the real needs of the disabled person and was not, therefore, to her or his liking. But it was Hobson's choice. Either they docilely accepted what was organised for them or they were shunted into residential care.
  With direct payments the few disabled people who received them were able to employ helpers of their choice at times that suited them and in a way that they wanted. In short, direct payments helped disabled people to regain some control over their own lives. That is why the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, which has its origins in that meeting five years ago, has been so widely welcomed by disabled people. Welcome though it is, however, there are three areas in which I hope it will be improved.
  First, there is the Government's proposal initially to allow only physically disabled people below the age of 65, including those with sensory impairments, to receive direct payments. That is wrong and I hope the House will insist that people with learning difficulties should be included from the outset. Only to include people with learning difficulties if they also have a physical or sensory impairment, as the Government propose, is hardly logical and will be difficult to justify in practice when dealing with real people in their homes. To distinguish between physically and sensorily disabled people on the one hand and people with learning difficulties on the other means singling out one group for special treatment thus creating a class of favoured disabilities, which is as distasteful to most disabled people as I am sure it will prove unacceptable to this House.
  I turn now briefly to the proposed age bar. To exclude people from direct payments if they are over retirement age smacks, some might say reeks, of unfair discrimination. It presumes that chronological age is the main determinant in measuring need; but that is demonstrably untrue. Of course, the truth is that discriminating against elderly disabled

  389
  people by excluding them from direct payments is about keeping costs down. It has nothing whatever to do with logic or fairness.
  Ideally direct payments should be payable to all adults who are able and willing to manage them, with some help if necessary and without age limit. I believe that local authority staff with direct contact with individual disabled people are in the best position to decide who to include in the scheme. Under the terms of the Bill, local authorities are to be allowed to refuse direct payments to any individual providing they act responsibly and reasonably in doing so. But why not let them act responsibly and reasonably in deciding who to include?
  The second area for improvement to the Bill relates to the direct payment itself. Two issues arise here. One is that of ensuring that direct payments will in fact buy what the disabled person has been assessed as needing. Leaving aside the question of a contribution from the recipient, the direct payment should cover in full the real cost of securing the agreed service. In the case of an agency providing the service, the payment should allow the agency's staff terms of employment similar to those available to local authority staff. If the payment is used directly to employ a helper, the payment should allow the recipient to fulfil all her or his duties as a good employer.
  In assessing how much a service provided by a local authority costs, the authority should ensure that its total cost is calculated. This should include all overheads and supervisory and administrative staff costs. Otherwise the comparison between direct payments and in-house costs relating to individual clients could result in direct payments becoming a means of cheapening the cost and reducing the quality of providing essential services. It is extremely important to safeguard the disabled person against that happening. Also very important is the Government's proposal for local authorities to allow individuals to supplement whatever they receive as a direct payment from their own resources. In all such cases, however, local authorities should not be allowed to reassess what the individual can afford and then demand an increased contribution.
  As Ministers know, there is already widespread concern about the failure of some local authorities to understand their legal duties to provide services for disabled people, about which I questioned the Health Secretary on 29 February. My parliamentary question asked him
  "if he has now considered the implications to local authorities of the High Court's decision in relation to Gloucestershire county council's refusal to restore care services to over 1,000 disabled people in the county; and if he plans to issue further guidance to local authorities on the effect of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 following the High Court's decision",
  to which the Minister's reply was:
  "I have no current plans to issue further guidance on this matter."—[Official Report, 29 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 695.]
  That reply was not well received by disability organisations that have been in touch with me since last Thursday and I hope that it will be urgently reviewed by the Secretary of State. Very clearly there is need now for clear further guidance to be issued.
  The other issue relating to direct payments is that of means testing. It seems generally accepted by the Government and organisations of disabled people that it
  390
  will be essential to ensure that local authorities apply the same test of means for direct payments as they would apply for their own services. Allowing different means tests to be applied would enable a local authority to sway the decision of a client, either towards their services or towards a direct payment depending on their political proclivities. This would be manifestly wrong, but I believe it could happen unless, in addition to the guidance which the Government propose under section 7, the Bill's wording in relation to the assessment of a contribution is identical to the wording used in connection with the assessment of a contribution towards local authority services in section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, ("reasonably practical for him to pay").
  Finally, the third area for improvement of the Bill relates to who a disabled person can pay to provide the help that she or he needs. At present, the Government want to limit those that can be paid. The idea is to avoid what they describe somewhat euphemistically as creating pressure for informal care to be put on a formal contractual basis—as Baroness Cumberlege expressed it in another place on 15 January. To achieve this the Government intend to exclude all so-called relatives living in the same household.
  But I have serious worries concerning lodgers and others and the wording the Government use in referring to people in the same household. As paragraph 24 of the consultation document explained, such people are not to be paid
  "unless"
  they
  "are people who have been specifically recruited to be live-in personal assistants."
  This would preclude a person who has someone other than a close relative living in the household—for example, a lodger or friend—from arranging with that person to become her or his helper. The wording suggests that they would have to be hired as a helper and then given accommodation. This is far too restrictive. It would also rule out direct payments to people who take in lodgers whom they subsequently decide to hire as helpers. There would be nothing improper in that and in my view it should be allowed.
  In passing I want here to urge that care be taken in deciding who can be classified as a partner. Are gay and lesbian couples to be included? How will disabled people be protected from a local authority that is over-officious or intrusive in determining whether a partner is a partner properly so called? In regard to people not living in the same household, the Government intend to exclude so-called close relatives. The problem with their list is that it includes some who, in the real world, cannot really be termed close. The surviving partner of a stepson is an example. Thus I suggest that the list of "close relatives" should be re-examined and reduced.
  It might seem reasonable to exclude anyone who is already providing assistance to a disabled person and for whom extra help is sought from the local authority. But this could exclude people receiving the invalid care allowance and would not be appropriate in all cases. It also raises the issue of how the invalid care allowance will be treated in relation to direct payments, about which so far there has been an ominous silence.

  391
  To avoid the difficulty the Government describe as creating pressure for informal care to be put on a formal contractual basis, while also avoiding a hard list of excluded relatives, it might be possible to put the onus of proof on the local authority to show that the person the disabled person sought to pay would provide the requisite care informally. In my view it should be possible, without treating it as an exceptional case as the consultation document proposed, to employ a close relative who is—and will remain—in residence elsewhere. This is particularly important in relation to emergencies. The consultation document sets down in paragraph 3 that disabled people will be expected to make sensible arrangements so that they have adequate cover in an emergency, for example if one of their usual assistants is taken ill.
  What more sensible course of action could there be than to ask a relative to stand by for emergencies? The current proposals would preclude payment to the relative in these circumstances—whether living in the same household or elsewhere—and I believe this is unreasonable. The practice of employing family members not living in the same household has worked well with the independent living fund, to which the right hon. Member for Chelsea also referred, and I see no reason why it should not work as well in the case of direct payments.
  Indeed, if complications are not to arise, I see it as essential that the same rules should apply to direct payments as to ILF payments. Those then are my concerns and hopes for improvements to this Bill. To sum up, the measure is a welcome advance for disabled people but it needs improving to make the five-year wait for it seem genuinely worth while.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I welcome this day as a combination of absolution and delight—absolution as it was because I insisted on pressing my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), then Minister for Health, about direct payments during the debates on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 that she went away and discovered that the several schemes that were already in existence were illegal. The disability organisations have been extraordinarily kind to me in the long wait to re-establish what we all fondly imagined was a model which could be easily copied, and I am pleased about that. I am also delighted because this is a place where banging one's head against a brick wall is an occupational hazard and in my experience it is seldom that the wall comes off worse. I am pleased that on this occasion perseverance has paid off.
  I welcome the Bill and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has worked extremely hard behind the scenes to turn what at one point was a fairly adamant refusal into the Bill that we now have. That is very good.
  It is always fascinating to listen to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who made some kind remarks about me personally. When he represents a single interest as an Opposition spokesman, he is keen to ensure that standards of national uniformity in provision are laid down, but when speaking as a representative of Scotland he is equally anxious to allow local autonomy and discretion. Those two counter-currents sometimes get him into a little difficulty.
  392
  I believe that the Bill is excellent.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely good speech, but will he take some of the blame for the views that he attributes to me when I speak for Scotland since he served at the Scottish Office as a very distinguished civil servant for a long time?
  Mr. Rowe: It was an experience that I greatly enjoyed. It taught me a great deal about the pitfalls of devolution, and also the great benefits of being an administrator in a much smaller country than England. One at least gets to know people very much better. So I am ambivalent, too.
  I wish to echo what one or two people have said. I also wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the idea that the Government propose to limit the operation of the scheme partly because they are not quite confident yet that everyone who would be judged eligible for it would be able to manage it. The Government's anxieties are targeted on the wrong people: it is not disabled people who might not be competent at managing their affairs—the real anxiety is that there will be a wide discrepancy between those local authorities which already have considerable experience of running such schemes and those which do not.
  Arbitrarily to exclude disabled people from the operation of the Bill in order to address those discrepancies is a serious mistake. It would be much better to require local authorities to put forward a scheme which was an effective way to use the powers in the Bill. Those local authorities which already have experience would automatically be accredited instantly and those which have not would have a chance to learn from other authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) suggested, local authorities would be pressured by their local disability organisations to get themselves to the starting line as quickly as possible. I would infinitely prefer that approach to arbitrary categories of exclusion.
  It would be a rash Back Bencher and, I suspect, a rash Minister who would suggest that if you, Madam Speaker, were to encounter some disabling accident—one hopes that you will not—you would be incapable of managing your own services. Yet the implication of the Bill is that a person in that situation would be incapable. That is very dangerous.
  Mr. Bowis: We should have a special new clause for Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Rowe: The question of whether members of the family or the extended family could be paid for delivering care is interesting. My first inclination was that they should be paid. It is a ridiculous thought that one could not employ someone whom one knew well and trusted. I thought of hon. Members who frequently employ their wives or husbands as secretaries or research assistants. That works extremely satisfactorily. But then I read more widely and realised that the objections of the British Medical Association and many others were based on the risk that by making the household wholly dependent on that income, we would run the risk of institutionalising the care of the disabled person in a way that would reduce his or her freedom of action. Those objections have great force.

  393
  I would resist what in my youth were called tables of kindred and affinity and were printed in the middle pages of the prayer book. During sermons, I used to amuse myself by discovering which relatives were allowed to marry within the family circle. I do not want to see tables of kindred and affinity produced to show who can and cannot be paid for care, but the assurance that has already been given—that discretion will be used—should be generously interpreted when manifestly the right person is employed to provide care.
  A number of organisations have asked about respite care. The consultation document appeared to suggest that only four weeks' respite care a year could be provided through direct payments. If keeping people out of expensive residential care would be assisted by more generous provision of respite care, that ought to be allowed. I hope that one consequence of this highly desirable measure will be the creation a new raft of paid caring services, which will drive up standards if—and I say this carefully—those services are subject to proper scrutiny. The opportunity to train and recruit people into demanding but often satisfying work will be greatly strengthened by the Bill, but people choosing whom to employ are more vulnerable even than if they were receiving services direct from the local authority. I am in favour of registering domiciliary care services and having them subject to proper scrutiny.
  A number of us have worked hard over a long period to achieve the Bill, which is well timed and most welcome. It is gratifying to hear the arguments that we strove to make being put with such eloquence by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). He would be a welcome addition to the ranks of civil servants we shall need north of the border when we establish a Scottish Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider coming back to Scotland to help in that capacity. Even a majority of 19,600 may not be sacrosanct in the next general election. We heard an excellent speech also—as one would expect—from the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). Both he and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent have distinguished experience of the subject. As a member of the Committee of Selection, I cannot resist making the observation that both the right hon. Member for Chelsea and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent were, in different ways, making an argument for extending the scope of the Bill. When the Committee of Selection meets to appoint the Standing Committee on the Bill, I will put in a word for both of them as their contributions would be most welcome.
  Although I welcome the Bill, it is only a framework and does not create new rights. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been at pains over many years to use their experience in Parliament to establish more rights for people with disabilities. I am sure that that is the way forward, but the Bill falls short. Nevertheless, it is to be welcomed for making improved provision and it will be put to good use.
  When the Bill was published, Community Care commented that it was
  394
  "a piece of legislation so thin it is virtually transparent".
  I hope that it will be improved in Committee, when I am sure that Members will take the opportunity to press the points made in the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), which set out the main concerns. We shall want to return to those issues in Committee.
  All local authorities should consider implementing the provisions of the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Chelsea said, there is no presumption—let alone a legal right—to ensure that that will happen. However, I hope that such a high level of expectation will be built up that all local authorities will get around to providing schemes, even though one appreciates that local authorities are under financial pressure this year and will also be so next year.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West was right to comment that it is a shame that we do not have the advantage of the Government's reactions to the consultation process, to which there were 300 contributions. Those contributions, and the Government's reaction to them, would be of great value. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the time frame for access to the Government's deliberations. If the documents include some that would be of assistance to interested hon. Members—I am not talking about those marked for the Minister's eyes only—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put copies in the Library. Hon. Members could then benefit from the work of pressure groups, interested parties and other knowledgeable and experienced people.
  I have a fetish about negative and affirmative regulations. The main part of the Bill, and most of the arguments that we shall be making, centre on the contents of the regulations. Following the Jopling reforms, it is slightly harder to get a debate on the Floor of the House using the negative procedure. It is not clear to me from the Bill whether the regulations are affirmative. The regulations contain wide and general powers—not just specific regulations limiting the scope of eligibility. One clause contains an all-embracing power for general and related purposes, which always makes me suspicious. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the affirmative procedure applies so that we may have an opportunity to consider the regulations without having to table prayers.
  The Minister gave ball park figures for the number of people who will be affected by the measure—30,000 in one category and 4,000 in another. Presumably those figures relate to England and Wales.
  Mr. Bowis: Just England.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is helpful to know. That will help us to estimate the number of people who may or may not be affected. We can make some informed guesses about Scotland. The provisions for Scotland in terms of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 will have to be given special consideration in Committee.
  I emphasise the importance of effective support services. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent said that people with disabilities are, by and large, perfectly able to look after themselves and that that is right and proper. However, requiring some of them to pick their way through their liabilities and duties as employers without back-up and assistance is something else. The work of the Disablement Income Group is essential to make the Bill work properly.

  395
  Even if it cost a little bit of money in pump priming to set up the pilot schemes, to get best practice and to disseminate the results, it would be money well spent. The right hon. Member for Chelsea said—I am sure that he is right—that the Policy Studies Institute survey shows that the scheme, if operated properly, could save money in the long run, but it will take time to get there and it will take money to set it up properly.
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is on an important point. Does he agree that any money that is available, whether it is from savings made as a result of the local authority providing direct payments rather than services directly, or whether it is extra money, should be most profitably used by disability organisations rather than by local authorities?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I agree with that. I hope that we shall return to that point in substance and at length in Committee.
  I am puzzled as to why the Bill—in clause 1(2), I believe—introduces liabilities for local authorities to examine financial circumstances. It puzzles me that the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—in section 47, I believe—treated the liabilities for local authorities to examine people's financial circumstances differently from this Bill. I do not understand why we are introducing new provisions that were not deemed necessary in 1990. The provisions, which of course give discretion to local authorities, have been working reasonably well. There is an argument about charging and the difficulties that it is creating, but I am puzzled as to why there should be a difference in approach between the 1990 Act and the Bill. There might be a perfectly obvious answer—
  Mr. Bowis rose—
  Mr. Kirkwood: Perhaps one is about to come in my direction.
  Mr. Bowis: I do not know whether it is obvious, but the simple answer is that it is merely trying to put on a level playing field those who receive services and those who receive direct payments. The discretionary charge applies to both.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am nervous about that, but I do not want to pursue the point further, as we may have further opportunities to do that. I suspected that that was the answer, but we have to be careful about the way in which it works in practice.
  I return to a point that the Minister may not have picked up in my earlier intervention. I am still slightly nervous about this aspect. In Scotland, under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, there are schemes which already permit direct payments. There is still concern there—from anecdotal evidence by people who know more about the detail than I do—that some schemes might fall foul of the regulations.
  I listened carefully to the helpful intervention earlier from the Minister, who said, if I understood correctly, that nothing in the Bill will prohibit any legal schemes which currently exist. If that is also true for Scotland, I am content; if it is not, I am worried.
  Mr. Bowis: I can make the hon. Gentleman content: the schemes to which he refers—cash payments in emergencies—are not affected by the Bill.
  Mr. Kirkwood: In that case, I am happy to sit down. Before doing so, however, I congratulate the Government and hon. Members who have been fighting the good fight. It is a start. I hope that the prediction of the right hon. Member for Chelsea that this is something on which we can build will be borne out in fact.
  6.53 pm
  Sir Andrew Bowden: It was indeed sad news when the House heard that Lord Jay had died. It was my privilege to have known him in my younger days. I know that he gave great service to the House and to the nation. He will also be missed as a member of the House of Lords chess team. Invariably, when I played him, representing the Commons, I lost. He will be missed.
  We heard a steady speech, as always, from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I find it difficult to disagree with much of what he said, except on one point, on which I must correct him. I can assure him that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will have a substantial majority at the next election. If he did not, I would be very concerned about my own seat.
  Attitudes to the disabled have changed fundamentally during the 25 years that it has been my privilege to serve in the House. The Government deserve considerable credit for the progress they have made in helping to act as a catalyst to bring about those changes. The Bill is another substantial step forward in the right direction. I know that, initially, and perhaps for too long, the Government had reservations, but they have now overcome them, and we can make yet another step forward for the disabled.
  It is a fundamental right of disabled people in our country to be able to control their lives in their own way to a maximum degree, as individuals and through their recognised organisations. The House will be interested to know that, in Brighton, there is an influential group known as the Brighton Association of Tenants with Disabilities. It is a strong, effective body, led by a determined and courageous chairman, Max Vaughan. It has fought for many years for disabled people's rights, against anybody who it feels has not been helping and co-operating. I have no doubt that it will greatly welcome and recognise the strengths of the Bill, which will increase choice and increase disabled people's rights.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the Government must clarify, and quickly, the question of eligibility. It is unacceptable to the great majority of hon. Members to restrict the eligibility criteria on the grounds of age or type of disability. A high percentage of disabled people are older people. There must be no age discrimination.
  People whose disabilities begin after 65 already feel discriminated against. They are unable to obtain any benefits towards the cost of mobility. They are not able to make claims for financial support from the independent living fund. Many older people who receive community care services find that their local authorities offer less support—either in fewer services, or services to a lower

  397
  value—for those over 65 than for those under 65. These distinctions are made purely on the basis of age, and that is wrong.
  If age discrimination is not eliminated from the Bill, or if the Government do not make a very clear and positive statement before the Bill comes back to the House, I shall find it very difficult, if not impossible, to support it on Third Reading. I hope that the matter can be clarified when the Bill goes into Committee.
  I now come to two other important points. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the Government will support and help in every way to establish schemes to advise, assist and help direct payment recipients to buy services. That will be vital for the local authorities that have had no experience of operating such schemes.
  That will also be vital for a large number of individuals who will have the basic common sense and experience of life to handle their own finances but who will need detailed help. That is where local authorities will have a very important role to play. I do not ask my hon. Friend to deal with that in great detail in his winding-up speech, because I have no doubt that he will give further details of the scheme in Committee.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clarify a point relating to direct payments. Surely there is no question of such payments being considered capital or income; that would be fundamentally unfair.
  Mr. Bowis: I am happy to confirm that, but, if clarification is needed, it will be provided.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I thank my hon. Friend.
  Independent living establishes dignity and self-respect. Wherever possible, individuals must have the right to manage their own care services and organise their lives to suit their needs and preferences. I am delighted to support the Bill, and hope to be able to support it on Third Reading as well.
  7 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I, too, welcome the Bill—as, I am sure, do most disabled people.
  In 1994–95, statistics issued by Scope showed that 72 per cent. of disabled people wanted more independence, and 59 per cent. wanted more control over their everyday lives. Most local authority social services departments also welcome the Bill: most are committed to the principles of empowering users and carers, and offering them maximum flexibility and real choice in respect of the services that they receive. That view has the full support of disabled people, many of whom find dealing with social services a nightmare. That has been particularly true over the past few years, when resources have been scarce, to say the least.
  One of my constituents has cared for her severely disabled daughter for more than 30 years. Virtually everything has to be done for the disabled girl: caring for her has been more than a full-time job for her parents. The mother wrote to the social services department in April 1994:
  "Dear Mr. Brookes
  It gives me no pleasure at all to write to you about this matter.
  I remember the first meeting I went to at the Abbey Day Centre on care in the community and for the first time in Karen's life I felt like the future was looking better for carers like myself. After
  398
  reading carers magazine and hearing that families like mine will have assessments made, I decided to phone for an assessment. All I asked for was that if there was a problem here, I could ask Social Services to provide extra care for Karen from Crossroads … Since the third visit from the Social worker Crossroads said they would help me to have a week's holiday so I asked if Social Services would pay so much towards the extra care.
  I cannot understand how money appears to be available for services I do not want, but it seems so difficult for a service I do want. I would rather have 2 hours of care that I do want than 10 hours of care that I do not want."
  I only hope that the Bill will prevent the repetition of problems such as the one experienced by that frustrated mother.
  Paying disabled people money directly, so that they can purchase services themselves, is the ideal way of empowering them. In the past, many social services departments have examined ways of skirting round existing legislation—for instance, voucher or brokerage schemes. As has already been pointed out, at least 60 direct payment schemes are already working successfully in some areas. The Bill, however, will end the legal anomaly that prevents local authorities from making any payment to a third party in connection with the provision of community care.
  Although I support the discretion being given to local authorities to decide whether to offer direct payments, and the ability of people to decide whether to manage their own care, I firmly believe that the Government are making a huge error in allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations excluding whole categories of disabled people. In limiting the option of direct payments to those with physical disabilities aged between 18 and 65, the Bill itself becomes discriminatory: it discriminates against those aged 65 and over, and against those with learning difficulties.
  As a former headmaster of a school for children with special educational needs and, in particular, learning difficulties, I find it extremely distasteful that the Government appear to be discriminating against an entire section of the community, regardless of individual circumstances. People with learning difficulties should not be excluded automatically; they should be allowed to exercise the direct payment option, if they are able to do so, and should be given all the support they need.
  I also think it absurd that people who may need care in the community as much as any other group—those over 65, especially the disabled—are to be disqualified by the regulations. I conclude that the disqualification is based on the fact not that those people cannot understand or decide on their needs, but that such care would cost more money. As always, well-intentioned legislation has been ruined by the Government's failure to provide the necessary funds.
  Some schemes that are running successfully now will not be within the terms of the new regulations—for example, schemes that include people over 65 and/or people with learning difficulties. Will such schemes be allowed to continue? I was not sure of the answer earlier in the debate. I am delighted to see that the Minister is nodding, but I hope that that will be made clear in the Bill; it certainly is not clear now.
  It would be nonsense not to include such groups, especially as, under the proposed new regulations, local authorities already have discretion to award payments to those who are "able and willing". That in itself gives

  399
  enough discretion to authorities, and will ensure that all who can and want to participate will be able to do so. If the Government are not prepared to include those groups in the Bill immediately, as they should, the least they should do is agree to a review of the initial scheme once it is up and running, with the aim of adding other groups as quickly as possible.
  I am pleased to learn that individuals may receive a mix of direct payments and services. That will allow increased flexibility in the design of care packages, and may also be important in ensuring that the developing community care market is not destabilised. I fear, however, that the legislation could become a charter for unscrupulous providers. We have seen such developments in some of the private nursing homes that have been set up over the past few years. When an agency or commercial provider is used, it should be one that has been approved or accredited in some way.
  A rigid inspection service should also be introduced, either by local authorities or by the Government, to ensure that a high-quality service is provided. I have no doubt that some people will seek to exploit the new system, seeing it as a way of making easy money. The last thing we want is the exploitation of disabled people. Most people in receipt of community care have limited resources, and must be given value for money; monitoring will be necessary to ensure that that money is spent properly. Once money had been spent, it would be almost impossible to recover if it had been spent improperly. Local authorities need the power to keep an eye on things.
  I agree in principle that close relatives should not be paid to provide a service. I firmly believe that we all have family responsibilities and obligations, but regulations should allow recipients to purchase services to provide some respite for informal carers, and allow them to recompense neighbours, friends and, in some instances, relatives who provide regular and substantial assistance.
  I should like to quote a letter to Crossroads from the same lady whom I quoted earlier. It shows her frustration and difficulties in obtaining respite care for her daughter. It states:
  "Dear Ros,
  Ref. to your visit regarding assessment of Karen, I cannot go on holiday without writing this letter.
  Monday's visit was different and after Tuesday's phone call; when I had time to think about what you had said, when I said I did not want a new lady coming to visit here, you said that if I was hoping for respite care and hoping to have a weekend away for eg., then I would have to see this lady because you could not see the time when Crossroads could provide this care. I hope you realise that at St. Nicholas Church Hall recently when someone told Mr. P. Brookes that caring for someone at home was made more complicated by the system of offering care which consisted of a bit of help here eg. District Nurse, a bit there Dom. Care, a bit from ILF, a bit from Crossroads, and now you say a bit from this lady you know … The cost of care for Karen while we are on holiday is a lot of money but 4 years ago I know it was costing £600 a week for someone like Karen to live in a home for the severely disabled. Also this is the first time in her 32 years that help has been given to us so that we can have a holiday knowing Karen is being properly cared for in her own home.

  As for what you have offered, forget it, Karen has to have such personal things done to her just to keep her going, she wants continuity in her care, not anybody or everybody."
  I hope that that moving letter to Crossroads will end the frustration that people such as that lady feel in failing to obtain proper respite care.
  400
  Local authorities should be allowed the discretion to decide bona fide arrangements. They should be allowed the discretion to decide any period of temporary residential or respite care that is needed. To fix a specific number of weeks in one year is inflexible, and does not cover for the unexpected.
  My understanding of the Bill is that, if a disabled person wished to use direct payments to employ someone as a care assistant, they would have to take on all an employer's responsibilities. For example, they would have to understand the workings of tax deductions, national insurance, employer liability insurance, and sick pay and holiday pay. That is a formidable task, and could put many disabled people off the scheme.
  If my assumptions are correct, surely those people should not have those responsibilities, and a system should be devised to avoid it. If that is not possible, however, it is obvious that a huge amount of support will be needed for someone who has never had to hire or fire before. The Government should make it clear in the regulations how that support will be organised and provided.
  As I said, if there is not adequate support, many people may be put off from using the scheme. Consequently, direct payments would be likely to reach only a limited number of people, which is the last thing that we want. Over the years, the Government have produced some reasonable reforms in the special needs sector—I admit that, and have congratulated them on it. I think in particular of special educational needs.
  The Government have always failed, however, in that they have never provided the resources to ensure that those reforms were successful. What disturbs me about these proposals is that, unless adequate resources are made available for community care—clearly, they are not at present—the new system could become a cheap and easy option for some local authorities, or lead some to cut services.
  Equally, the Bill must not become a means in some sectors of passing responsibility for an underfunded, failing community care system to disabled persons. Inadequate funding could fail the system and do the opposite of what the Bill hopes to achieve. It could threaten disabled people's independence.
  As the Government will not make new resources available, that will inevitably restrict the number of people who can take advantage of the new law after it is enacted. The introduction of direct payments may further highlight the existing lack of consumer choice. I am pleased, however, to support the Bill, and I hope that, in Committee, most of the problems and difficulties that are foreseen can be ironed out in a reasonable way.
  This is a perfect opportunity for disabled persons to become independent—so that they do not have to rely on the generosity of others—and to be allowed to do what they want, when they want; so let us hope that the House gets it right.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am delighted to support this important Bill, which represents a breakthrough in care for disabled people. I congratulate all the people who, over the years, have campaigned in the House, in the other place and outside on the success

  401
  of these measures. I congratulate the Disablement Income Group and other lobby groups that have campaigned for so long, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has been campaigning for more than six years, and Lord McColl in the other place, who has been pressing for more than three years. I have supported the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) in delegations to the Department of Health to press for these measures.
  I congratulate the Minister because he has achieved a Government U-turn and overcome the ideology of the Treasury mandarins. This is an important breakthrough because, in effect, it establishes a decentralisation of the welfare state and allows local authorities to make discretionary cash payments within the constraint of an overall financial budget. We may view it as a model for ways in which the welfare state could develop.
  The person who deserves the greatest recognition for his achievement is the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). The independent living fund was the pioneering achievement and showed how disabled people could manage their care so well. That laid the foundation for the schemes in many local authorities, and for the Bill.
  The independent living fund showed how successful such schemes could be. I was amazed at the report entitled "Cashing in on Independence" produced a year or two ago by the Policy Studies Institute. It shows the extent of those benefits. It states:
  "The findings indicate that support arrangements financed by direct/indirect payments are, on average, between 30 and 40 per cent. cheaper than equivalent service based support. The average hourly unit cost of support for people receiving payments is £5.18 compared to £8.52 for service users."
  That is a massive increase in value for money. I am sorry only that the Government seem to wish to restrict benefits of that magnitude.
  Cash benefits are not the only benefits. Others include the increase in control by service users, greater reliability, flexibility and better personal relationships that develop through being able to choose and make decisions. All those are massive benefits, and we should not restrict them.
  I am surprised that the Minister seems to have given in to the Treasury mandarins in that respect. There is no purpose in having any restrictions. Let us just scrap them. Why should 65-year-olds be denied those benefits? They have had a lifetime's experience of managing their lives, so surely they can manage care packages as well as anyone. Often, mentally handicapped people need the flexibility of those services. Obviously, their carers would make the decisions for them, but they need those benefits.
  I hope that the Minister will reflect further. He has the benefit of the consultation programme. Let us hope that some revelations about that will be made before the Bill's Third Reading because it might help to make his mind up. Not many people will have written in, in response to the consultation paper, to say that they favour the restriction on 65-year-olds. I would not be surprised if there were a 100 per cent. response against that restriction. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked if the consultation responses could be placed in the Library. If the Minister did that, we could identify exactly how many felt that we should remove the restrictions.
  The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) has already said that he will reserve his position for Third Reading, and like him, I hope that, by that time,
  402
  the Government will have changed their mind. I think that everybody should benefit from those massive increases in value for money. What is to be gained in trying to stop that?
  We have said that local authorities can have discretion, so let us leave them to act as gatekeepers, not try to second-guess them. The Bill is a challenge for local authorities, and rather than putting on blanket restrictions. the Government should let local authorities use their discretion. Many authorities are running schemes already. Last week, Bolton's director of social services told me that he saw no reason for a restriction affecting people over 65 in Bolton, and I am sure that that is felt throughout the country.
  I support the Government's position on the difficult question of relatives as paid carers. In the guidance, there should be a strong presumption against using relatives as paid carers, but I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there would be discretion too. It is important that local authorities should be able to use discretion in individual cases.
  I shall mention one interesting constituency case—the difficult care case of Paul Hargreaves, who will be 28 next week, and who is severely mentally and physically handicapped. His care is managed by his 70-year-old mother. In her own words, she is "worn out" by caring for him. Indeed, it is extraordinary that our society relies upon a 70-year-old woman to manage the care of such a severely handicapped young man.
  Paul's mother, Norah, had an excellent carer arranged through the independent living fund. She became fond of him, and decided that it would be mutually advantageous if they married. Unfortunately, if they had done so, the independent living fund would immediately have stopped all the payments. That example demonstrates why discretion is needed.
  Paul's mother receives £325 a week from the independent living fund, and has a team of three carers who provide nearly 100 hours a week, but no care is provided for Paul during the night. You can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how difficult it is for a 70-year-old lady to try to cope with her 28-year-old severely handicapped son on her own, without outside help, during the night.
  I hope that the Bill will enable the local authority to provide an extra financial care package, so that Paul's mother can buy in care to help during the night as well. She has said how much she appreciates being able to manage the care herself. She much prefers the flexibility of the cash arrangement that she now has, but she still needs to be able to buy rather more care.
  I do not wish to go through all the other items in the consultation paper; no doubt they will come up in Committee. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that he might have some influence on the Committee of Selection, so he might like to include me, if he wants another name to put forward for the Committee.
  I do not see why there should be a four-week restriction on respite care. Again, local authorities can be left to make up their minds on such matters. As for support services, local authorities should be encouraged to provide them, and voluntary organisations could also do so.
  Indeed, I see no reason why local authorities which provide a support service in their own areas should not offer the service outside their areas too. If a local authority

  403
  in one area could not offer a support service, or if an adjacent authority offered an especially good service, it should be easy for the carer or the recipient of the care to organise care through the support service in that neighbouring authority. Such arrangements need not be limited to one's own local authority. Support services can be provided equally well by outside agencies, and there could be a degree of competition.
  As for regulation, in Bolton there is now a voluntary regulation scheme. I would be inclined to leave that in place, but obviously if there were substantiated fears that abuses were taking place, we would have to consider statutory regulation. However, care units are often very small, and we should not try to impose too much regulation on them.
  In conclusion, I call upon the Government to scrap all the eligibility rules. Let us forget all about them, so we do not have to worry about what is tucked away in the regulations concerning 65-year-olds, and mentally handicapped people, even if it can be demonstrated that they can manage.
  I beg the Minister to forget the mandarins behind him and simply to listen to the people. They will tell him clearly enough. Obviously, in some quarters of the Government there has been a grudging acceptance of what they say. On the question of mandatory requirements, I would give local authorities three years, or at the most five, to get to grips with the voluntary and discretionary arrangements now being offered, and then call upon them to operate direct payments on a mandatory basis.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: Like everyone else, I start by welcoming the Bill, but I drag hon. Members back a little way by reminding them that we are now passing a law to allow people to do what they have been doing for years anyway. We are talking about direct payments, but they first came into operation in 1981. The first centre for independent living was set up in 1983, and the independent living fund in 1988.
  Schemes have been set up all over the country. The councils in Wiltshire, Derbyshire, Avon, Leicestershire, Hampshire and Merton all set up schemes. I am pleased that those councils now support the idea of direct payments, but we must remember that such payments have already been working for a long time.
  I have some concerns about the Bill, but in view of the time, and of the fact that some of my hon. Friends want to speak, I shall stick to just a few points. First, I know that the Bill will extend choice for people with disabilities, but I want to extend that choice to everyone with disabilities, not just to a few people in certain categories. Otherwise, we shall be legislating to bring about more discrimination.
  The reason for the eligibility argument has much to do with the success of existing direct payment schemes and of the independent living fund itself. The initial estimate was that demand for the fund would not exceed 1,250 people overall, but by 1993 more than 21,000 people were taking advantage of the scheme. The arguments against people over 65 and people with learning disabilities are really the Government saying, "We do not dare open the floodgates." Such an argument causes me, as well as disability organisations and people with disabilities, much concern.
  404
  I understand that, nationally, 30 per cent. of all current schemes are designed for people over 65. My local authority, Nottinghamshire, now has 128 schemes in which indirect payments are made, and 78 of them are for people over 65, so more than 50 per cent. of the schemes that operate direct payments through the route of third parties are being run for the benefit of people over 65.
  I want those schemes to be not only protected but extended. The people involved with the schemes are happy with them. The social services departments and the local authorities as a whole are happy, and, as is more important, the people with disabilities who receive the services are happy too. Those schemes need to be extended. However, I must admit that it seems strange to see local authorities acting like drug barons or gangsters, and laundering their money through a third person to get it to the person who wants to spend it. To me that seems wrong.
  There is plenty of discrimination against people over 65 already—for instance, in terms of social security benefits. I recognise the historical reasons for that, but I hope that, over time, it will be phased out. I do not want us to introduce legislation that causes more discrimination.
  I am also concerned that people who have learning disabilities will not be allowed to take part in any scheme. According to the independent living fund, 18 per cent. of its customers are people who have learning disabilities. I have managed to establish that in my authority there are at least six schemes in which people with learning disabilities take part. At the moment, those people make decisions about what council services they want, and I cannot see any reason why they cannot make decisions about direct payments.
  In Nottinghamshire, 19 people who are infected with HIV are on schemes. In many respects, direct payments would be ideal for them because the sort of service that they want—some befriending, and a little social care—does not fit easily into the usual mode of local government provision.
  All ILF recipients found that the ability to control their personal assistance, and therefore their lives, improved their quality of life. Many of them also said that they would have liked more practical support, especially in the early stages of independent living. It is a shame that the ILF money was not ring-fenced for independent living when it was transferred to local government because it has drifted into councils' general budgets and disappeared. We ought to try to pluck some of that money back out and persuade local authorities to use it to kick-start local organisations into setting up personal assistance support schemes.
  Employing people is difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, it involves many tasks such as drawing up job descriptions, advertising, short-listing, interviewing, recruiting, drawing up contracts of employment, sorting out tax and national insurance, setting rates of pay and considering insurance and health and safety. When I became a Member of Parliament, it was a nightmare being an employer for the first time in my life. We therefore need to ensure that people who become employers have the proper support, and not only when someone is first taken on. People will need on-going support because new problems will arise as the disabled user identifies new needs.

  405
  It is almost certain that disputes and tension will arise between the employer and the employee, as I suspect anybody who has ever been an employer knows. It is the nature of the relationship. That is fine when one is employing somebody to fix a car, and it is probably okay when one is employing somebody as a secretary, but when the person being employed is relied on to get his employer out of bed in the morning or to dress or feed him, it is understandable that the employer will feel vulnerable without support.
  There are already many schemes to provide such support, but, unfortunately, they vary. There are reasons for the variety: local authorities interpret the law differently, different local structures and priorities affect the way in which services operate, the degree to which an active disability or voluntary organisation operates and what relationship it has with the local authority differs, and geographical location is a factor. There are generally more personal assistance support schemes in urban areas and more in the south of the country than the north.
  It is important to differentiate, for anybody who might be getting confused, between a personal assistance support scheme and a third-party arrangement. The third-party arrangement acted only as a go-between; a means of laundering the money. It usually took the form of a voluntary organisation, which paid the money directly to the disabled person. No support or other service was provided, apart from the administration of the payment. The personal assistance scheme, in contrast, should provide information, advice and support from the moment that somebody is considering direct payments, and it should continue—sometimes indefinitely.
  The Bill might make the need for third-party arrangements unnecessary, but I believe, and I think that people with disabilities know, that if the legislation is to work effectively, personal assistance support schemes are essential. Without such support schemes, we would deny the opportunity of direct payments to the majority of people who would like to take advantage of them.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I give the Bill a cautious welcome, because although it reflects a welcome move towards independent living, such a move is not reflected in other elements of Government community care policy. On many occasions, the Minister has heard me express my worry about the way in which in the 1980s the Government spent a huge amount of money expanding institutional care at the expense of domiciliary care. They spent £10 billion on resurrecting institutional care for disabled and elderly people, yet such care was on its way out in the late 1970s.
  One can speculate on what might have been achieved with just a small portion of that £10 billion of income support and supplementary benefit payments paid to people in care homes if it had been spent on schemes promoting the idea of independent living. I reinforce the point that the community care changes did not enhance independent living as they ought to have done, for the simple reason that the Government were so involved with the ideology of the privatisation of care and with encouraging the independent sector that they forgot that the independent sector was primarily concerned with
  406
  institutional care. There has therefore been an in-built incentive to expand institutional care, when the real thrust of community care changes should have been about enhancing independent living.
  Nevertheless, I am happy to join hon. Members in commending the Bill, especially the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was in Committee in 1990 when he moved his amendment. I checked today to see whether I opposed it—unfortunately, I did not. I have been caught out previously for thinking several years later, "Perhaps that person was right." I think that the hon. Gentleman knows, however, that I had certain reservations about the amendment. That is because there are certain similarities between what is proposed in the Bill—and what was proposed in his amendment—and the proposed education voucher scheme. It has been a right-wing demand for many years that people should be able to purchase vouchers for services outside the public sector.
  As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent knows, I was worried that, alongside the care changes that we were discussing—the introduction of an internal market in the health service—the measure could have been interpreted as yet another push towards the privatisation of welfare provision. I think that he understands that. I probably know him better now as being one of the more sane Conservative Members with whom I have had to deal. I respect the fact that he has persistently pursued the issue, and he deserves some credit for the fact that we are discussing the Bill tonight.
  I was converted to the cause not by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent but by a woman whom I met here who was active—I believe that she still is—in the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People. I knew that she was called Rachel, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) reminded me that she was called Rachel Hurst—a formidable campaigner on behalf of people with disabilities. She asked me—I shall not use her exact words for reasons of politeness—whether I could see to my own personal bodily functions. I answered that I had been able to manage that for some years. Her point was: should she not have the right to determine personally who administered such intimate tasks in her case because, as a disabled person, she was reliant on others to perform tasks concerning bodily functions? I certainly could not argue that she did not have that right. Inherent in what we are debating today is the right of people such as Rachel Hurst to take decisions that any one of us would want to take ourselves in similar circumstances. I would like to place on record my personal thanks to that woman for converting me to the cause all those years ago.
  Since then, I have had opportunities—certainly during my time as an Opposition Front Bencher—to visit various parts of the country and see a range of schemes offered by independent living. Some, I suspect, might have been deemed illegal had people looked at them in detail, because local authorities made payments in spite of the Government's advice. I do not think that the Government—even this Government—would have objected had they looked at what was achieved by those payments and the way in which they were facilitating in so many people's lives an independence that would not otherwise have existed.

  407
  I pay tribute also to the chairman of the British Association of Social Workers, David Brandon, whom some hon. Members know. Along with a small number of people, he has been at the forefront of the campaign for service brokerage, a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and others referred. Service brokerage is the concept whereby a broker acts on behalf of a person wanting to secure services, when that person may not have the capacity to act individually because of learning difficulties and may not have a carer acting on his behalf.
  David Brandon introduced me to a lady—whose name I do not remember—who told me that she was the mother of a young woman with Down's syndrome. That young woman spent most of her childhood, adolescence and early adult life in a long-stay mental handicap hospital. Her mother said that, had even a portion of the public resources tied up in her daughter's care at that hospital been made available to secure services within the community, her daughter could have had independent living. That point was well made, and we must encompass within the legislation cases such as that young woman. It is totally wrong to exclude people with Down's syndrome or learning difficulties from the measure, as they should have equal rights to independent living. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that.
  When I was appointed to the Opposition Front Bench in 1993, the first document for which I was responsible in relation to the Labour party's policy on community care included a commitment for us to look at the idea of service brokerage and direct payments. By then, I was fully committed to the cause, and I listened to people who had seen exactly what that offered. I am happy that the Bill paves the way towards such a system.
  I wish to deal briefly with the detail of the Bill. Like other hon. Members, I have certain reservations about one or two aspects, the first of which is the question of eligibility. We cannot sustain discrimination against other groups of disabled people—such as people with learning difficulties and people with a variety of different problems—in the legislation. The principle must apply to people other than those with purely physical disabilities, and most people in the Chamber would accept that.
  In an intervention on the Minister, I said that people did not fall into nice and neat categories in relation to disability. Some people, sadly, have elements of mental disability, learning difficulties, mental health problems and occasionally mental illness alongside physical disabilities. We cannot therefore simply categorise, as the Government appear to be attempting. I accept that the consultation document is still being studied, and I hope that the Minister will genuinely reflect on this point in Committee. He is a fair man, and he understands that that is a reasonable point of concern.
  In looking at people with learning difficulties, for example, the Committee can also ask questions about the issues of advocacy and brokerage where people may not be able to handle the employment of a carer. Those issues must be examined. I do not like the word "brokerage", but the principle of someone acting for a person] in receipt of services should be looked at in Committee. That ties in with a point raised by several hon. Members about enabling people to be good employers. I recall that when I floated the idea of direct payments in our policy document, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,
  408
  Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said to me—and he could say this—that not all disabled people are particularly nice. I understood his point. Sometimes a person employed by a disabled person may not have a good deal, and I hope that the Minister will listen to suggestions in Committee on that point.
  It is wrong to exclude local authority services from the measure, and I do not think that anyone has referred to that in the debate. The Government do not allow local authorities to sell services, but I can think of situations where a positive choice of carer would be someone in the employment of a local authority. It would be wrong for a person who has the ability to obtain direct payments to be excluded from employing the person chosen simply because that person was employed by a local authority. I have perhaps misunderstood the measure, and the Minister may wish to comment, but the Bill excludes the purchase of services from those employed by a local authority, and that needs to be looked at in more detail.
  I would also welcome the Minister's thoughts on whether discretionary power is appropriate, a subject to which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) and others referred. The Audit Commission has produced a report that states that the delivery of community care services across the country is inconsistent in a variety of ways. In my area of West Yorkshire, certain authorities offer certain services, but others do not. Certain authorities charge for some provisions, but others do not. Sometimes, the charges are markedly different in different areas. The discretionary provision in the Bill will add to the inconsistencies, and that is not in the interests of people in receipt of services.
  In concluding my detailed comments on the Bill, I wish to encourage the Minister to look at the registration and inspection of available care. The measure will increase the use of individuals providing services in the independent sector. The Minister well knows that there is no provision for the registration or inspection of domiciliary care. I introduced the Registration of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill three years ago, and the Minister's predecessor—the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—told me that the Government accepted the principle of registration and inspection for domiciliary care, but were conducting a review. That review has not been completed, three years later. It would be irresponsible of the House to pass the Bill without including within it proper safeguards to ensure that available care is inspected, registered and of good quality. The provisions will relate to the vulnerable and the isolated, many of whom are wide open to exploitation unless there is proper registration and inspection.
  I give the Bill a cautious welcome. I hope that it reflects a change of direction in Government policy towards independent living. If that is so, I hope that there will be other related policy initiatives. The current organisational framework for the delivery of community care is outdated. It reflects a time when there were clear divisions between social care and nursing care. Those divisions no longer exist, yet we still have an organisational framework that reflects that rigid split. That is nonsensical.
  There is another bee in my bonnet. I hope that we are about to move towards much more radical alternatives to institutional care along the lines that have been adopted in the Netherlands and in Denmark, where steps have been

  409
  taken to outlaw care homes. It seems demeaning to people to end up in warehousing facilities within institutions. That is an outdated concept.
  Let us use the Bill to push ourselves forward to a time when we can say, "Yes, you need specific care, and you can have that care in your own home. If it is not possible to receive it in your home, you will be able to receive it within a homely environment, not an institution." I hope that the Bill marks a new approach. I welcome it with the reservations that I have mentioned. I hope also that the Minister has listened to the concerns that others and I have expressed.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The case for direct payments is supported by moral, practical and financial arguments, all of which point in the same direction. The moral argument, however, is the most important. The case for direct payments is most importantly expressed in terms of human dignity, personal freedom and civil rights.
  Some hon. Members may have read the study published by Dr. Jenny Morris, entitled "Community Care or Independent Living?", in which in citing one of her case studies, she sets out the view of Maria, who talked to her about direct payments. She said:
  "It means I can get up in the morning when I want to, go to bed in the evening when I want to, go out when I want to and lead the kind of life that I want to … to not be reliant on my family and friends … to keep all that separate (so that) to them I'm me rather than someone who needs help."
  There is an ambiguity in the term "care". We like to associate care with cherishing and loving people, and through that giving them the best support that we can. However, care has perhaps too often meant, in practical terms, something that is more akin to being taken care of and to being dealt with as a problem case.
  Another of Jenny Morris's interviewees used the word "custodial" to describe the care that she had received. Too often, care has been somewhat too akin to institutionalisation within the community. It is not so with independent living. But if that is made possible through direct payments, services can be fitted to the needs of the individual disabled person rather than his or her needs being accommodated to the needs of the social services authority.
  Direct payments are good for the disabled. With the best will in the world, social workers are unable to design packages of care that are as sensitive, flexible and precisely tailored to the needs of individual disabled persons as those that disabled people are able to create for themselves. Inevitably, social workers must juggle with the needs of a range of clients. They must work within the rigidities of bureaucratic life. I make no criticism of them for that. With direct payments, however, all concerned are released from such limitations.
  Direct payments make it possible for the demands on families to be eased and for the stresses and burdens to be lightened. They are good for local authorities too, because they enable authorities to use the expensive time of skilled, professional staff to do the jobs that only they can do. It is absurd to have highly trained and qualified staff organising the lives of intelligent people who can do that perfectly well for themselves.
  410
  The financial argument reinforces the moral and practical ones. As the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) said, experience tells us that the cost of providing care that is organised by the disabled person personally with direct payments is about 30 to 40 per cent. less than the cost of providing local authority services, because administration overheads are avoided.
  That is a great recommendation in itself for direct payments. I hope, however, that the Government will not be tempted to use that factor as an excuse for applying a further squeeze on the resources that are made available to social services departments.
  It is emphasised in the 18th paragraph of the consultation document that a local authority shall not arbitrarily decide to make payments that are inadequate. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. After all, year after year the Treasury makes arbitrary decisions that lead to the making of inadequate payments, allowing only inadequate resources to be made available to social services departments. If local authorities are admonished by the Government and told not to behave in that way, I hope that the Government will take that lesson to heart themselves. It is an experience that we speak about with strong feeling in Warwickshire, where many of my constituents have recently experienced drastic increases in charges because of the inadequacy of the resources that are available for social services.
  The Bill has been a long time coming, but I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelsea, who over a long period wanted policy to develop in the direction set in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible, of course, for the introduction of the independent living fund in 1988, which was a giant step towards making direct payments available to a wider range of disabled people. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on his determination to pursue such a policy through a private Member's Bill. I know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), has for a long time been thoroughly sympathetic to the objective. I am sure that he is pleased to have been able to carry the day within the Department.
  Perhaps it was implicit in the tone in which the Minister spoke earlier that he accepts that the Bill is somewhat restrictive. I believe that it is too restrictive. The consultation document tells us that direct payments are a "new and untested development". That is not so. About 60 local authorities are implementing direct payment schemes through third-party agencies. It is a few years since the directors of social services unanimously resolved that they would like to see legislation introduced to empower social services departments to make direct payments.
  It is a shame, therefore, that people with learning difficulties, as it is proposed, should be excluded from the new freedom. That seems peculiarly unnecessary, given the experience of the independent living fund. After all, 18 per cent. of the ILF's cliehts are people with learning difficulties. They manage very well, provided that they have the advocacy, assistance and support services that the Government themselves envisage. If people with learning difficulties are to be excluded, will people with a history of mental illness be similarly excluded? I ask the Minister to comment on that now or later.
  I share the regret that was expressed by several hon. Members, that people over 65 are to be excluded, at least initially. Some 37 per cent. of the beneficiaries of the

  411
  original independent living fund were people over the age of 65. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has pointed out that a high proportion of people who are visually impaired are over the age of 65. The blind and the partially sighted will feel that the existing inadequacies of community care are certain to be reinforced by this feature of the new policy. People over 65 are as likely to be fully capable of organising and managing their own budgets for personal care as are people under 25.
  There is an irony in the consultation document. Section L states:
  "suitability for direct payments should be considered in a non-discriminatory manner for all eligible people requesting them."
  However, section B sets out the Government's proposals for discrimination—the exclusion of people with learning difficulties and people over the age of 65. Age Concern has termed that "blatant age discrimination". If the Government consider that Age Concern is biased, perhaps they will heed the Law Commission, which recommended:
  "There should be a presumption against lack of capacity".
  The Government's timidity is misplaced. There is a great deal of experience around. I hope that they will reflect carefully on the injustice and the dashing of hopes that their policy, as they at present intend it, will cause.
  The Government want to give local authorities discretion as to whether they should run direct payment schemes at all. The very existence of that discretion will result in discrimination, which I regret. If the Government are to give local authorities such discretion, surely they do not need to double-bank by taking a discretion unto themselves as well, through the regulation-making power. Surely we do not want to pursue a discriminatory policy. The creation of a double discrimination, through central Government regulations and the scope that will be provided for local authorities to restrict their schemes, is deeply regrettable.
  I hope that when the Government have considered the responses to the consultation, including this debate, they will, after all, be willing to espouse option (f) in the consultation paper:
  "All adults who are able and willing to manage direct payments (with help if necessary), with no age limit"
  should be eligible to be included in the schemes.
  If the Government should feel unable to go that far, it is essential that they make it clear, formally and explicitly, that local authorities should not unreasonably refuse to operate direct payment schemes where there is demand for them. Where local authorities operate them, it should also be insisted that they do so according to clearly expressed criteria, consistently, not capriciously, applied. Disabled people need to know where they stand.
  Local authorities would welcome guidelines from the Government. While we want experimentation and local innovation, it is essential that minimum national standards should be stipulated. Pauline Thompson—who has been rightly praised by the right hon. Member for Chelsea and who has done so much wonderful work in this field, both as a trustee of the original independent living fund and as director of the Disablement Income Group—has called for a national code of good practice. I hope that the Government will be willing to respond positively to that. I commend the DIG for the handbook that it has produced in timely fashion, entitled, "Facilitating and Supporting
  412
  Independent Living". I also appreciate the support of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, for the guidance that it has produced to support independent living schemes.
  It goes almost without saying, yet needs to be said, that local authorities must have adequate funding. It is their duty to fund the needs that they assess, but it has been a duty too often honoured in the breach. They need to supply the resources to enable disabled people to be employers—and good employers. The costs that need to be met must include the costs of recruitment, PAYE, national insurance, sick pay, holiday pay, insurance costs such as employer's liability insurance, and, in certain instances, redundancy costs. Many people will need to pay the fees of domiciliary care agencies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said that we need to consider the status of domiciliary care agencies carefully. For one thing, the VAT position is anomalous. I understand that there is exemption from VAT where an element of medically qualified supervision is associated with a domiciliary care agency, but not otherwise. All agencies should be exempted from VAT, provided that they are registered in a national scheme, such as that proposed by my hon. Friend, and subject to proper inspection.
  Among the other costs that will need to be supported by local authorities are those of training, advice and advocacy. Local authorities will do well to give their support to user-led voluntary organisations, which will be especially cost-effective, because they have crucial insight into the needs of disabled people. They make it possible for disabled people to share experience and expertise, and to pool overheads such as payroll costs.
  I hope that local authorities will give support at a suitably early stage. Paragraph 6 of the consultation document states:
  "The Bill starts from the point where, following an assessment".
  If we start to provide support only following an assessment, it will be too late. From the moment an assessment is contemplated, the question whether it would be appropriate for a disabled person to use direct payments should be under active consideration. I should not need to stress, but it may be worth so doing, that disabled people must be fully involved in the assessment of need, because nobody understands their needs better than they do.
  I welcome the Government's proposal to permit direct payments to be used to pay for the costs of aids and adaptations. That is an encouraging flexibility, but disabled people need expert advice on that especially. It can involve much bafflement and the waste of a great deal of money. In everyone's interest, it is important that competent, expert advice should be available to disabled people locally. I ask the Minister to assure the House that the provision will not restrict the existing entitlement to aids and adaptations for which there is no charge.
  I was puzzled that the consultation document proposes that direct payments should be usable for a maximum of only four weeks' respite care in a 12-month period. I do not understand the basis for that arbitrary figure. I think that judgments should be made case by case, as the amount of respite that may be needed will vary greatly between households. Respite care is an excellent investment: it enables people to remain in their own

  413
  homes or allows carers to continue to provide care for longer periods. That is highly desirable in itself, as well as cost-effective.
  I hope that the Government will not give with one hand and take away with the other when it comes to charging. The charging regime across the country is riddled with inconsistencies and inequities. We must have some national guidance in order to establish a more acceptable pattern and achieve greater consistency and fairness in that field. I note that the Government intend to dock direct payments by removing charges before the payments reach disabled people. I believe that that is discriminatory and I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision. Why should the Government take from disabled people the resources that enable them to meet community care charges, rather than allowing them to act for themselves, as others do? In any case, disabled people should have the power to negotiate the appropriate level of charging. They may need to hold a valid discussion with social services authorities on the subject.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned the restrictions that are imposed on members of a disabled person's family who may qualify for payment through a direct payment scheme. It is impossible, as well as undesirable, for the state to shoulder responsibility for the vast effort that goes into informal care. There are some 6 million carers in our society and the state should not intrude upon care that is willingly and lovingly given by relatives and friends. However, we take too much for granted that extensive devotion and care.
  Very tight restrictions govern the invalid care allowance, and £32.25 per week is a meagre allocation. While the Government are considering policy in this field, I hope that they will examine support for carers. The principle that the state should, in appropriate circumstances, subsidise family members who care for a disabled person is already established through the existence of the invalid carers allowance.
  The list of exclusions in the consultation document as to family members' eligibility to receive payment is strangely arbitrary—for example, a niece or a cousin is not precluded. The guidelines are too rigid—although the Government acknowledge that flexibility may be needed in rural areas, such as my constituency, where it is not easy to find people outside families who are available and capable of assuming a caring role. It would be very unfortunate to preclude payments to family members in areas such as south Warwickshire. I hope that the Government's intentions in that area will be interpreted much more generously.
  The Government do not need to fear that there will be an enormous explosion in the amount that is spent supporting family members who are also carers. Many disabled people would love to be less dependent and to feel less of a burden upon their families. They often wish not to employ family members but, where they do, we must recognise that that can be extremely cost-effective.
  The Government are proposing two different sets of rules. The consultation document sets out the limitations on the employment of family members under direct payment schemes. However, there is a rather more generous system with the independent living fund. I suggest that it would be sensible to have common
  414
  criteria for both schemes—not least because a not inconsiderable number of disabled people will receive funding from both sources. I hope that, in making a cost-benefit analysis of their proposals, the Government will recognise that, by supporting family carers, they may give disabled people the opportunity to work and to contribute to the economy.
  That leads me to the question of means testing. I am sorry that the Government intend to require local authorities to provide direct payments on a means-tested basis. We have seen a huge extension of means testing in the welfare state, with many associated difficulties, which were described in the debate yesterday. I fear that, for people who have very high care costs because of severe disablement, but who are capable of joining the labour force and contributing to the economy, means testing could be the pressure that tips them out of the labour market. They may feel that the game is not worth the candle: that they cannot afford to go on earning if they will lose the benefit that allows them to meet the high costs of personal care.
  I offer those points in a constructive spirit. I have no desire to crab the Bill, which I welcome very much. I regret that the Government took so long to reconcile themselves to the desirability of direct payments, but I hope that in politics there will always be welcome for the sinner who has repented—even unto crossing the Floor. I hope that the consultation process will prove to be genuine and that the Government will consider carefully, sympathetically and constructively the responses to it. I hope also that, in Committee, the Government will improve their proposed eligibility conditions, move towards a satisfactory national definition of standards and commit themselves to providing funding on an appropriate scale. The Government have accepted the principle of direct payments: it is now important that they implement that principle generously.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this well-informed debate. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the interest that they have shown in the direct payment scheme and I congratulate them on their commitment to it. I refer specifically to the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who have obviously faced an uphill task in persuading their colleagues that that important measure should be enshrined in legislation.
  I pay tribute also to the progressive contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who looked beyond the Bill at how to address the future needs of disabled people. My rugby league team recently beat my hon. Friend's team, so I must ensure that I build up my stock and increase my credibility with him over time.
  This is a small Bill, but it has considerable potential. I recognise the reasonable manner in which the Minister presented the Bill on Second Reading. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the Opposition recognise that the Bill has shortcomings and is limited in its scope and application. I know that in Committee the Minister will listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members, disability groups and local authorities who want to contribute to the success of the direct payment scheme.

  415
  There should be a greater sense of outrage in relation to how disabled people are treated in this country. More Members of Parliament should be present at debates such as this to ensure that disabled people's rights—basic civil rights—are recognised. I am also concerned about the length of time it takes to get things done for disabled people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said, these schemes exist and work, but we have had to wait a long time for this legislation to come forward and it is still discretionary. Local authorities will pursue the route that has been outlined because it is the proper thing to do and they will base their services on local need, which they are well versed in meeting.
  The Government are always over-cautious, defensive and wrong in their attitudes and actions in relation to disability rights. There have been some shameful incidents—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) proposed a private Member's Bill which provided for positive and clear action for people with disabilities, but the Government watered it down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said, there are 6 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. We are approaching an election and those people will not forget how the Government treated that private Member's Bill.
  People with disabilities are no longer prepared to fight in isolation or in separate groups: they now work together—they will no longer be divided and ruled, as they were in the past. A strong coalition works with disabled people in Bradford. I pay tribute to the disabled people who have travelled here to the various lobbies to ensure that their voice is heard. I also pay tribute to groups that work with people with disabilities. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the Disablement Income Group and its excellent publication outlining its policy in relation to the Bill.
  That group helped the Government to establish the independent living fund. As hon. Members have said, the fund proved conclusively that we are able to empower disabled people to develop their choices and arrangements. By 1993 the fund was making regular cash payments to more than 21,000 people and had an annual budget of £97 million, but that level of spending was going to cause a great deal of concern—and I note that the Chancellor has left the Chamber. That fund showed how disabled people could be empowered to control their lives in a way that would otherwise not have been possible.
  Local authorities were looking to be creative in providing cash payments to people, but the law was ambiguous. Legal advice indicated that cash payments were permissible under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, while others were forbidden by the National Assistance Act 1948—there was a great deal of confusion. Lobbying during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Kent referred, ruled those payments to be illegal. It did not help at all. There was understandable frustration and anger because people's problems were not being fixed. Labour Members have said that disabled people want care when they want it and in a way that affects their lives—they need it to be tailored.
  All hon. Members agree that direct payments can achieve increased empowerment and improve the quality of life of disabled people. However, there can be problems
  416
  in the recruitment, selection and suitability of the personal assistants to he employed. There need to be strong support mechanisms for efficient and effective use of the payments. Good-quality and appropriate advice is essential in employment and related matters. We must ensure that support mechanisms are in place. I refer to the meaning of "independent living" as defined by disabled people at a symposium in Finland:
  "Independent living is a process of consciousness raising and empowerment. This process enables disabled persons of all ages and with all types of disabilities to achieve equalisation of opportunities and full participation in all aspects of society. Disabled people must be in control of this process. Meaningful choices must be available in order to exercise control."
  That fundamental definition embodies the philosophy that we must adopt. We can no longer say that we want to do things for or to disabled people—they must have the right to choose and to determine, where possible, what can be done with them as opposed to for them or to them.
  The Bill gives local authorities discretionary powers to make payments, but there is a concern about the relationship between direct payment and the existing local authority provision. There are also cuts in the local authority budgets—my local authority in Bradford has had successive cuts year after year because of the failure of central Government. This must be looked at when we examine the detail of direct payment as opposed to the provision of the wider service.
  The use of the special transitional grant also needs to be examined and a suitable balance must be reached. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will look at the problems that have been raised—he has said that he will do so following the consultation—about discrimination in disabilities. People with disabilities have enough problems without there being discrimination in relation to each disability. Ministers need to make up their minds to support the broad spectrum of disabilities. I believe that in Committee we shall iron out many of the problems contained in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will look at the arguments that have been put to him by hon. Members, by local authorities and by disabled groups.
  Experienced local authorities can make assessments and they are in a good position to ensure that the test is adequately applied—that the person who is receiving the direct payment can manage it appropriately. I hope that the Minister will take into account the argument about relaxing the exclusions. The Bill appears to be too restrictive in relation to the employment of family members. I understand the proximity argument, but there is potential to look at a wider remit and there should be flexibility in relation to special needs and special circumstances. Experienced local authorities have the credibility and the compassion to deliver the choice of direct payment or the provision of service, whichever is most suitable.
  Local authorities must be adequately funded, and this issue cannot be looked at in isolation—we have to look at all the services that local authorities may provide. My local authority is currently having difficulty because it has to increase its charges for social services, much to the annoyance of those who receive them. With the passage of this Bill, there will be an opportunity to soften some of the blows in relation to price increases when we look at tailoring the direct payment.
  The Bill is a step in the right direction. We have been congratulating each other on getting the Bill to this stage, but the battle is not over. We must ensure that people with

  417
  disabilities are treated in a proper manner, that they are able to live their lives to the fullest extent and that they have a quality of life that takes them down the employment route with the fullest support from society.
  In Bradford an opportunities for life fund has been established for young people with disabilities. It encourages employers to take on people with disabilities and provides supportive mechanisms. It makes a difference to people's lives. I believe that the Bill is a step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The Bill has an enticing trailer in its explanatory and financial memorandum. Like all trailers, it picks up the best bits and puts a spin on them in an attempt to make people watch the film. Just as films do not always live up to their trailers, the Bill is disappointing in that it does not live up to the explanatory and financial memorandum, the first paragraph of which states:
  "The purpose of the Bill is to enable local authorities to make payments to people to enable them to purchase for themselves community care services which they have been assessed by a local authority as needing."
  It sets out the scope of the Bill, which has the support of the House.
  Hon. Members have covered the Bill in considerable detail and pressed the Minister on various issues. Even the Minister seemed unsure as to whether the regulations would accommodate their proposals. The pressure has been in one direction, so why is there a problem? The problem is that the Bill is an enabling measure. Enabling measures always worry me. I was on the Standing Committee on the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, which was also an enabling measure to which regulations have since been attached. The legislation was inadequate because it was always envisaged that regulations would have to be added.
  When I speak strongly against enabling measures, I generally point out that Adolf Hitler liked them and that they are advocated by the Militant tendency. I recognise that the Bill does not belong in that category as it is a positive measure which breaks down barriers and opens up possibilities. Even if we have a weak version of the Bill and weak regulations are attached to it, it will represent an advance and we may be able to build on it in future. However, the more concessions we gain, the easier it will be to support the measure on Third Reading instead of regurgitating the concerns which have been expressed today and will be raised in Committee.
  The enabling aspects of the Bill require clarification. To whom does it apply? We have been told that 30,000 households may be eligible for assistance under the Bill. Clause 1(1) goes some way towards defining who should be included. Unfortunately, subsection (4) provides for the exclusion of certain categories, such as those over 65, so even the definition of those who are covered by the Bill needs clarification.
  The definition in the Bill is taken from section 47(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 whereby a local authority can make an assessment of someone if
  "it appears to a local authority that he is a disabled person".
  418
  There is an argument about who may appear to be a disabled person and whether we should strengthen the provision to extend the potential take-up of the Bill.
  That has been a common problem in the discussion of disabled people in debates on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would have affected some 6.5 million people, but the Government never told us how many people would be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. We may be in danger of being in the same position here. A wider definition would be appropriate.
  The current definition of those who appear to a local authority to be disabled persons is qualified under subsection (1)(b) which relates to those who are specified under regulations made by the Secretary of State. The measure is shot through with provisions relating to regulations, but we have yet to find out what those regulations will contain. That is unfortunate. As we debate measures, we should have a clear understanding of the areas that are covered before those measures become law. We have only a creeping understanding of the Bill. We can only hope that the Minister will respond to pressure and extend its scope. We need more precision and understanding. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" refers to clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. Any clearly defined area would be helpful in our consideration of the Bill.
  As has been pointed out, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People referred to the take-up of direct payments and stated that 60 per cent. of councils operate the system, albeit indirectly, and 90 per cent. have promised to do so when the Bill is enacted.
  One crucial word will be debated extensively in Committee. That is the permissive term "may" which is used instead of the definite term "shall". Despite the pressures from local organisations, that permissive provision remains inadequate as the direct payments system could operate readily and well in some parts of the country while in other areas disabled people may be unable to exercise their rights. We must tackle that potential inequity.
  A permissive right may cause difficulties for local authorities. If their accountants work out that administering direct payments instead of providing the services results in a net loss, local authorities will be under pressure not to pick up the permissive provision. They will have to measure the financial consequences against pressure from organisations for disabled people. Obviously that would not apply if local authorities were given sufficient resources. We should help to remove that choice.
  Subsection (4) allows for the exclusion of certain categories. Hon. Members have referred to those who are over 65. One of my constituents contributed evidence to the consultation document. His concerns are at the other end of the scale. He has an 11-year-old daughter who will eventually be eligible for direct payments. He is concerned about her future. What he said would have made an excellent speech today—probably better than mine—to illustrate the difficulties that must be addressed in the Bill.
  I am concerned about the exclusion of those over 65, and about access to direct payments by future generations of disabled people. I am particularly

  419
  concerned about the problems of those who suffer from learning difficulties. I understand that there is an additional problem in that the Bill does not contain the same provisions as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which provided for people with learning difficulties to have the details of its provisions presented in an accessible fashion.
  Many other aspects of the Bill need to be clarified and enhanced. In the other place, Baroness Cumberlege gave details on Third Reading of a host of matters that she promised would be taken up in some way—for example, the idea that reports should be presented to Parliament every three years after enactment and that support in the form of guidance be given to recipients of the direct payments so that they can handle their responsibilities as employers, an important matter that has been dealt with at great length. A number of other topics will also be the subject of guidance. Reports, guidance provisions and details of eligibility, which Baroness Cumberlege mentioned, are matters that we, as serious legislators, should ensure are in the Bill so that solid decisions can be made.
  The trailer to the Bill, as I described the explanatory and financial memorandum, contains other items of fascination. Towards the end of the trailer we are told that the financial effects of the Bill
  "will be implemented within existing resources."
  The problem is that the Government are rather good at passing legislation that imposes responsibilities on local authorities without supplying authorities with the resources that they need to fulfil their obligations. That has certainly been the case with community care and it is a key issue in this instance. Adequate ring-fenced funding that is properly provided in, for example, standard spending assessments is something that needs to be tackled.
  At the end of the explanatory and financial memorandum is a paragraph headed, "Effect of the Bill on public service manpower". Interestingly, it states:
  "It is expected that any effects will be small."
  It seems that the Government are anticipating that this is, finally, a small mouse of a measure and will not be picked up and run with to the extent that it should be. I hope that we can change some aspects of the Bill so that a fresh trailer has to be presented in order that the measure can be sold, although I accept that it contains some positive provisions.
  No Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are here tonight—they have other things on their minds at the moment—but I know that there is considerable concern in Northern Ireland across all political parties about the rights of disabled people. Indeed, among the sponsors of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1995 were members of four different political parties from Northern Ireland, and various Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Northern Ireland) Bills have been produced.
  The Bill, however, excludes Northern Ireland. The only part of the Bill that refers to Northern Ireland is clause 6 which states that an Order in Council will be laid. Although Northern Ireland was not initially included in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—or perhaps only in the same terms as in this Bill—the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland was such that that situation was changed and new provisions relating to Northern Ireland
  420
  were included. A complex addition was made in order that that measure should apply to Northern Ireland—a problem that is usually avoided by the Order in Council provision.
  Another of the Bill's inadequacies in respect of Northern Ireland is that whereas the regulations intended to be produced for England, Wales and Scotland are to be introduced under the affirmative procedure so that the House has an opportunity to vote on them, provisions for Northern Ireland are brought in under the negative procedure, presumably because of the complexity of the Order in Council system. That means that there has to be an attempt to force the regulations relating to Northern Ireland to the Floor of the House for debate.
  Of the hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, six served on the Committee which debated the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1995 and showed their solid commitment to its principles and the desire to obtain full civil rights for disabled people. One would therefore expect them to advance the provisions of the current Bill so that they become general rights available for all rather than rights restricted by provisions that the Minister will introduce in regulations.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Because of the shortage of time, I shall be as brief as possible. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in support of the Bill which proves that, given time, even this Government can produce legislative proposals worthy of support. I do, however, have one major criticism, and join the other hon. Members who have criticised the exclusion of people over the age of 65.
  As someone who is over 65, I was disappointed to note that people over that age will be excluded from the Bill's provisions. Given that the majority of disabled people are over 65, this is blatant age discrimination by the Government, which I deplore. Age should not be a criterion for reducing payment to someone who needs to purchase care services. I hope that the Government will rethink their stance on this issue in Committee.
  With the qualification about the age limit, I welcome the principle behind the Bill, as it is a significant extension of the rights of disabled persons which will enable them to exercise real control and choice in their lives. The first significant change which I predict will result from giving disabled people this economic power will be a change in the culture of the care service providers as their operation becomes more responsive to the user. That is to be welcomed, as it underlines the important principle that a disabled person can exercise his or her rights and is not merely the recipient of welfare, which, sadly, has been characteristic of some care services in the past.
  As the Member of Parliament for Ealing, Southall, I represent a significant Asian population which has a different language and culture and many different needs compared to what in broad terms, is called the white population. I therefore suggest the need for care providers to be sensitive to the needs of that client group and for the councils that regulate the care providers to understand the cultural sensitivity of the population when they receive any complaints or any comments. That leads me to stress that, with the extension of what will become a market in the provision of care services, there must be strict regulation of the care service providers.

  421
  I press the Government to ensure that a properly funded regulatory system is put in place to avoid abuses by crooks or cowboy operators who are out to exploit vulnerable people. That system should be complemented by resources to enable local councils to produce information on the new arrangements so that people who are in need of community care services can choose to purchase those services, if they wish. The information should include the scope of the services available, details of the support services available to disabled persons to help them to use their new rights and details of the period in which applications are expected to be approved.
  I make a plea for the guidelines to be drawn up in partnership and consultation with organisations for disabled people so that they are not produced purely by the councils, because some local authorities may be tempted to do that. When a person is unhappy about the help given by the council, there should be an appeals procedure which falls within the ambit of the existing appeal procedures and the ambit of the local government ombudsman on grounds of maladministration.
  I turn now to the thorny issue of finance. The new system must not be used as a cover by the Government for a cut in the support that they give to local authorities. Any cost savings to local authorities due to user-operated commissioning procedures will be balanced, in my judgment, by the additional expenditure by local authorities on bureaucracy and support for service users, for which there is currently no financial provision.
  Finally, I wish to reiterate my support for the Bill as a significant step forward for the rights of disabled people—which the much trumpeted Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was not—and to ask that its provisions be extended to include people over the age of 65.
  8.52 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I pay tribute to the First centre for the disabled which serves the needs of men and women with disabilities in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and in my constituency. Both of us regularly attend the centre's annual general meeting and we assist by counting the votes in the elections for its office bearers, because we are the only people who attend who do not have a vote.
  The First centre for the disabled is so called because it is the first of its kind in Scotland. If there are no such similar places in England, that is a great pity and I suggest that hon. Members visit the centre to see for themselves what excellent provision can be made. The point about the centre, and the reason why I have mentioned it in this debate, is not only that it provides a wealth of activities that may surprise anyone who does not know what can be opened up to the participation of people with disabilities, but that it was planned and campaigned for by people with disabilities in the north of Glasgow. Before they had the centre, they had nowhere to call their own. The centre is a first-class example of what people can do for themselves. It is an eye-opener and I recommend a visit to any hon. Member and a party of his or her disabled constituents. They would be made very welcome and would be inspired.
  422
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) raised the question of resources. I hope that the future of the centre is safe, because the City of Glasgow council is facing horrific cuts in its budget as a result of the Government's local government finance policies. For example, many community education centres are facing closure. It would be completely unacceptable if, after the long struggle to create the centre, there was any diminution in the services that it provides. That would be an absolute scandal, because the people whom the centre serves had so little until recently.
  We should consider the general history of how this country has treated people with disabilities. For many years, needs were ignored. Then came a better period in which provision was treated as a kindness, and consideration for disabled people was the name of the game. In the past few decades, people with disabilities have campaigned for themselves and that has won dignity for them. Self-determination is the key, not only to the Bill but to any aspects of the lives of people with disabilities. The Bill should provide disabled people with wider choices—choices that we who do not have any disabilities take for granted.
  In my constituency, there are a number of elderly Asians and Asians with disabilities. That creates especial difficulties for them which must be addressed by ensuring that they have access to services and that their views and needs are respected. They, too, should have the right of self-determination.
  As drafted, the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to limit the groups of people who would be able to participate in the new direct payment services. The Government have stated that they do not intend to include people with learning disabilities at the start. I have read a briefing from Mencap on the subject, which rightly pointed out that it is important that people with learning disabilities have the same opportunities to benefit from the scheme as people with other disabilities. People with learning disabilities, however severe, are often capable of making choices about what they want and with whom they want to be. Obviously, they may need help to identify and manage their options, but unless people with learning disabilities are part of the process from the beginning, the potential problems, benefits and possible adjustments needed can only be guessed at.
  Under the Bill, no direct payments will be made to anyone in long-term residential accommodation. That rule might seem sensible, but if it is applied inflexibly, it might inhibit the progress of young disabled people who have hopes of moving into the community and living more independently. They should be given transitional help.
  The new system should not serve as a cheap or easy option for some local authorities, especially given their financial constraints, by allowing them to cut their services—particularly in remote areas. The measure should not become a means of passing responsibility for an underfunded, failing community care system to disabled people. They may be unable to manage their budgets due to inadequate funding, which could be extremely demoralising and threaten their independence.
  If a disabled person wants to use direct payments to employ a care assistant, he or she should not have to assume responsibility as an employer for tax, national insurance and similar liabilities—but could be allowed to do so if he or she wished. When one considers that some

  423
  employers who undertake those responsibilities as a daily task experience difficulty, we should be cautious about imposing them on people who might otherwise never have them. Hon. Members who complete their tax returns will have some idea of the difficulties.
  Domiciliary services ought to be of high quality throughout the country, and their users should be treated with dignity, respect and courtesy at all times. There must be mechanisms to ensure that any deficiencies in the standard of care, or abuses of the recipients of that care, are brought to light. Problems should not be hidden away because of developments arising from the Bill.
  Clients of domiciliary care are among the most vulnerable members of the population, yet they are currently afforded little protection in their own homes compared with people in residential care. I want a statutory framework of national minimum standards of domiciliary care for elderly and disabled people. I do not mean a rigid list of services that users must accept whether they like it or not; I mean a menu of choice incorporating minimum standards. The Employment Agencies Act 1973 is inadequate for ensuring the standards that we are debating. I agree that the key to the future of domiciliary services is the statutory registration and inspection of private agencies.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I am glad to return to the House, despite prior engagements, to participate in this debate. I know from a visit with the Minister that he is caring and tries to do his best when he has control over policy. However, having read the briefs and debates in the other place, I believe that he may have problems, because it is not him with whom we have to deal but the Government. I am by nature a person who is suspicious of any authority.
  The Bill is welcome to the extent that 72 per cent. of disabled people want more independence. I have said before that language is important, and I often feel that the phrase "disabled people" is wrong. People with disabilities who overcome them are no longer disabled. I have experience of that, because for 14 years before entering the House, I taught children with learning difficulties who faced a physical or intellectual challenge. Fifty-nine per cent. of people with disabilities believe that legislation that gives them cash in their hands to use in a way of their choosing frees them from their disabilities in some respects, so the Bill is welcome.
  My noble Friends and Government Members in the other place were concerned that the regulations were not specified. It is odd for a Bill to come before the House when consultation on the relevant regulations has not been completed. Because the Government are so bereft of legislation this year, obviously they had to introduce the Bill before the consultations were completed, which is a back-to-front way of operating. I accept that specific details cannot be put on the face of a Bill, but lots of people are wondering what will come out of the consultation. Will it reflect the wishes of people with disabilities, or will the Government again be guilty—as they have been for 16 years—of asking for opinions but not changing their views? I see the Minister of State, Scottish Office on the Front Bench. He knows what happened over the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, where consultation was completely and utterly ignored
  424
  and the Government went ahead with their mad scheme anyway. We have experience of a Government who consult and then ignore the wishes that have been expressed. The Bill is welcome, but with that reservation.
  Another matter that worries people are the exclusions. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that 37 per cent. of the clients of the independent living fund—the only benchmark we have as to how people will spend money that is given to them—are over 65. Yet that group will be excluded from the scope of the Bill. There is some contradiction there. Any consultation should also be based on an historical study. If 37 per cent. of users of the ILF are over 65, surely that shows that they are the people who feel best able to use cash in their hands. They usually have experience of life; sometimes they have a caring partner with experience of management in professional life. Yet they will not have a chance to use the scheme. The Government should think again about that.
  I am personally interested in people who have learning disabilities. I do not think that we should always just draw on our own experience and use empiricism. I taught people with learning difficulties for long enough and, as the constituency that I represent is in the same area, I now meet those people as adults. They are quite capable—with the support of family, a community group or local authority staff, or even a voluntary agency—of putting together a life plan. Many people with learning disabilities now leave school with a record of achievement and go on to demand training and a balanced life, and are not just stuck in a corner, as many people once thought they should be. Yet, under the Bill, they will be excluded from use of the new fund.
  In the study made by the independent living fund—an historical study worth looking at—18 per cent. of its awards went to people with learning disabilities. So often, we see people who might be said to have learning disabilities, for example, those who are profoundly deaf, yet we see people like Evelyn Glennie, who is a world-renowned percussionist, despite being profoundly deaf. People with cerebral palsy are now able, through the use of modern computers, to write not just diaries but important philosophical works, as Professor Stephen Hawking has proved. When someone overcomes a disability, he or she is no longer disabled. A learning disability can be overcome as well. We have every right to be concerned that that group is to be excluded.
  Disability Alliance made a point of sending all of us a brief, which I am sure the Minister received and read with interest, arguing that those categories should not be excluded. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said earlier that discrimination against groups of people is being written on the face of the Bill. Given the debates that have taken place in the House over the past four or five years, surely the Government should avoid that.
  Another category is mental health service users—sadly, a growing category. All of us have experiences in our constituencies of people who require mental health services. Again, we should be worried if there is any question of those people being excluded from cash payments. Disability Alliance could not furnish us with exact figures of where the independent living fund has been made available, so in a sense that is a deficiency in the present independent living fund that could be made good by the Government if they would accept sensible amendments to the Bill. Those two matters concern me.

  425
  Something that also worries me is the idea that the Government might want to detach a number of people from the communal provision that social services are able to put together. It is being touted as a privatisation issue, when Opposition Members and those who spoke in favour of it would see it as a liberalisation provision.
  Constituency experiences involving the independent living fund cause me to worry about whether there is any break with the social services in plans for the use of the cash. One of my constituents, who has looked after a severely ill wife with a debilitating disease, told me that, when he examined his expenditure, he found that 30 per cent. of what he was spending on services from the independent living fund paid agencies' administration fees. He was distressed by that—and, indeed, the idea that people must choose between the social services and agencies must give us all cause for concern.
  Given the ethos of his Government over the past 16 years, the Minister will admit that, if there is money around, someone in the private sector will try to make a profit. I should like to think that the regulations will allow arrangements similar to those governing the life plan—the post-school training and education plans—for the young people whom I used to teach. Those arrangements were made with the education authority; subsequently, the plan became the responsibility of the young person concerned. Similarly, those intending to take the cash for community care rather than receiving the service directly should work out a plan with the social services and their carers or support groups.
  Charges have been a problem. I hope that the Minister read section D of the brief from the Carers National Association. According to recent research by the association, one in five councils have increased their charges by 10 per cent. or more in the past year, and one in four carers are experiencing hardship as a result of such increases. People have been cancelling services that they need for that reason.
  One of the factors that underlie the Government's philosophy is their assumption that authorities will raise 9 per cent. of their income through charges. The Carers National Association, and Opposition Members, fear that people will be driven to take cash in hand because of the expense involved in direct use of local authority services. They will look for a cheaper option, which may be offered by agencies. Despite their slick presentation, the service provided by those agencies may not ultimately match the needs of disabled people.
  The association drew attention to a recent report by the National Consumer Council, which examined the way in which authorities across the country were drawing up and administering charging policies. The report concluded that charging guidance from central Government was ambiguous. The Minister should take that on board, and, if possible, clarify the question of charging in the regulations. That would deal with the complaint that the local picture is often very confused.
  The report says that, in particular, guidance should be given to people on income support and other means-tested benefits. It is often difficult to make such benefits go far enough and, if cash in hand is provided to meet specific needs, budgets may become mixed up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) pointed out,
  426
  budgeting may not be the greatest strength of people with debilitating illnesses or long-term problems, who may be concentrating on their medical care and consequently find themselves in financial trouble. We must also take into account those receiving attendance and disability living allowance. Given the rather frightening signals from the Department of Social Security, which wants to save a further £1 billion, people who think that they are receiving more money may, in fact, suffer from the removal of finance from another part of the social security budget.
  I have a naturally suspicious nature, and I have noted the way in which the Government have handled the amounts going to people in need in my constituency. I have also read the briefings. I hope that the Minister will reveal the results of his consultations in Committee, and will tell us then exactly what the regulations will say. If he does not, although a welcome step in the right direction will have been made, we may be walking into the mire in a way that we shall all regret.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: For the benefit of the House, I should declare at the outset that I receive research assistance from Unison, although I am not representing its views in this debate.
  The debate has been especially well informed and considered, and overwhelmingly consensual, with hon. Members often drawing on local experience and their interface with local disability organisations. We have had on display an array of national talent and expertise on issues affecting disabled people.
  In some senses, it is slightly invidious to single out particular Members for attention, but I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for their long-standing commitment to disabled people's rights. We have had important speeches from those hon. Members, and from all who have spoken.
  The Bill has been broadly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has been long desired both by disabled people and by the organisations that represent them. We have come a long way since the pioneering work of the early 1980s in Hampshire to encourage independent living among disabled people. That experiment has found an echo throughout the land.
  By 1990, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation found that more than 60 per cent. of local authorities were operating some form of direct payments scheme—albeit through third-party agencies—despite the somewhat doubtful legal status both of their establishment and sometimes of their operation. The Bill legalises the direct payments approach, and at last gives official sanction to a new and highly popular form of community care.
  The success of the independent living fund is but the most graphic illustration of how an approach that maximises user choice resonates with disabled people. When the ILF was established, it was estimated that only around 300 new awards a year would be made, but, by 1993, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) reminded the House, 22,000 people were receiving payments. The Governments's decision to close the ILF in 1993 flew in the face not only of its popularity, but of its achievements.

  427
  A 1994 study for the Policy Studies Institute and for the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People summarised the benefits that flowed from the ILF. It said:
  "enabling disabled people to organise their own support arrangements offers considerably more choice, control and flexibility than direct service provision; consequently, direct payments are seen as greatly increasing disabled people's independence."
  Tragically, the Government have a history of coming only belatedly to recognise the case of disabled people for improved rights. Organisations such as the Disablement Income Group, the Disability Alliance and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People have long campaigned for such a Bill. They have received handsome support from organisations as diverse as the Association of Directors of Social Services, housing and local authority associations and many others, including the House of Commons Select Committee on Health.
  There is almost universal agreement that direct payments are a positive and innovative development that secures better delivery of community care services. They make the disabled person the centre of the care system rather than its dependant. That point was amply made in a telling contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
  The first choice of most elderly and disabled people is to live independently in their own homes, and to feel part of the community. For care in the community to succeed, it must enable all people to live with the same respect for their dignity and autonomy. Direct payments allow services to be suited to the needs of the individual, rather than the individual having to suit the needs of the services. In other words, direct payments empower service users by allowing the user to shape the service rather than be shaped by it.
  It is not only disabled people who benefit from direct payments. The taxpayer can also be a net gainer. The right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) told us that it is reckoned that direct payments result in average savings of between 30 and 40 per cent. on comparable service provision. When a disabled person is commissioning services it puts him or her in charge, gives real choice and provides cost-effective care.
  The principles of the Bill are a matter of political consensus, which I welcome, but its fine print is a subject of real dispute, and the fine print has dominated our debate. In the first place, it is regrettable that the Bill was introduced in another place before the publication of the consultation document outlining in much more detail the Government's thinking on many of the specifics of the Bill.
  It is also a matter for regret that the results of the consultation exercise, which finished last month, have still not been made available. Inevitably, the debate has sometimes felt a bit like a shot in the dark, with hon. Members on both sides of the House having to second-guess what is in the minds of Ministers about the final detail of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire rightly called the measure an enabling Bill, and was therefore cautious about it. Similar suspicions were voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).
  I believe that it is not beyond the wit of the Under-Secretary to arrange the consultation exercises and the debates on the Bill so that those who debate it both here
  428
  and in another place can fully consider the facts. I hope that he can at least give us an assurance tonight that the results of the consultation exercise will be published before the Bill goes into Committee. Otherwise, we shall continue to rehearse backwards and forwards all the arguments we have had over the past few hours, and still be taking a shot in the dark.
  It is especially important that the principle of openness applies to the Bill, because, as we know, it is planned to make so many of its detailed provisions by regulation rather than by primary legislation. None the less, several concerns are already clear. They have been flagged up by the disability organisations, by my noble Friends in another place, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House tonight.
  The major concern expressed by organisations such as the Law Society, the British Medical Association, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Carers National Association, MIND and the Disability Alliance relates to the artificial restrictions imposed on the categories of people who will be eligible to receive direct payments under the Bill. That concern was made clear by the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East, for Mid-Kent and for Brighton, Kemptown, my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
  The whole point of the Bill is to put disabled people and their needs at the centre of the care system. It is about treating the individual as an individual, regardless of their disability. Instead, the Government seem to be determined to disempower individuals according to the category of disability that they have been placed in by the Secretary of State.
  Surely it is entirely incompatible with the whole thrust of the Bill, and with what the Minister said earlier, to deny the choice of receiving direct payments simply because an individual is either too old or too young, or has the wrong sort of disability according to the Secretary of State's arbitrary diktat. We believe that anybody suffering from any disability may be suitable, and should be eligible, for direct payments rather than services. We have much sympathy with those who argue that direct payments should be available in every local authority area to ensure equal access to the benefits that flow from them.
  Since direct payments will represent a departure for some authorities, however, we are willing to concede that there should be no mandatory obligation on councils to offer them, providing that two key concerns are met. First, the Minister should actively encourage local authorities to introduce direct payments, and secondly, all classes of disabled people should be allowed access to them.
  If we are serious about treating individuals as individuals and about shaping services to meet individual needs, it surely follows that age or disability should form no barrier to qualification for a direct payment. After all, someone who is in their late 60s may be much better qualified to take advantage of a direct payment than someone in their early 30s. Similarly, someone with a moderate learning difficulty may have a greater capacity and willingness to deal with direct payments than someone with a severe physical disability, which leaves them frail, poorly and sometimes confused.

  429
  The tests for direct payments should be solely about whether the person is in need and has been assessed as requiring community care services and whether direct payments represent value for money for the authority and are in the best interests of the individual who is able and willing to take advantage of them. Those should be the tests—no more and no less.
  Instead, the consultation document issued by the Department tries to make the Secretary of State's discretion predominant in determining who will gain access to what we all believe is an innovative and exciting means of putting disabled people at the centre of the care process. Frankly, such arrogance flies in the face of a needs-led approach to the care of disabled people. I hope that the Minister will carefully review the matter, not only in the light of the 300 responses to his consultation document, but because of what he has heard in the debate. A consensus has been established, and I hope that he will listen.
  I should like to highlight two issues. First, given that community care services are available to people over the age of 65, an age limit seems especially unnecessary and unfair. More than one third of clients of the former ILF were aged over 60 in any case, and research into current local authority payment schemes shows that only two out of the eight authorities studied explicitly ruled out people over the age of 65.
  Similarly, as the ILF has given 18 per cent. of its awards to people with learning disabilities, excluding them from direct payments is equally unfounded. It also contradicts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon reminded us, the recent Law Commission recommendation that there should be a presumption against lack of capacity.
  There remains a real worry—again, I hope the Minister will address this when he winds up—that unless the Government relent and broaden the eligibility criteria, some people will lose the direct payments that they are currently enjoying through third-party agencies. It is surely not the Government's intention to narrow or remove opportunities that disabled people currently enjoy. Yet the eligibility criteria as defined in the consultation document do precisely that.
  The Opposition will not accept the undermining of the Bill's purpose by its proposed means of implementation; nor will we accept the denial of real choice entailed in the Government's restriction of direct payments to certain groups of selected people. That is why we will be tabling amendments to the Bill to ensure that real choice is available to as wide a range of disabled people as possible.
  We shall also be seeking to broaden choice in other ways. These take several forms. To allow people to make informed decisions about whether they wish to receive direct payments for certain services, it is vital that advice and information is provided to them. Under the Bill, hundreds of disabled people could become employers for the first time. They will need support.
  As my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield and for Bradford, South pointed out, the lesson from the independent living fund is that the best-run schemes were on the basis of the advice and support available to the
  430
  disabled people who had access to the funds. The Bill must ensure that such services are available to disabled people—should they require them—to maximise choices about whether direct payments are an option for them.
  Choice should be maximised by ensuring that the distinction that the Government rightly make between formal and informal care is not drawn so tightly that a disabled person is prevented from employing any family member on a paid basis. Of course we do not want informal care to be brought into a cash-for-care arrangement, but we recognise that disabled people will want to employ those they know and trust, particularly when it comes to the performance of intimate tasks for them. In some cases, they may have little choice in any case, because of where they live, their domestic arrangements or the nature of their disability. The consultation document's virtual blanket ban on employing any relative runs against the grain of the needs of those disabled people. We hope that the Minister will concede that the proposals are too prohibitive, and need to be reviewed.
  It is vital that choice is not restricted by adverse charging policies. The Bill proposes to treat service users and cash users on an equal basis, so, just as an individual is charged for a service, he will also have to make a financial contribution towards the equivalent direct payment. There can be no argument about that, but we have a number of concerns. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that certain social security benefits received by disabled people should be disregarded in calculating the amount of direct payment or financial contribution that an individual is expected to make.
  I also hope that the Minister will make it clear that direct payments are to be used for social care services only, and will not be used as a substitute for health service responsibilities. That distinction is vital, since otherwise direct payments received by disabled people will be means-tested even if they have to be used to purchase services that they should be receiving free of charge.
  I also hope that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe said, there will be a level playing field between community care services and direct payments in lieu of them, so that no means test is involved if direct payment is made where the equivalent service is provided free. That assurance would be extremely welcome.
  Finally—and most fundamentally of all, in my view—the proposal to leave it up to individual local authorities to decide how to take into account service users' financial status when setting the level of direct payment is, frankly, a charter for confusion. The care that a person receives and the price he pays should not depend on where he lives.
  Last year, a National Consumer Council report on local authority charging procedures found that charging systems for non-residential social services were structured differently in virtually every local authority area. The NCC found also that widely different criteria were used by local authorities to assess people's ability to pay. It would be tragic if the same situation developed for those receiving direct payments for care. Is it not now time for a national framework for charging policies for social care, to end what has become a lottery?
  Disabled people living in Dorset should be entitled to the same financial assessment as disabled people living in Durham. After all, their needs will not differ even if the respective areas are different.

  431
  The Bill provides a golden opportunity for the Government to consider ending the restriction on choice that applies to so many community care users merely because there is such latitude in the ways in which local authorities are allowed to charge for services.
  The Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to take further action. Although those receiving direct payments may decide to purchase care from a number of sources, the Bill will almost certainly lead to increased use of services provided by independent sector domiciliary care agencies. There should be no objections to that, provided that the services offered to disabled people are of the highest quality and standard.
  There lies the nub of what might be a problem. When other care providers are subject to greater registration requirements and inspections, there is still no statutory framework governing the operation of domiciliary care providers, despite the fact that the services they provide are made available in an individual's home, and are therefore subject to much less scrutiny.
  The clients of domiciliary care agencies are among the most vulnerable people in the population, yet the protection afforded to them in their own homes is negligible compared with that which is available to clients in residential care. That is why organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services, in responding to the Bill, have called for the regulation of providers of domiciliary care. Their calls have been echoed this evening by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent and by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Wakefield. I hope that the Registration of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, will be considered by the Minister in the light of the Bill before us.
  The calls to which I have referred have been repeatedly echoed by Labour Members. I know that these calls have been taken up by many providers in the private sector. Domiciliary care agencies that have taken up these calls recognise that they are providing care for extremely vulnerable people, individuals who have few opportunities to raise concerns about services and who need protection from unscrupulous operators. It is in the interests of us all to drive the cowboys out of the industry. Everyone wants to see that happen.
  The Bill brings to a head all the tensions about the lack of a regulatory framework for private domiciliary care. I know that the Minister will say that he has only recently finished consulting on a Government document designed to move things forward, and that it is too early to give any categorical views on what the Government have in store for the future registration and inspection system. However, I believe that it is incumbent upon him to give some assurances this evening that it is at least in his mind to provide a proper form of regulation for domiciliary care. We are dealing with extremely vulnerable people receiving services paid for from the public purse in their homes. Both public money and disabled people deserve proper protection.
  The Bill is a great opportunity radically to improve services for disabled people. Our proposals for strengthening its provisions will make the individual's needs ever more the focus of services. It provides a model that can be built upon. All too often, disabled people, and other community care service users, are reduced to a state of artificial dependency by their contact with statutory agencies.
  432
  The whole thrust of community care is surely to reverse that process, and ensure that elderly and disabled people or those with mental health problems have their needs addressed in such a way that they are able to participate to the fullest extent possible in the community. It is time that users were given more power to shape their services.
  The Bill points the way towards a time when service users will shape the whole plethora of community care services, not only by purchasing for themselves but by defining new standards that will make community care services more user-focused and user-friendly.
  The Bill is a good one—we do not argue with that—but it could and should be a lot better. Our proposals seek to strengthen it and give life to the philosophy that underpins it. We believe that disabled people deserve the best and we will do all in our power to ensure that when the Bill has completed its passage, it delivers the very best for this and future generations of disabled people.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Bowis: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, this has been a good debate. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) referred to it as "consensual". I presume that that means that it was a debate between consenting adults, which is probably right. There has been a great deal of agreement about the quality and worth of the measure.
  There have been well-deserved tributes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) as the father of the independent living fund, so "Our Father, who art behind me" is the spirit of the measure, which is in that tradition. The ILF had tighter eligibility criteria than those in the Bill, and was more limited in the scope of the services involved. However, it was the Bill's forerunner, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's work with disabled people, and especially on the ILF.
  I gladly accept the universal welcome for the Bill. The debate centred on three things: the regulations, the guidance and the practical support that can be given as the Bill is implemented. In answer to an earlier question, I should say that we are talking about negative resolution procedures at subsequent stages.
  The regulations have focused on several issues. The eligibility criteria have been central. The Bill was a response to younger physically disabled people who said that it would greatly enhance their working lives. That is where we started from, and why we have come from that direction. I remember talking to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) when we were considering what to do. He urged us to be cautious and careful, and do it in steps, and we have sought to do that.
  Some local authorities have urged us to do it in stages, although there has been great enthusiasm for the all-in-one-go approach in the House tonight. That is why we heard the Kemptown warning, if I may call it that, from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden): whatever the House agrees to, there will be pressure on local authorities to bring it in as quickly as possible for people who are eligible. It is a question of which stages at what time; where we go and how soon.
  When I opened the debate, I said that I was listening, and that I wanted to hear from hon. Members, as we have heard from people responding to our consultation paper.

  433
  Today, hon. Members have put forward their views about the learning disability extension. We made it clear that we would listen to their views very carefully, as we did in another place. Hon. Members referred to physically disabled people over the age of 65—and not just those who turned 65 having qualified previously. I hear their messages, and we will take them into account, together with all other views.
  Hon. Members raised questions about the charging system. I emphasise that the discretionary charging system is exactly the same as that for community care services. There should be no difference between the two systems, and I hope that I have reassured hon. Members in that regard.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Minister accept that we are not really comparing like with like? While we want to see a level playing field in that respect, there is a difference between enabling the users of direct payments to be good employers and to meet that range of costs, and charging them for the services that are provided directly by social services. They are not the same things, and the Minister will not achieve his objective easily.
  Mr. Bowis: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall return to it at a later stage. It would be quite wrong for someone to be charged for services provided under the discretionary charging system if someone who received the same services through the direct payment scheme were free of those charges. We want to ensure that there is a level playing field.
  Reference was made to respite and the four-week period that is mentioned in the consultation paper. We are seeking views about that period, but, whatever figure is chosen, there is nothing to stop local authorities continuing to provide respite care.
  Hon. Members have discussed the issue of relatives and lodgers, and there is general agreement that close relatives should be excluded under the legislation. However, there is a question as to where discretion should fall beyond them. I am conscious that we should not seek to pay relatives for emergency provision, as that is something that most relatives would be pleased to provide.
  We have discussed guidance and practical support for local authorities and payees, including how to assess payments, how to guide people on legal requirements, guidance to users, and how to employ people. Those issues will be encompassed in guidelines. As to the request for the Disablement Income Group and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People to be involved in that process, I confirm that Pauline Thompson and Jane Campbell served on the technical advisory group, and I assure hon. Members that they will continue to provide advice.
  I repeat that existing schemes are not affected by the measure. If authorities decide to proceed with a scheme, that is entirely their decision. Consultation is central to
  434
  the process. We released the consultation paper as soon as possible after publishing the Bill, so that people would be aware of the sorts of issues that will be debated when the regulations come before Parliament. I think that has helped to focus the debate, and no doubt it will help to focus consideration of the Bill in its later stages.
  I have been asked to put the responses in the Library, and I am happy to confirm that I shall do so. I hope that that will prove helpful. The measure extends choice, dignity and independence to disabled people.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: We are very grateful to the Minister for making that commitment. Can he tell us when those responses will be available?
  Mr. Bowis: I have not yet seen them myself. I shall need a short time in which to receive the responses and have them analysed, and then we shall place them in the Library.
  Today we have had the beatification of Chelsea and, the absolution of Mid-Kent, and I now look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill and whatever it may bring.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

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

  GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
  That the draft Hydrographic Office Trading Fund Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
  That the draft Meteorological Office Trading Fund Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.—[Mr. Bates].
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now turn to motion No. 5 on the school premises regulations. Not moved.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed restrictions have been imposed for a period greater than six weeks since 1 April 1994 on the west coast main line. [17153]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack informs me that there are currently 50 speed restrictions in place on the west coast main line. Details of past restrictions are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  RAF Northolt
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made in developing new proposals to extend and improve the services offered at RAF Northolt for business users. [18456]

  Mr. Norris
  Following the decision in April 1995 not to proceed with a separate civil enclave at RAF Northolt, and the further consultation with business users and operators, my Department and the Ministry of Defence have been actively assessing what improvements might be implemented.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 145, what was the operating cost of the royal train per mile travelled including overheads, maintenance and security when a member of the Royal Family was on board or when the train was being positioned. [17932]

  Mr. Watts
  Rail Express Systems Ltd. has supplied information that the cost of the royal train in 1994–95 including overheads, maintenance and British Transport police security, when a member of the royal family was on board or when the train was being positioned, was £136.30 per mile. This consisted of £21.30 per mile operating costs and £115 per mile for overheads, maintenance and security. Corresponding information for the calendar year 1995 is not yet available.

  M66
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department has made of future traffic flows for the M66 between Denton and Middleton in both directions. [18254]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  212
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 6 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about future traffic flows on the M66 Manchester Outer Ring Road.The traffic levels do vary along the length of the motorway, so I have set out below the flows for the sections between the junctions. These forecasts are based on 16 hour daily flows.

  Opening year

  Design year

  M66 motorway section

  Low growth

  High growth

  Low growth

  High growth

  A57 to A635

  81,000

  90,000

  94,000

  113,000

  A635 to A62

  73,000

  82,000

  85,000

  101,000

  A62 to A663

  38,000

  42,000

  44,000

  53,000

  A663 to A664

  43,000

  48,000

  50,000

  60,000

  A664 to A576

  57,000

  64,000

  67,000

  81,000

  A576 to M62

  70,000

  77,000

  83,000

  100,000

  Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sites other than existing airports his Department has in the south-east for airport development. [18452]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport does not itself hold any sites for airport development in the south-east, or elsewhere in the country.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the development of(a) the Lydd and (b) the Manston sites as additional airport capacity in the south-east. [18446]

  Mr. Norris
  Following identification by the Civil Aviation Authority as potential sites for development in air traffic control terms, Lydd and Manston were two of the sites considered by the working group on runway capacity to serve the south-east. RUCATSE concluded that neither Lydd nor Manston would be suitable as sites for providing additional runaway capacity to serve the south-east and should not be subject to detailed assessment.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional work his Department has undertaken in relation to potential development of Heathrow and Gatwick airports following the publication of the RUCATSE report. [18453]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government's response to the RUCATSE report, announced on 2 February 1995, said that the Secretary of State was asking the CAA, in conjunction with the British Airports Authority and others, to carry out further work to examine the gains that might be achieved and the environmental impact involved in making better use of existing runway infrastructure at Heathrow. He also invited BAA to investigate the possibility of less environmentally damaging options for runway development, such as a close parallel runway at Gatwick. In addition, I chair the steering group for the London airports surface access study, which is examining the opportunities for improvements in access to and between London's main airports by rail and through traffic management measures.

  Ferry Inspections (Dover)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of ferries inspected in the port of Dover in the last 12 months, indicating the defects found aboard each vessel. [18675]

  Mr. Norris
  In my answer to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 27 April 1995,Official Report, columns 614–15, I stated the Government's belief that there is no benefit to the travelling public to be gained from the release of the results of routine inspections. The technical content of the report would not be easily comprehensible and could be open to misinterpretation.

  In cases where an inspection of a foreign-registered roll-on roll-off ferry reveals serious deficiencies which lead to its detention, the details would be included in the list of ships detained in the UK ports, which is published monthly by the Marine Safety Agency.

  Airport Security
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each major UK airport for each of the last five years the number of security inspections undertaken by his Department. [18677]

  Mr. Norris
  The six major airports in the UK were subject to the following number of security inspections in each of the last four years:

  Airport

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total

  Heathrow

  89

  124

  136

  115

  464

  Gatwick

  46

  80

  83

  105

  314

  Manchester

  18

  31

  24

  32

  105

  Glasgow

  14

  27

  35

  25

  101

  Birmingham

  18

  11

  16

  22

  67

  Stanstead

  12

  22

  18

  14

  66

  Total

  197

  295

  312

  313

  1,117

  The information is not available for 1991–92.

  Inspectors visited these airports on many other occasions, mainly to audit and test their operations and to inspect, audit and test the operations of the airlines using them.

  Salvage Agreements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances and under what powers(a) his Department and (b) port authorities may override a salvage agreement. [18602]

  Mr. Norris
  Under section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the Secretary of State may give directions to the owner, master or any salvor in possession of a ship requiring any of them to take, or refrain from taking, any action for the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution. The power may be exercised where an accident has occurred to or on a ship, and in the opinion of the Secretary of State, oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters, and in his opinion the use of the powers is urgently needed.
  214
  Under the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985, a harbour master may give directions prohibiting the entry into, or requiring the removal from, the harbour of any vessel if in his opinion the condition of that vessel, or the nature and condition of anything it contains, is such that its presence in the harbour might involve a grave and imminent danger to the safety of any person or property or that it might seriously prejudice the use of the harbour by other vessels. Directions may be given to the owner, master or any salvor in possession. Under section 3 of the Act the Secretary of State may give directions on those lines to the harbour master, in effect overriding any directions the harbour master has given. The Dangerous Vessels Act does not affect the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers under section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

  Harbour authorities generally also have statutory powers to remove a vessel which is sunk, stranded or abandoned, so as to avoid interference with navigation. Some authorities may also have powers to direct a master or other persons having control of a vessel with the object of preventing or reducing pollution.

  Air Accident, Dominican Republic
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates the aircraft involved in the accident off the Dominican Republic on 7 February flew into the United Kingdom. [18672]

  Mr. Norris
  At the time of the crash the Boeing 757 aircraft involved was being operated by the Dominican airline Alas Nacionales on lease from the Turkish carrier Birgenair. Neither airline has operated services to the United Kingdom.

  Between May 1992 and April 1993 the aircraft was one of eight of its type operated by the Canadian carrier Nationair. During that period Nationair operated many charter services to the United Kingdom. Our records do not show whether or not this aircraft was used on any given flight.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the annual salary for the chief executive of each of his Departments' agencies for each year of their operation. [18671]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 4 July 1995,Official Report, columns 119–21.

  The following changes have taken place subsequently to some of the chief executives salaries:

  Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency

  1 August 1995: £55,802

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  1 August 1995: £48,193

  Driving Standards Agency

  1 August 1995: £59,044

  The Coastguard Agency

  1 August 1995: £52,230

  Marine Safety Agency

  1 August 1995: £47,427

  Airport, Redhill
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the possibility of the creation of a feeder or reliever airport at Redhill. [18673]

  Mr. Norris
  None. On 5 April 1995, the Secretary of State for the Environment refused planning permission for an application for development of Redhill as a feeder-reliever to Gatwick.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much(a) has been and (b) remains to be paid to the unsuccessful consortia which bid for the channel tunnel rail link contract. [19096]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government announced in March 1994 that they would be prepared to contribute to the costs of unsuccessful bidders in the channel tunnel rail link competition. That contribution would be £1.5 million or 33 per cent. of costs properly incurred in the preparation of bids submitted in March 1995, whichever was the less. Claims have been settled from the two consortia which were not shortlisted—Union Link and Green Arrow. The Government also indicated in 1994 that an additional contribution might be available in respect of costs incurred after tenders had been submitted. An offer of £1 million or 33 per cent. of costs, whichever was the lower, was subsequently made in respect of the period after shortlisting in July 1995. A claim has not yet been received from Eurorail CTRL Ltd. The decision to reimburse a portion of the bidders' costs reflected their large investment in preparing bids and the benefits derived by maintaining competitive pressure throughout the process. The amounts involved are small in the context of the size of the CTRL project.

  Aircraft (Iceballs)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of iceballs from aircraft hitting houses occurred in the last five years; and how many injuries were caused by such incidents. [19085]

  Mr. Norris
  There have been 51 incidents of icefall from aircraft hitting houses over the last five years. One incident resulted in bruising when ice hit a roof showering the injured party with debris.

  Late Trains
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much compensation has been paid by operating companies of the former British Rail to passengers in respect of late running trains. [19245]

  Mr. Watts
  Under British Rail's passengers charter, compensation is paid in respect of late running and cancelled trains. Between April 1994 and February 1996, British Rail's train operating companies have paid £7.9 million to passengers in the form of season ticket discounts and ex-gratia compensation.

  Highways Agency Information Line
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many calls have been made to the Highways Agency information line in each month since September 1995 on the subject of(a) cones and (b) other matters; and what was the average cost to the agency for each call in each category. [19275]

  Mr. Watts
  The number of calls that have been received in the Highways Agency information line since September 1995 are as follows. The Highways Agency's records distinguish between(a) complaints covering a range of issues on roadworks and (b) general inquiries about roadworks.

  Complaints

  Inquiries

  Totals

  October

  485

  650

  1,135

  November

  331

  746

  1,077

  December

  158

  356

  514

  January

  166

  65

  231

  February

  105

  406

  511

  1,245

  2,223

  3,468

  The Highways Agency does not keep a separate record of costs by category. The average cost to the agency for each call is about £2.50.

  Trans-European Network
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now support the designation of the Penzance-Bristol mainline railway as a high-speed trans-European network route at the Council of Ministers. [18624]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The Department has relied on advice from British Rail and Railtrack on the categorisation of TENs rail routes in the UK. The TENs maps are not a wish list; they must reflect current realities or investment priorities. The Bristol-Penzance line does not meet the criteria for designation as high-speed and Railtrack has no current plans to upgrade it. It is therefore rightly categorised as a conventional rail link. The feasibility studies for which we are now seeking TENs funding will examine the options for improving journey times on both the Penzance-Bristol and Reading-Taunton routes and form a basis for investment decisions in the future. This is a positive step towards securing the improved rail infrastructure that the west country is seeking.

  Marine Accidents
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he first received a copy of the marine accident investigation branch report into the grounding of the Borga; and what action he has taken to date to implement its recommendations; [18893]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 28 February, Official Report, column 583, if he will place in the Library a copy of the marine accident investigation branch report into the grounding the Borga; [18902]

  (3) what amendments he has made to the report of the marine accident investigation branch on the grounding of the Borga originally delivered to him. [18894]
  217
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: The report of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch into the grounding of the Borga has not yet been sent to Ministers. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library when it is published. The content of the report is entirely a matter for the MAIB, which is independent of Ministers; Ministers have no part in the drafting of the report.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which dates a heavy duty salvage tug was(a) present and (b) absent from the vicinity of Milford Haven during the last three months; and if he will make a statement. [17985]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 6 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about tugs.

  A heavy duty salvage tug was in the vicinity of Milford Haven on the following dates:

  14–15 December 1995

  25 December 1995

  24 January 1996

  16–29 February 1996

ENVIRONMENT

  Cement Kilns
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to require that the maximum permissible concentration of heavy metals in secondary liquid fuel burnt in cement kilns shall be no more than the maximum permitted concentration in coal burnt in cement kilns. [18867]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are no limits set for heavy metals in coal. Limits on the heavy metals in the secondary liquid fuels are set on the basis of trial results and the requirement to meet emission limits.

  Secondary Liquid Fuels
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which waste regulation authorities in England have classified secondary liquid fuel as waste; what plans the Environment Agency has to apply the duty of care provisions of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to secondary liquid fuels(a) in the area covered by each such authority and (b) in other areas of England. [18873]

  Mr. Clappison
  Whether or not a substance is waste must be determined on the facts of the case and the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. The Department has provided guidance on the interpretation of the definition of waste in DOE circular 11/94. No central record is held of waste regulation authorities' view on the definition of waste in relation to particular substances.
  218
  The duty of care is an essentially self-regulatory system and the Environment Agency will not have a specific duty to enforce it. The effect of regulation 4 of the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 will be to require a person on whom the Environment Agency serves a notice to provide a copy of the written description of the waste and the transfer note which those involved in the transfer of waste are required by regulation 3 to keep.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the cases where Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has used its powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to revoke an authorisation granted under part I of that Act or under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, together with the reasons for each such revocation. [18865]

  Mr. Clappison
  A total of 96 cases have been revoked. However, of these 93 have been at the instigation of the operator. The three cases revoked at Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's instigation are listed as follows:

  Company

  Date issued

  Reason for revocation

  A W Stokes and Sons (Drums) Ltd., West Bromwich

  28 November 1994

  Failed to effect improvement conditions in authorisation

  Beacon Waste (Hanley Swan Incinerator), Hanley Castle, Worcester

  10 February 1995

  Failed to meet authorisation conditions. Company appealed successfully against revocation

  Birds Commercial Metals Ltd., Stratford upon Avon, Warwickshire

  1 March 1996

  Plant not built, therefore never operated

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Greater Manchester Waste Regulation and Disposal Authority in regard to membership of his regional enviornment protection advisory committee; what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement. [18947]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Greater Manchester Waste Regulation and Disposal Authority has nominated a councillor for membership of the Environment Agency's north-west regional environment protection advisory committee. The Secretary of State will shorly be taking a decision on the membership schemes proposed for the REPACs by the agency, but decisions on individual members are a matter for the agency itself.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities chosen to implement phase one of the air quality duties under part IV of the Environment Act 1995. [19202]
  219
  Mr. Clappison
  The 14 areas chosen for first phase implementation comprise the following authorities:

  The London boroughs and the City Corporation

  Cambridge county council, Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire district councils

  Hampshire county council, city councils of Portsmouth, Southampton and Winchester; borough councils of Basingstoke and Deane, Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Rushmoor and Test Valley; district councils of East Hampshire, Hart, New Forest and the Isle of Wight unitary authority

  Cornwall county council, district councils of Caradon, Carrick, Ken-ier, North Cornwall and Penwith and Restormel borough council

  Bristol city council, Bath and North East Somerset unitary authority—currently Bath city council and Wansdyke district council—South Gloucestershire unitary authority—currently Northav on district council and Kingswood borough council; North West Somerset unitary authority—currently Woodspring district council

  City councils of Birmingham and Coventry; metropolitan borough councils of Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton

  District councils of Bolsover, Derbyshire Dales and North East Derbyshire; borough councils of Chesterfield and High Peak

  Ribble Valley borough council

  Liverpool city council and the metropolitan borough councils of Knowsley, Sefton, St. Helens and Wirral

  Metropolitan borough councils of Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham

  Newcastle upon Tyne city council and the metropolitan borough councils of Gateshead, North Tyeneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland

  Glasgow city council

  Aberdeen city council

  Swansea and Neath and Port Talbot unitary authorities

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the outcome of the UK round table meeting on sustainable development on 22 February; and if he will make a statement. [19808]

  Mr. Gummer
  The UK round table met on 22 February, having published in January three initial reports—on freight transport, the domestic energy market, 1998 and beyond, and environmental management and audit. At the 22 February meeting, the round table agreed its first year annual report, which will be published shortly and to which the Government will respond formally. The meeting also discussed the Sea Empress oil spill, progress in the OECD ministerial environment committee and issues arising from the Newbury bypass.

  Emergency Night Shelters
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of(a) the current number of people in emergency night shelters in London, (b) the impact on that number of the implementation of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations and (c) the current number of unoccupied places in the shelters. [19114]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: Information is not held centrally about the numbers of people and of unoccupied places in emergency night
  220
  shelters in London. The impact on the number of people using night shelters of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 will depend on future inflows of people from abroad, the number of those people who choose to seek asylum, when they choose to do so, the lengths of time they choose to stay in this country, and the accommodation options open to them.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey executive agency in the year 1996–97. [19341]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey in 1996–97:

  1. To recover at least 83 per cent. of the costs incurred by the agency.

  2. To ensure that by 31 March 1997, 96 per cent. of existing major details is surveyed and available to customers in the national topographic database at any one time. The target will increase to 99 per cent. by the year 2000.

  3. In order to provide a quality service to customers, to despatch products in response to orders as follows:

  95 per cent. of all Land-Line digital map units within six working days;

  90 per cent. of small-scale maps within five working days.

  To increase by 5 per cent. the annual revenue earned per member of staff employed.

  These targets, some of which are being incrementally increased, are closely associated with the key corporate aims of Ordnance Survey and demonstrate the agency's continuing commitment to customers and to improved value for money for all its stakeholders.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the content of all briefings given by his press office on the subject of the Scott report since 15 February. [19283]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  This would be neither customary nor practicable.

  Hong Kong (Visit)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out his programme during his recent visit to Hong Kong. [19214]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not my right hon. Friend's normal practice to do so.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister if all his engagements during his recent visit to Hong Kong related to public duty. [19215]
  221
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  Yes.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions car based and mobile phones allocated to the use of his office have been cloned; to which officers these phones had been allocated; and when this cloning was discovered, in each of the last five years; [18949]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 January, Official Report, column 45, to which officer in his personal office the phone cloned in 1994 was allocated; when it became apparent that this phone had been cloned; and what action has been taken by his office to improve the security of the mobile phone in the use of his office; [18950]

  (3) on how many occasions mobile phones allocated for the use of (a) himself and (b) his office have been cloned since his appointment. [18951]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 22 January, Official Report, column 45. I have nothing further to add.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister which Departments hold information relative to the financing by British banks, since 1980, using their customers' balances, of arms supplied to Iraq and Iran; which British banks were involved; what proportion of such financing went on the supply of Valmara 69 anti-personnel land mines; and if he will make a statement. [17934]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  Exports of lethal equipment including anti-personnel land mines from the United Kingdom to Iraq or Iran would require an export licence. No such licences have been issued since 1980. The financing by British banks of arms sales from other countries to Iraq and Iran would be a matter for Government Departments only if breaches of United Nations' sanctions were involved. Government Departments hold no evidence of such breaches by British banks. If the right hon. Member has any information regarding possible breaches of United Kingdom export controls or United Nations' sanctions, he should pass it to the relevant authorities.

  Public Appointments (Women)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many appointees to public offices in the list of public appointments were women for each year since 1990; and what proportion these represented of the total for each office. [18249]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  Information about the annual number of women appointed to public office is not maintained centrally. However, it is known that in 1990 and 1991, women held 23 per cent. of the total number of appointments
  222
  to public bodies. In October 1991, at the launch of Opportunity 2000, my right hon. Friend announced a Government initiative aimed at increasing this figure further. Good progress has been made and the percentage of such posts held by women, at 1 September 1995, is 30 per cent. The following table gives the figures for the intervening years:

  Held by women

  Total number of public appointments

  Number

  Per cent.

  1990

  44,057

  10,256

  23

  1991

  39,122

  9,135

  23

  1992

  41,011

  10,701

  26

  1993

  42,606

  12,007

  28

  1994

  42,876

  12,686

  30

  1995

  40,170

  11,898

  30

  European Courts
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages to the United Kingdom of membership of(a) the European Court of Justice and (b) the European Court of Human Rights; and by what mechanism the United Kingdom can withdraw from membership of each. [17766]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  Accepting jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is an essential element of European Union membership, the advantages and disadvantages of which have been discussed many times in this House. The UK could withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ECJ only by withdrawing from the EU.

  Our policy in respect of the European convention on human rights was set out by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 13 December 1995, Official Report, column 647.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Prime Minister if his negotiations with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to determine the electoral process will include the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party. [18943]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  Letters of invitation to the round of intensive consultations with the parties were sent on 28 February and the leaders of the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party were among the recipients.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Employment (Irish Nationals)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of persons resident in the Irish Republic who work in Northern Ireland, broken down by gender; how many of each sex are employed in each sector of the economy; and how many are employed in each council area. [18224]
  223
  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is not available.

  Watercourse Management
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the future organisation of the watercourse management division of the Department of Agriculture. [19739]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Having recently completed the prior options study which was announced to Parliament on 20 July 1994,Official Report, columns 341–42, the Government have decided that the watercourse management division should become a next steps agency from 1 October 1996.

  The division is responsible for the provision of flood defence and river drainage systems and for promoting the sustainable development of inland navigation and water recreation facilities.

  Making the watercourse management division a next steps agency will give it the flexibility to operate within a framework of appropriate efficiency targets and performance indicators, while remaining a part of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many inward investment projects have settled in Northern Ireland as a result of guidance given by the Invest in Britain Bureau over the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [17732]

  Mr. Ancram
  I am not aware of any inward investment projects having settled in Northern Ireland over the past three years as a result of guidance given by the Invest in Britain Bureau.

  School Teachers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will request the Irish Republic's Minister for Education to extend to secondary school teachers her concession on Northern Ireland trained primary school teachers without an Irish language qualification; and if he will seek legal advice on whether the Scrudu Cailiochta sa Ghaeilge requirement breaches European employment law. [18521]

  Mr. Ancram
  These are matters for the Irish Government.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what legal advice he has taken on the compliance of a decision to end the exemption in the Fair Employment Act permitted for the appointment of school teachers with article 2 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. [18522]

  Mr. Ancram
  No legal advice has been taken regarding this issue.

  Census Questions
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make representations to the Home Secretary to include a question about Ulster origin in the pilot census on a question on Irish origin. [18523]
  224
  Sir John Wheeler
  As part of the Great Britain small-scale census question testing programme, it has been decided to test various changes to the ethnic origin question, including incorporating a separate Irish category. To date, no case has been made by users to classify people from Ulster separately and therefore this is currently not being considered.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration is being given to(a) including an ethnic origin question and (b) re-wording the religious affiliation question in the Northern Ireland census; and if he will make a statement. [18524]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is planned that an ethnic origin questions will be tested in the 1997 census in Northern Ireland. The wording of all census questions, including a religious affiliation question, will be subject to review before final decisions are made. The finalised census question will be laid before Parliament by way of a Northern Ireland Order in Council, before the census.

  Orders in Council (Debate)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those Orders in Council requiring an affirmative resolution of the House that have been debated in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to date; from what date the current procedures in respect of(a) Orders in Council and (b) consideration in Standing Committees commenced; and which orders he intends to be debated in a Standing Committee in the current Session of Parliament. [18525]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Act 1974 enables the Government to legislate for Northern Ireland by way of Order in Council. In December 1994, the House agreed that all affirmative statutory instruments would be referred automatically to a Standing Committee, but could be de-referred on a Government motion, with the Government acceding to any reasonable Opposition request for de-referral. This was initially on an experimental basis but was incorporated into Standing Orders at the start of the current Session.

  Since then, the following Northern Ireland Orders in Council have been debated in Standing Committee—prior information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost;

  Orders in council under the Northern Ireland act 1974 debated in Standing Committee

  Date of debate in Standing Committee

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (NI) Order

  16 February 1995

  Fair Employment (Amendment) (NI) Order

  22 February 1995

  Children's Evidence (NI) Order

  28 February 1995

  Wildlife (Amendment) (NI) Order

  28 February 1995

  Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (NI) Order

  9 May 1995

  Arts Council (NI) Order

  7 June 1995

  Armagh Observatory and Planetarium (NI) Order 1995

  8 June 1995

  Trade Union and Labour Relations (NI) Order 1995

  4 July 1995

  Road Traffic (NI) Order 1995

  17 October 1995

  Police (Amendment) (NI) Order 1995

  18 October 1995

  Financial Provisions (NI) Order

  1 November 1995

  Street Works (NI) Order 1995

  28 November 1995

  225

  Orders in council under the Northern Ireland act 1974 debated in Standing Committee

  Date of debate in Standing Committee

  County Courts (Amendment) NI Order

  29 November 1996

  Education (NI) Order

  7 December 1996

  Gas (NI) Order

  17 January 1996

  Business Tenancies (NI) Order

  7 February 1996

  Juries (NI) Order

  28 February 1996

  The question of whether a forthcoming Order in Council should be debated in Standing Committee will be settled when it arises.

  Rathgael Centre
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many residents of the Rathgael centre in Bangor left without permission in each month of 1995; and how many were(a) charged and (b) cautioned with offences committed while out of bounds. [18526]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Rathgael is an "open" training school and the information requested about those absent without leave is as follows:

  1995

  Care1

  Offenders

  Total

  January

  19

  16

  35

  February

  20

  16

  36

  March

  29

  22

  51

  April

  24

  12

  36

  May

  19

  15

  34

  June

  29

  16

  45

  July

  25

  24

  49

  August

  25

  15

  40

  September

  12

  14

  26

  October

  23

  21

  44

  November

  23

  19

  42

  December

  19

  24

  43

  1 Residents requiring care, protection or control are accommodated separately from those given a training school order following a finding of guilt of a criminal offence.

  A total of 70 children who absconded from Rathgael in 1995 were charged with offences. Of these, 15 were there for care reasons and 55 for offending.

  A total of nine children who absconded from Rathgael in 1995 received a caution. Of these, eight were there for care reasons and one for offending.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Access to Work
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of those who applied for access to work before 18 December, but have not yet had their applications processed, will have their applications considered under the criteria used when they applied. [11485]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  226
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 6 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about how people who applied for Access to Work before 18 December will have their applications considered.The Secretary of State's announcement said that we would meet existing commitments. Thus everyone who made an application for Access to Work before 18 December will have had their applications considered under the criteria used when they applied.
  I hope this is helpful.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those contracts her Department currently holds with EDS, indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17447]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been unable to identify any contracts between the Department and the company EDS.

  Further Education (Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what change there has been in enrolments on further education courses in the Greater Manchester area from 1987 to 1995. [18260]

  Mr. Paice
  Enrolments on full-time further education courses in Greater Manchester rose from 29,700 in 1986–87 to 44,100 in 1994–95, an increase of 48 per cent. Part-time enrolments fell by 22 per cent., from 104,100 to 81,100. The number of full-time equivalent students rose by 20 per cent. from 49,000 to 58,500.

  Nursery Education Provision
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the level of provision per pupil under the Government's proposed nursery scheme for(a) year 1, (b) year 2 and (c) year 3, for those pupils (i) aged three-and-a-half-years, (ii) in reception class and (iii) aged four years; and how this figure compares with the current provision. [18799]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local education authority budgets will be reduced only by the voucher value for every four-year-old in maintained provision. They will receive £1,100 for every full voucher redeemed at a local authority-maintained school. If LEA-maintained schools recruit the same number of four-year-olds as now, then their budgets will be unaffected. Moreover, if they currently spend above the voucher value on places for four-year-olds, or on provision for three-year-olds, the funding mechanism ensures that they retain the funds to continue doing so. They will, therefore, continue to be able to fund pre-school places at existing levels.

  The expansion of provision will be largely driven by parental choice and is expected to become universal for four-year-olds within a reasonable time.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities will suffer financial penalties under the provision of the nursery voucher scheme. [18797]
  227
  Mr. Robin Squire
  No local education authority will lose any funding if it continues to recruit the same number of four-year-olds as it does now. Moreover, the voucher scheme will leave LEAs with funds to make grants to the voluntary sector, and for other related purposes.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from the Manchester Diocesan Board for Education in regard to her proposals for nursery vouchers; what reply she is making; and if she will make a statement. [17212]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received one Letter from the Manchester diocesan board of education, dated 21 February, about the nursery voucher scheme. My right hon. Friend will shortly send a full reply.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and employment if the calculation of the number of weekly guided learning hours using the criteria set out in the Further Education Funding Council's document "How to Apply for Funding 1996–97," para 164 by a claimant of jobseeker's allowance will be accepted by the Employment Service; and if she will make a statement. [19044]

  Mr. Forth
  Yes, it will.

  Access to Work
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects the review of access to work to be completed; and if she will make a statement. [19146]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question 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. David Blunkett, dated 6 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the review of Access to Work.Further to my earlier reply to you on this subject printed in Hansard, 24 January, column 285, the review of Access to Work is nearly complete, following discussions with organisations principally concerned about the programme's operation.I hope this is helpful.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her Department's implementation of the European Union's third medium-term equal opportunities programme for men and women. [17269]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Government supported the third Community action programme on equal opportunities for men and women, which ran from 1991 to 1995. The programme had three broad objectives: the implementation and development of legislation; integration of women in the labour market; and improving the status of women in society. The Government have taken a wide range of actions in all these areas.
  228

  Grant-maintained Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made about the projected savings to the Funding Agency for Schools in respect of the introduction of private sector funding for grant-maintained schools' capital expenditure. [18836]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The contribution of private sector funding to capital expenditure on grant-maintained schools will depend upon the decisions of individual school governors and the private sector. We have made it clear that capital grant from the Funding Agency for Schools will continue to ensure that essential work is funded at GM schools.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cable and Wireless
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use the Government have made of their golden share in Cable and Wireless in respect of the appointment of foreign nationals. [17154]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government accepted a request in December from Cable and Wireless to change article 119 of that company's articles of association to facilitate the appointment of a new chief executive. Article 119 relates to the managing and executive directors—paragraph B specifically to the nationality of senior executives—and the Government's agreement as special shareholder is required to amendments to this article. I announced the Government's agreement in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), on 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 862.

  Argentina (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new guidelines were placed on arms sales to Argentina between May 1979 and March 1982; and when and what were the nature of the guidelines. [18091]

  Mr. Lang
  There were no special guidelines on arms sales to Argentina in the period specified. Export licence applications for the sale of defence equipment to Argentina were circulated to the MOD and the FCO, and were considered on the basis of consistency with our strategic, security and foreign policy interests.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) arms and (b) arms-related contracts with the Argentine Government were approved by Her Majesty's Government between the years 1979 and 1982. [19352]

  Mr. Lang
  No substantial contracts for defence equipment were signed and completed after 1978. Some contracts signed before 1979 were fulfilled in 1979–81, and some contracts or spares for existing UK equipment were fulfilled.

  Jordan (Exports)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now provide information on compliance
  229

  by Jordan with end user certificates covering goods exported between 1985 to 1993, referred to in his answer of 5 May 1993, Official Report, column 106. [18540]

  Mr. Lang
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend on 5 May 1993,Official Report, column 106.

  Telecommunications (Key Escrow)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce a key escrow into Britain's telecommunications industry. [18482]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  While there are no specific plans to introduce key-escrow services into our telecommunications system, discussions are taking place between Government Departments on the provision of encryption services on these networks. Such discussions will seek to balance the legitimate commercial needs of the business community, for secure and confidential communications, with those of the law enforcement authorities. Key retrieval services therefore, via a network of trusted third parties, are one of the issues being considered.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what degree of independence the Medical Research Council has in determining the subjects of its research projects. [19173]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The responsibilities and powers of the Medical Research Council are as defined in the Science and Technology Act 1965 and its supplemental royal charter, dated 16 December 1993.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the statutory role of his Department or agencies of his Department in deciding the subjects of research projects conducted by the Medical Research Council. [19174]

  Mr. Taylor
  My statutory role in relation to the Medical Research Council is as set out in the Science and Technology Act 1965, as amended by the Transfer of Functions (Science) Order 1992 and the Transfer of Functions (Science) Order 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received alleging erosion of independence of the Medical Research Council by his Department or agencies of his Department. [19175]

  Mr. Taylor
  None.

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been awarded in launch aid in each year since 1990; and how much has been repaid in each year. [19093]

  Mr. Eggar
  Following is a table showing the amount of launch aid awarded and repaid since 1990.

  £ million

  Financial year

  payments

  Receipts

  1990–91

  141.1

  51.8

  1991–92

  78.7

  83.0

  1992–93

  31.4

  74.7

  230

  £ million

  Financial year

  payments

  Receipts

  1993–94

  0.6

  56.9

  1994–95

  2.0

  47.0

  Launch aid financial information is collated within the Department in financial rather than calendar years.

  Rolls-Royce (Tupolev Aircraft)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance he has given to Rolls-Royce to secure contracts for the supply of Rolls-Royce engines for Tupolev aircraft. [19095]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department has invited the Russian Ministry of Finance to nominate Rolls-Royce RB211 aeroengines for the Tupolev 204 as a priority for ECGD cover if it wishes to do so. However, the order or priorities is for the Russian authorities to decide.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Government published their strategy for the aerospace industry. [19092]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government work with the Society of British Aerospace Companies, which published its national aerospace framework in January. The SBAC and DTI set out the areas on which they are working together in a joint statement, which I announced on 29 November 1995.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had about the future of British Coal Enterprise; and if he will make a statement. [18946]

  Mr. Page
  My ministerial colleagues and I have discussions about British Coal Enterprise as necessary. Officials in my Department remain in close touch with British Coal about the future of BCE.

  Nigeria (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the types of export licences granted for the sales of arms products to Nigeria since November 1993. [17281]

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology on 10 May 1995,Official Report, columns 517–18 and the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 27 February 1996, Official Report, column 459. On 11 November 1995, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a full UK arms embargo against Nigeria and, subsequently, on 20 November the European Union introduced a full scope arms embargo against the country.
  231
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will write to the hon. Member when the statistical analysis of export licences granted for military, para-military and security equipment during 1995 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Arms Manufacturers
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of companies who are manufacturing arms under licence in the United Kingdom for a foreign parent company. [17282]

  Mr. Lang
  No such estimate has been made.

  Radio and Television Interference
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of Trade what changes will occur the Radiocommunications Agency's investigating interference to domestic radio reception.

  Departmental Inquiries
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) internal and (b) MOD police inquiries have been carried out within his Department since 1993. [17806]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The agency's charge to visit householders to diagnose their reception arrangements will be increased from £35 to £40 with effect from 1 April 1996. This will bring it more into line with the private sector's charges for this type of work. The agency will continue to check specific sources of interference to television and radio reception free of charges as part of its regulatory duties.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he will publish the Government's response to the recommendations of the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement in the United Kingdom, which reported to Ministers in June 1994; [18966]

  (2) what plans he has to transfer the functions of the Fire Service in respect of general fire safety legislation and enforcement, to (a) local authority bodies, (b) private inspectors and (c) the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement. [18967]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have been considering the findings of the review and the views expressed by interested parties, including the deregulation task force. We have also been further considering the fire safety aspects of the EC framework and workplace directives. An announcement on both will be made soon.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what has been the cost of the installation of telephones; and how many were installed for the use of hon. Members' staff at(a) Stirling, (b) Inverness, (c) Aberdeen and (d) Kilmarnock in respect of meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. [17119]
  232
  Mr. Beith
  Telephones are installed for Members' use at meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee when there are insufficient existing lines. These telephones may also be used by Members' staff. Additional telephone lines have been installed as follows:

  Stirling: six

  Inverness: nil

  Aberdeen: three

  Kilmarnock: six (ordered for 4 March)

  The cost for the installation at Stirling was £919.60. Costs for the other locations are not yet available.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Inquiries
  Mr. Keen
  To ask Secretary of for Defence how many(a) internal and (b) MOD police inquiries have been carried out within his Department since 1993. [17806]

  Mr. Soames
  Information on the number of internal inquiries carried out within my Department since 1993 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of the numbers of MOD police inquiries are contained in the Chief Constables's annual report for 1993–94 and 1994–95, which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual cost of maintaining the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent. [18088]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The running costs of the Polaris boats in 1994–95 was £65 million. The average annual operating cost of Trident over its life is expected to be about £200 million.

  Military Equipment Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he has made to this policy relating to the release of information concerning the export of military equipment to Iraq in the last six years; and if he will make a statement. [18534]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is contained in the background note, "Ministerial Accountability and the Release of Information on Defence Related Exports", which was placed in the Library of the House on 26 February 1996.

  Sea Water (Charted Depths)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to revise chart datum; on how many occasions since 1 January the charted depth has been lower than the lowest astronomical tide; and by how much charted low water depths were below chart datum during the storms and spring tides of early 1996. [18608]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Hydrographic Office. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  233
  Letter from John Clarke to Mr. Barry Field, dated 6 March 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question (0528H) to the Secretary of State for Defence about chart datum as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency.There are no plans to revise chart datum in UK waters. Chart Datum (CD) is defined as a level so low that the tide will not frequently fall below it. In the United Kingdom this level is taken as approximately the level of Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT). LAT is defined as the lowest level which can be predicted to occur under average meteorological conditions and any combination of astronomical conditions.The UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) maintains and monitors records for three permanently established tide gauges, at Plymouth (Devonport), Portsmouth and Rosyth. These records show that at all three ports the water level has fallen below CD/LAT on one occasion since 1 January 1996. In each case this occurred on 20 February 1996 when at Plymouth the recorded level was 0.18 metres below CD, at Portsmouth 0.10 meters below CD and at Rosyth 0.13 metres below CD. Tidal records for other ports are not held by the UKHO on a permanent basis.I hope this response is of assistance.

  Air Vice-Marshall Howard
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1996,Official Report, column 318, what (a) reprimand or (b) penalty was issued to Air Vice-Marshall Howard for his failure to seek permission for a business appointment. [19046]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None. Air Vice-Marshal Howard retired in October 1988 and the Department did not become aware of his consultancy with Tripod Engineering Ltd. until May 1993.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ex-service Personnel (Pension Appeal Tribunals)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many ex-service people with attributable hearing loss were on waiting lists for hearings by the pension appeal tribunals at the latest date for which figures are available and at the same date in each of the preceeding 10 years; what action he is taking to reduce the average waiting time; and if he will make a statement. [18955]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Specific information about hearing loss cases is not available as the pensions appeal tribunals do not record appeals by the type of disability or injury which is subject to appeal.

  In order to reduce waiting times in all cases, extra staff and judicial officers have been appointed which has enabled an increase in tribunal sittings and cases heard. A scheme has been introduced to give priority to appellants aged over 68 and those who are terminally ill. Administrative changes are being made to enable more hearings in the absence of the appellant and more flexible listing procedures are planned which will allow appeals to be heard at short notice.

TREASURY

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations underlay the choice of extracts from the Scott report cited at the top half of the second page of the press release 26/96 issued by his Department on 15 February. [18553]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  They demonstrated that the allegations of deliberately misleading Parliament levelled against my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary before publication of the Scott report were not endorsed by Sir Richard Scott.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the memorandum submitted by his Department in appendix A in volume V of the Scott report, for what reasons he included guns in the first heading on the third page of his departmental press release 26/96 issued on 15 February. [18587]

  Mr. Clarke
  The items included in parentheses were chosen as good examples in general of lethal equipment.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16570]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 February 1996, Official Report, column 239.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16608]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature or the specific sources of the advice that they receive from the civil service.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16536]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: A small number of civil servants in my Departments had access to the report prior to publication for the purpose of preparing the Government's response. Such access was in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Scott inquiry.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer. what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom's capacity(a) to revalue and (b) to devalue sterling in a partial EMU excluding the United Kingdom. [17277]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  If the UK exercises its option not to join stage 3 of EMU the Government will continue to decide what exchange rate arrangements for Sterling are in the country's best interests.
  235
  In this context, the Prime Minister secured agreement at the Madrid European Council that the ECOFIN Council, together with, in their respective fields of competence, the Commission and the European Monetary Institute, study the range of issues raised by the possibility that some countries may not initially participate in the Euro area, including issues related to monetary stability and exchange rate relations.

  National Savings
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his plans for the Department for National Savings. [19740]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided that the Department for National Savings should be launched as an executive agency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1 July 1996.

  As a next steps executive agency, National Savings will continue to provide a source of funds for Government and a safe home for savings. The agency will have more freedom to manage its affairs and clearer responsibilities within a framework of objectives, annual performance targets and resources agreed with Ministers. It will be set clear targets to continue to improve value for money for the taxpayer and the level of service to customers.

  Barlow Clowes
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans his Department has to ensure that former small investors of the investment company run by Barlow Clowes are fully compensated for losses caused by fraudulent activity; [18324]

  (2) for what reasons the compensation package offered to former small investors of the investment company run by Barlow Clowes was limited to 90 per cent. of losses. [18380]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: On 19 December 1989, the Government announced their decision to offer substantial payments, without admission of fault or liability, to investors who suffered loss as a result of the Barlow Clowes collapse.

  In determining the levels of the ex-gratia payments, the Government considered it important to maintain the principle of co-insurance. Investors must be expected to have some responsibility for their own decisions and, therefore, bear some of the loss themselves. The payments made by the Government provided for the early relief of hardship caused to large numbers of investors. It also ensured swifter relief than would have been the case had investors pursued their interests through the courts.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent on 21 February 1996,Official Report, column 157, if he will set out the improvements in the way the Customs and Excise handles major prosecutions arising from alleged breaches of export control regulations to which he refers. [18533]
  236
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The improvements referred to are encapsulated in guidelines which were first issued in July 1991 and later revised and reissued in June 1995. These guidelines cover the handling of sensitive cases, including those concerning breaches of export controls. They reinforce established procedures and introduce a system of formal reviews to ensure that the strength of the evidence and the overall progress of the case are monitored. They formalise a system of consultation and monitoring between investigators, case solicitor and the policy administrators at an early stage in an investigation.

  The guidelines provide for a "case co-ordinator" who is appointed from the administrators. They also specify that responsibility for the conduct of a case falls to the Customs solicitor's office and that the case solicitor must regularly review the evidence, reporting regularly to the case co-ordinator in writing and making additional reports as circumstances and changes in the case require.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishermen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instruct the Director of the Marine Safety Agency(a) to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and (b) to provide officials to assist the national federation's safety and training committee in respect of EEC regulations on health, hygiene, safety and medical stores. [18857]

  Mr. Baldry
  I met Viscount Goschen, the Department of Transport Minister responsible for the Marine Safety Agency, on 16 February, to discuss a number of issues that fishermen have raised with me. I know that he is aware of the needs of the fishing industry and we agreed to meet again soon. I also understand that the Marine Safety Agency has arranged a meeting with representatives of the fishermen's federations on 26 March to discuss the industry's concerns about a framework for future consultation.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what hectarage is given up to(a) set-aside land and (b) each of the 10 highest land area covering crops; and how many kilometres length of river bank runs along set-aside land in (i) the UK, (ii) each other member state of the EU and (iii) the EU in total. [18621]

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest figures for the area of land set-aside in the EU as of 15 January 1995 are set out in the table.

  The latest complete details of the 10 highest land area covering crops are given in section 3.5.2.2. of "The Agricultural Situation in the EU 1994", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The information about the length of river bank that runs along set-aside land in the other member states and the EU in total is not available. In the UK, this information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  237

  Land set-aside as of 15 January 1995

  Country

  Rotational set-aside (HA)

  Non-rotational set-aside (HA)

  UK

  337,281

  266,579

  Belgium

  14,126

  7,860

  Denmark

  46,503

  200,682

  France

  748,937

  977,590

  Germany

  469,482

  855,228

  Greece

  9,677

  8,456

  Ireland

  19,053

  13,107

  Italy

  182,650

  65,042

  Luxembourg

  1,641

  456

  Netherlands

  9,406

  2,441

  Portugal

  n/a

  n/a

  Spain

  418,767

  1.007,202

  Austria

  57,902

  65,268

  Finland

  153,000

  59,000

  Sweden

  82,855

  246,328

  EU 15

  2.551,280

  3.775,239

  Fisheries Closures
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what consultations his Department has had with inshore fishermen north of Bridlington in relation to the closure of the Dover sole fishery for boats under 10 m; [19163]

  (2) what action he has taken to ensure that future closure of fisheries will not be taken without consultation with the sector of the fishing industry most directly involved. [19164]

  Mr. Baldry
  Before the closure of the North sea sole fishery to vessels 10 m and under in length from 1 January to 31 March 1996, the Ministry consulted both the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations which represents inshore fishermen in England including those north of Bridlington, and the Yorkshire and Anglia Fish Producers' Organisation based at Bridlington which also includes inshore fishermen among its members. Ministry officials also met with representatives of the NFFO and fishermen from the north-east on 5 February. At the request of the NFFO, the Ministry has agreed to consult directly with the NFFO's constituent organisations on any future proposals to effect a temporary closure of a fishery. Such consultation will not, however, extend to those fishery closures which are necessary because of the full utilisation of quota allocations.

  Dredging (The Wash)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure that dredging activities in the Wash will not affect local inshore fisheries. [19165]

  Mr. Baldry
  MAFF will not agree to any aggregate dredging licence being issued unless it is satisfied that the interests of the marine environment and commercial fishing activities can be adequately protected. Current dredging operations near the Wash are subject to extensive conditions to minimise the effect of the operation including liaison arrangements and post-dredge surveys.

  In addition, an extensive monitoring programme is being undertaken to assess the effects of the dredging.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15607]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 20 February 1996]: It is planned that the Ministry's resource management system will be able to generate the requisite information within the financial year 1996–97.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which projects in the county of Mid Glamorgan have benefited from lottery funding; and what sums they have received. [17568]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, 51 awards totalling £6.7 million have been made to organisations in Mid Glamorgan. I attach a complete list for information.

  National Lottery awards in Mid Glamorgan

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount

  Arts

  24 March 1995

  Coliseum Operatic and Drama Society

  Aberdare, Mid Glamorgan

  2,115.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  8th Cynon Valley Scout Group

  Aberdare, Mid Glamorgan

  1,200.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Penywaun Community Centre

  Aberdare, Mid Glamorgan

  3,000.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Bargoed, Aberbargoed and Gilfach Credit Union Ltd.

  Bargoed, Mid Glamorgan

  69,695.00

  NLCB

  23 October 1995

  Arthritis Care— Bridgend Branch

  Bridgend

  3,000.00

  Sports

  15 December 1995

  Bridgend Canoe Club

  Bridgend

  7,058.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Multiple Sclerosis Society

  Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  1,620.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  West Ward Community Association

  Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  40,946.00

  Sports

  21 December 1995

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  Cymmer

  436,553.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Maerdy Ferndale Tenants Board

  Ferndale, Mid Glamorgan

  6,200.00

  Sports

  15 December 1995

  Gilfach Goch Community Association

  Gilfach Goch

  3,930.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Antur Enfys

  Maesteg, Mid Glamorgan

  144,606.00

  Sports

  13 October 1995

  Clwb Rygbi'r Bala

  Meirionnydd

  80,547.00

  Sports

  13 October 1995

  Troedyrhiw Boys and Girls Club

  Merthyr Tydfil

  25,900.00

  Sports

  13 October 1995

  Penydarren Girls and Boys Club

  Merthyr Tydfil

  112,000.00

  NHMF

  23 November 1995

  Cefn Coed Viaduct Restoration

  Merthyr Tydfil

  375,000.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Galon Uchaf Residents Association

  Merthyr Tydfil, Mid Glamorgan

  23,152.00

  239

  National Lottery awards in Mid Glamorgan

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Cefn Coed Community Centre

  Merthyr Tydfil, Mid Glamorgan

  37,500.00

  Sports

  7 June 1995

  Abercynon RFC

  Mid Glamorgan

  295,908.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Llwynypia Primary School Parents Association

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,910.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Mid Glamorgan Citizen Advocacy

  Mid Glamorgan

  44,895.00

  NLCB

  23 October 1995

  Mid Glamorgan Referral Scheme

  Mid Glamorgan

  60,000.00

  Arts

  13 February 1996

  Ynyshir Welfare Band

  Mid Glamorgan: Rhondda

  32,711.00

  Arts

  13 February 1996

  Penyrheol Modenairs Jazz Band

  Mid Glamorgan: Rhymney Valley

  2,610.00

  Arts

  13 February 1996

  Taff Ely Borough Council

  Mid Glamorgan: Taff Ely

  23,484.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Caerphilly and District Victim Support

  Newport, Mid Glamorgan

  4,700.00

  Arts

  17 July 1995

  Ogmore Valley Male Voice Choir

  Ogmore Vale

  71,338.00

  Sports

  7 June 1995

  Pencoed Comprehensive School/Ogwr Borough Council

  Ogwr

  72,255.00

  Sports

  29 June 1995

  Tondu Cricket Club

  Ogwr

  67,860.00

  MC

  11 September 1995

  Garw

  Ogwr

  1,150,000.00

  MC

  11 September 1995

  Tondu Industrial Estate

  Ogwr

  2,000,000.00

  Sports

  13 October 1995

  Ewenny and Corntown Cricket Club

  Ogwr

  40,000.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Ystrad Rhondda Boys Club

  Pentre, Mid Glamorgan

  30,000.00

  Sports

  13 October 1995

  Pontyclun Rugby Football Sports Club

  Pontyclun

  295,737.00

  Arts

  17 July 1995

  Menter Taf Elai

  Pontypridd

  2,100.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Pontypridd Gingerbread

  Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan

  3,000.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1996

  Age Concern Mid Glamorgan

  Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan

  180,282.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Gilfach Goch Netball Club

  Porth, Mid Glamorgan

  22,612.00

  Arts

  12 May 1995

  Rhymney Valley Recreational Activities Club

  Rhymney Valley

  14,275.00

  NLCB

  23 October 1995

  Rhymney Valley Mind

  Rhymney Valley

  19,406.00

  Arts

  18 December 1995

  Taff Ely Borough Council

  Taff Ely

  56,314.00

  Sports

  3 May 1995

  Y Pant Comprehensive School

  Taff-Ely

  4,500.00

  Sports

  13 October 1995

  Llantrisant Lawn Tennis Club

  Taff-Ely

  12,351.00

  Sports

  13 October 1995

  Llantwit Fadre Cricket Club

  Taff-Ely

  39,382.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Clydach Vale Boys Club

  Tonypandy, Mid Glamorgan

  58,500.00

  240

  National Lottery awards in Mid Glamorgan

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Penygraig Community Project

  Tonypandy, Rhondda, Mid Glamorgan

  301,999.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Tonyrefail Boys and Girls Club

  Tonyrefail, Mid Glamorgan

  20,000.00

  NLCB

  15 December 1995

  Cwmpare Community Welfare Association

  Treorchy, Mid Glamorgan

  147,900.00

  Sports

  21 July 1995

  Cowbridge Comprehensive School

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2,381.00

  Sports

  21 July 1995

  Penarth Motor Boat and Sailing Club

  Vale of Glamorgan

  235,212.00

  Sports

  26 October 1995

  Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council

  Vale of Glamorgan

  28,450.00

  Sports

  26 October 1995

  Llantwit Major Surf Lifesaving Club

  Vale of Glamorgan

  25,475.00

  Total (51 awards)

  6,717,094.00

  Arts Council
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions she has had with the Arts Council regarding change to distribution rules to create a stability fund to enable lottery funds to be spent on staff restructuring and if she will make it her policy to resist such a change. [18225]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Arts Council has approached me with a proposal for a scheme to be financed from the lottery to provide ways of putting arts organisations on a firmer financial basis without entering into continuing commitments for revenue funding. The Arts Council is currently working up detailed proposals in consultation with my Department and others.

  Broadcasting Bill
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the consultants employed to advise her Department upon the technical aspects of the Broadcasting Bill, with particular reference to the operation of multiplexes. [17930]

  Mr. Sproat
  In March 1995 my Department commissioned the National Economic Research Association to prepare a study of methods of media market measurement. The results of this study informed the preparation of Government policy on cross-media ownership which is reflected in the Broadcasting Bill.

  My Department did not commission any work from consultants on digital broadcasting, but relied on the technical advice of the Radiocommunications Agency and the broadcasting authorities.

  Royal Armouries (International) plc
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what sums have been made available to Royal Armouries (International) plc to create a museum. [19105]
  241
  Mr. Sproat
  The new Royal Armouries museum, Leeds is being funded by the public and private sectors. My Department is providing £20 million from its existing resources.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which (i) directors and (ii) senior employees of Royal Armouries (International) plc are(a) former public servants, (b) hon. or former hon. Members and (c) Peers. [19107]

  Mr. Sproat
  General Sir James Glover, formerly Commander-in-Chief, United kingdom Land Forces, is the chairman of Royal Armouries (International) plc. No other director or senior employee falls into any of the categories listed.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what terms armour and other material will be provided to Royal Armouries (International) plc for exhibitions. [19106]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Royal Armouries is making available a substantial part of its collection to Royal Armouries (International) plc for exhibition in the new Royal Armouries museum, Leeds. Royal Armouries (International) plc will meet the costs of conserving and displaying the collection. The Royal Armouries will retain ownership of the collection.

  Oflot (Hospitality Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much has been spent by Oflot on official hospitality since its setting up. [18239]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: This is a matter for the Director General of the National Lottery. I have therefore asked the Director General to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18142]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: Officials in this Department who are currently directors of companies must under departmental rules declare their interest to senior managers who must be satisfied that there is no conflict of interest between officials' public duties and private activities. Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and the Department.

  Tourism
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice she has supplied to the know-how funds on tourism projects; and in respect of which projects. [16327]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has not provided advice on tourism projects supported by the know-how funds.
  242
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many tourists visited(a) the north-west of England and (b) Lancashire in 1990 and 1995. [16381]

  Mr. Sproat
  Visitor figures are not yet available for 1995. The figures for 1990 and 1994 are as follows:

  Million

  1990

  1994

  North-West

  Domestic visitor trips

  7.5

  8.6

  Domestic visitor expenditure

  £755

  £1,090

  Overseas visitor trips

  0.98

  1.12

  Overseas visitor expenditure

  £228

  £395

  Lancashire

  Domestic visitor trips

  3.6

  3.7

  Domestic visitor expenditure

  £450

  £552

  Overseas visitor trips

  0.18

  0.18

  Overseas visitor expenditure

  £43

  £51

  These figures relate to overnight visitor trips and expenditure. The north-west is defined as the area covered by the north-west tourist board—that is, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has for each year since 1990, of the number of non-United Kingdom citizens granted(a) leave to enter the United Kingdom and (b) the right of settlement in the United Kingdom, on the basis of a personal relationship outside marriage with a United Kingdom based person of the opposite sex; and what representations he has received alleging that these arrangements have been, or can be, abused for the purposes of illegal immigration. [18502]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 1 May 1995,Official Report, column 102. The corresponding figure for common-law spouses accepted for settlement in 1995 is provisionally 550. The immigration rules do not provide for a person to seek admission to the United Kingdom on the basis of a common-law relationship.

  Investigation of applications for leave to remain on the basis of a heterosexual common-law relationship has uncovered abuse of these arrangements.

  Crimes Against Children
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account he has taken of the recent extension of the powers of coroners to investigate deaths occurring outside the United Kingdom in the context of his consideration of legislation relating to crimes against children committed by United Kingdom citizens abroad. [18612]
  243
  Mr. Maclean
  Coroners have jurisdiction to inquire into deaths abroad only where the deceased has been returned to England or Wales and there is reason to suppose that the statutory grounds for holding an inquest are met. The evidential requirements and the procedures applicable in coroners' courts are, of course, different from those of criminal courts and it is difficult therefore to make any meaningful comparisons between the two systems.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what external legal advice he has received about enacting United Kingdom legislation relating to crimes committed abroad by United Kingdom citizens against children of other countries. [18611]

  Mr. Maclean
  As part of its consideration of what measures might be taken to tackle the problem of British nationals committing offences against children in other countries, the Government have sought advice and information from a number of sources. In particular, we have contacted the relevant authorities in a number of countries, and received from them details about their law, and its application, in this area.

  We have also received advice from non-governmental organisations. The Coalition on Child Prostitution and Tourism, for example, submitted independent legal advice in connection with one aspect of our research, and has also undertaken to provide further information in connection with the inter-departmental review of extra-territorial jurisdiction, which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 1 February.

  Fire Service
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account has been taken of the geographic area in which fire brigades have to operate in calculating the size of management teams. [18657]

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for the management of fire brigade services in their areas is a matter for individual fire authorities.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage shortfall of finance for the provision of fire service pay increases; and what assessment he has made of its impact upon Cheshire county council. [18732]

  Mr. Sackville
  The impact of national pay awards on individual fire authorities will vary according to their particular circumstances. Like every other fire authority, Cheshire county council has a responsibility to set its budget having regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the size of the nationally agreed pay awards.

  Police and Fire Service Pensions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a common inquiry into the funding of police and fire service pensions. [18678]

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The Government are not convinced that any radical change is needed on the funding arrangements for police and fire service pensions. In determining support for police authority and local government revenue funding, the Government already 244
  take into account the increasing amount which currently needs to be spent on pensions for police officers and firefighters.

  For 1996–97, an additional £80 million is being made available to police authorities to help fund pension costs. A refinement of the model on which the pensions element of the police funding formula is based will help to ensure that money available for pensions goes where it is most needed.

  For the fire service, £14 million has been added to the total in 1996–97 to assist fire authorities in meeting the cost of firefighters' pensions. An additional indicator to reflect pension costs has been built into the distribution formula for the standard spending assessment total.

  The details of police and fire pension schemes have both been under review. The results will shortly be the subject of consultation with police and fire interests.

  Immigration Consultants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines exist for former members of immigration and nationality departments who leave the service to become immigration consultants. [18574]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  There are no specific guidelines. All former members of staff remain bound by the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts and by their duty of confidentiality to the Crown. In addition, all staff who leave are reminded of their obligations under the business appointment rules.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning the Asylum and Immigration Bill; and how many have been in favour of the proposals and how many against. [18576]

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the period 23 November 1995 to 1 March 1996, the asylum division recorded 1,037 representations about the Asylum and Immigration Bill: 800 of these representations have been critical of the Bill and 158 have supported it; the views of the remainder are not recorded. A total of 2,134 names have been submitted on petitions against the Bill. Many of the letters were sent by supporters of a campaign which has been mounted by groups opposed to the Bill and I do not regard them as an accurate barometer of public opinion.

  Prisoners' Brains
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Ronald Kray's brain was not buried with his body; and what consents were obtained. [18908]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that at the time of Ronald Kray's funeral the brain was not buried with the body since it was still subject to an investigation to establish the cause of death. I am informed that the necessary consents were obtained from the coroner for East Berkshire.

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pages of guidance notes have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) regulatory authorities and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three years. [18637]

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

  Children's Certificates
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 158, for what reasons it has not proved possible to move as quickly as originally hoped in respect of children's certificates. [18760]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The main difficulties have been divergent practice in different licensing areas, and the absence of firm data on expected take-up rates.

  Prisoners' Wives and Families Society
  Mr Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide additional financial assistance to the Prisoners' Wives and Families Society; and if he will make a statement. [18948]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Clive Soley, dated 6 March 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about plans to provide additional financial assistance to the Prisoners' Wives and Families Society.Although in recent years the Prison Service has made a small number of ex-gratia payments to selected organisations known to be in crisis over funding, there are currently no funds available for financial assistance to organisations supporting prisoner and family ties.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners, having failed to return from authorised leave, are on the run from Buckley Hall prison; and what are the equivalent average figures for other prisons. [18116]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 6 March 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners, having failed to return from authorised leave, are on the run from Buckley Hall prison, and what are the equivalent average figures for other prisons.246 The number of prisoners who failed to return from authorised leave from HM Prison Buckley Hall from its date of opening on 14 December 1994 until 26 February 1996 and who are still unlawfully at large is 10.The equivalent average figure for similar establishments, male category C training prisons, for the same period is 1.06.

  West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the standard spending assessment for the west midlands fire and civil defence authority for each of the last five years; and if he will express the figures in(a) real terms and (b) as a percentage change on the previous year. [19053]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Actual

  Percentage change

  Real terms

  1992–93

  67.29

  +7.6

  70.55

  1993–94

  69.07

  +2.6

  70.36

  1994–95

  68.35

  -1

  68.35

  1995–96

  68.96

  +0.9

  67.11

  1996–97

  69.57

  +0.9

  65.9

  1. Standard spending assessment figures include capital financing.

  2. Figures up to 1993–94 include civil defence. Subsequent figures do not.

  Key Performance Indicators (Prisons)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost per in-use certified normal accommodation place in accordance with key performance indicators during the financial year 1994–95 for(a) Blakenhurst, (b) Doncaster, (c) Bullingdon, (d) Holme House and (e) Elmley gaols. [18937]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 March 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 cost per in use certified normal accommodation place in accordance with key performance indicators during the financial year 1994–95 for (a) Blakenhurst, (b) Doncaster, (c) Bullingdon, (d) Holme House and (e) Elmley establishments.The figures are given in the attached table. The figures for public and private sector establishments are not directly comparable. The costs for training, uniforms, equipment, materials, etc are included in costs to private sector establishments but not in those for public sector establishments.

  Establishment

  Net current expenditure £ million

  Average in use CNA

  Cost per in use CNA place £

  Blakenhurst

  11.6

  649

  17,874

  Doncaster

  11.6

  589

  19,694

  Bullingdon/Oxford

  14.4

  746

  19,303

  Elmley

  11.4

  633

  18,009

  Holme House

  11.9

  649

  18,336

  The cost per in use CNA place is calculated by dividing net current expenditure by average in use CNA.
  247

  Prison Administration Expenditure
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of headquarters administration expenditure is included in the cost per certified normal accommodation place in public prisons. [18938]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 March 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what proportion of headquarters administration expenditure is included in the cost per certified normal accommodation place in public prisons.The costs per baseline certified normal accommodation place quoted in the annual report for individual public sector prisons do not include any element of headquarters administration expenditure.The cost per place figure for the Service does include headquarters expenditure.

  Prison Assaults
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local prison in England and Wales had the highest assault rate during the period April to September 1995. [18940]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 March 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking, which local prison in England and Wales had the highest assault rate between April and September 1995.Provisional information shows that the female section of Risley prison, a multi purpose prison in Warrington, had the highest assault rate among all local establishments at 48 per 100 population, between April and September 1995.

  Visa Restrictions (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that holders of the new Hong Kong Special Administrative region passport will be able to enter the United Kingdom without visa restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [18941]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on 4 March 1996, Official Report, column 62.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Fire Services)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what factors the standard spending assessment for fire services is decided; and what plans he has to change them. [19052]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: The fire standard spending assessment is distributed in England by means of a formula which takes into account
  248
  a number of factors including population, population density and fire calls. From 1996–97 it has been adjusted to include factors for firefighters' pensions and fire safety enforcement.

  The formula is reviewed each year in consultation with local authority representatives and this process is about to start for 1997–98.

  Census Questions
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) of 18 December,Official Report, column 940, what consideration is being given to the classification of people from Northern Ireland within a possible Irish category in the next census. [18527]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  It has now been decided to test various changes to the ethnic origin question, including incorporating a separate Irish category. To date no case has been made by users to classify people from Northern Ireland separately and therefore this is currently not being considered.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people aged(a) 15 and (b) 16 years were remanded into prison custody in 1995 and in each of the last 10 years; and how many in each age group and in each year subsequently received a custodial sentence. [18376]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 6 March 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 15 and 16 year olds who were remanded into prison custody in 1995 and in each of the last 10 years; and how many subsequently received a custodial sentence.The available information is given in the attached tables. The remand receptions include those received either as untried prisoners or as convicted unsentenced prisoners; those received both as untried and convicted unsentenced are counted once.For 1994, separate figures for untried and convicted unsentenced receptions are given in table 3.10 of "Prison statistics England and Wales 1994" Cm. 3087, a copy of which is in the Library.The information on the proportion of young remand prisoners in England and Wales subsequently receiving a custodial sentence is given in table 2.9 of "Prison statistics England and Wales 1991", a copy of which is also in the Library. This has been extended to include 1992 and 1993 data; later results are not available.

  The number of 15 and 16-year-olds remanded into prison custody, 1986 to 1995

  Males Aged 14 to 16

  Females Aged 14 to 16

  1986

  1,702

  5

  1987

  1,861

  3

  1988

  1,604

  12

  1989

  1,459

  6

  249

  Males

  Females

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  1990

  380

  883

  0

  3

  1991

  412

  752

  2

  2

  1992

  377

  720

  0

  1

  1993

  453

  906

  1

  1

  1994

  635

  1,100

  0

  3

  19951

  640

  1,242

  2

  5

  1 Provisional.

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments of untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners aged less than 17: proportion known to have been subsequently received under sentence: by type of first remand and sex, 1986 to 1993

  Percentage

  First received as untried and not subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  First received as untried and subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  First received as convicted unsentenced

  Males

  1986

  55

  73

  58

  1987

  50

  68

  62

  1988

  43

  63

  46

  1989

  32

  53

  31

  1990

  32

  48

  47

  1991

  28

  60

  50

  Females

  1986

  —

  —

  67

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  50

  60

  1989

  50

  —

  100

  1990

  —

  —

  50

  1991

  —

  —

  100

  Percentage

  Proportion of male remand receptions subsequently received under sentence

  Proportion of female remand receptions subsequently received under sentence

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  1992

  37

  42

  —

  100

  1993

  42

  49

  100

  —

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  House of Commons (Cars)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will instruct drivers working in the Government car pool that car engines are not to be kept running while the car is parked within the precincts of the House. [18264]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is an operational matter on which I have asked the chief executive of the Security Facilities Executive—SAFE—to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from J. C. King to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 5 March 1996:

  I have been asked by Mr Freeman, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (who now has Ministerial responsibility for the Government Car Service (GCS), to let you have a response to your Parliamentary Question concerning the running of GCS car engines
  250
  within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I am the Chief Executive of the Agency with operational responsibility for the GCS.

  Government Car Service drivers remain under clear instructions, while parked with in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, to keep their vehicle engines running to a minimum consistent with passenger and security requirements. To reinforce this, I have arranged for GCS Management to issue a fresh notice to all GCS drivers.

  "Guidance on Guidance"
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place a copy of "Guidance on Guidance": "An Index of Useful Documents", in the Library. [18617]

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. As soon as the current version of "Guidance on Guidance: An Index of Useful Documents" has been printed, copies will be placed in the Library.

  Illiteracy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those areas of public service or activity where illiteracy is a disqualification from participation. [18782]

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the public service as a whole is not held centrally. As far as the civil service is concerned, Departments and agencies are responsible for prescribing the recruitment criteria, including literacy skills, necessary to ensure that recruits are able to do the work required.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library details of fiches d'impact sent to Government Departments by the European Commission. [18738]

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of fiches d'impact sent to individual Government Departments are not kept centrally.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18144]

  Mr. Freeman
  Staff in the Departments and agencies for which I am responsible, and other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office vote, are required to declare any business interest, such as directorships, which might conflict with their oficial duties and to comply with any subsequent instructions regarding the retention, disposal and management of such interests. It is not my practice to disclose information on the personal interests of officials.

  Non-executive directorships for civil servants for developmental reasons or on an ex officio basis are encouraged under a Government-sponsored scheme. They provide an opportunity for interchange between the civil

  251
  service and outside organisations, particularly with the private sector. At present, however, no officials of the Cabinet Office hold directorships under this scheme.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18145]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office forms part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office (Privatisation)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy that public libraries will receive a 50 per cent. discount on official publications after the privatisation of HMSO. [19231]

  Mr. Freeman
  I can confirm that there are no plans to end the current arrangements for subsidising public libraries in this respect. After privatisation, the subsidy will continue to be administered from within Government by the residual HMSO, and will be entirely separate from the privatised business.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy that no restriction will be imposed on the copying of official publications for private study after the privatisation of HMSO. [19233]

  Mr. Freeman
  The current arrangements for administering Crown copyright allow documents covered by it to be copied for purposes of private study. As I explained in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 9 February,Official Report, column 370, privatisation of HMSO will not alter these arrangements, and control of Crown copyright will remain in the Government.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the safeguards he proposes to ensure the continued efficiency of the distribution of official publications after the privatisation of HMSO. [19276]

  Mr. Freeman
  The criteria for selecting the winning bid for HMSO will place great emphasis on the commitment and ability of each bidder to meet customers' requirements.

  Arrangements for distributing official publications, whether by HMSO or otherwise, are determined by the originating Department. After privatisation, each customer will have a legally binding contract with the privatised stationery office, or another supplier, for those services. The contracts can specify all aspects of a customer's requirements.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the findings made by consultants to estimate the probable effect of the proposed privatisation of HMSO on the prices to the public of official publications. [19278]
  252
  Mr. Freeman
  There is no reason to believe that prices of official publications will be adversely affected by privatisation. HMSO's publications business already operates on a fully commercial basis, receiving no subsidy, and meets all of its costs by charging customers. After privatisation, it will remain open to originating Departments to specify cover prices, where necessary, in their contracts with the stationery office or elsewhere.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he will take to ensure that the "Daily List" and other lists of official publications, include the same material and are produced to the same time scales at present, after the privatisation of HMSO. [19277]

  Mr. Freeman
  The "Daily List" and other HMSO bibliographic information is maintained as it is essential for the operation of HMSO's publication and distribution functions. It is also in the commercial interests of HMSO to make the information generally available as it increases access to its products. The same internal needs and commercial pressures will apply to the new owner.

  Civil Servants (Conduct)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the implications for the civil service of the findings of the Scott report. [19287]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's proposals for taking forward the recommendations of the Scott report were set out by the President of the Board of Trade and myself during the debate on 26 February. A number of these will have implications for the civil service.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to inquire into the conduct of individual civil servants following the publication of the Scott report. [19281]

  Mr. Freeman
  Where civil servants criticised in the Scott report have acted conscientiously, in good faith, and in accordance with Government policy, disciplinary action would not be appropriate. If any civil servants appeared to fall outside this category, disciplinary action would be considered in accordance with normal departmental procedures.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Africa (Criminal and Social Issues)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet African heads of state to discuss criminal and social issues affecting their countries. [17279]

  Mr. Hanley
  Criminal and social issues are a normal feature of our regular discussions with African Governments and, when appropriate, African heads of state.
  253

  Jasrrunt Singh Kalra
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the Indian Government regarding the disappearance of Jasrrunt Singh Kalra. [17283]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Indian Government have told us that the case is sub judice. The Supreme Court has asked the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the case. We understand that it is expected to report in the next few weeks.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European counterparts concerning the situation in the former Yugoslavia. [17285]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  European Union Foreign Ministers had their most recent discussion on peace implementation in former Yugoslavia at the 26 February Foreign Affairs Council. Discussion will continue at an informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers on 9 to 10 March.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts about the forthcoming intergovernmental conference on the future of the European Union. [17286]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has regular discussions with his European counterparts about the IGC, most recently at the Foreign Affairs Council on 25 to 26 February in Brussels.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the first meeting of the 1996 IGC will take place; and how long it is scheduled to last. [17294]

  Mr. Davis
  The first meeting of the IGC is scheduled to take place in Turin on 29 March. The IGC has no fixed end-date.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to propose treaty amendments at the intergovernmental conference to make more open the proceedings of the institutions of the European Union. [17295]

  Mr. Davis
  We are committed to making the European Union institutions more open and have supported a number of initiatives to achieve this, for example, by making more Council documents publicly available. We are considering how we might take this forward at the IGC.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the content of Her Majesty's Government's proposed White Paper on the intergovernmental conference of the European Union. [17274]
  254
  Mr. Davis
  The White Paper will set out the Government's approach to the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.

  Council of Ministers (Majority Voting)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the advantages and disadvantages of majority voting in the Council of Ministers of the European Union. [17290]

  Mr. David Davis
  Qualified majority voting already applies to most of the day-to-day decisions taken by the European Community. It has been a useful factor, for example in completing the single market. But the Government see no case for extending qualified majority voting further.

  Export Licensing
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to change the criteria used for recommending countries for inclusion on the list of countries for which special export licensing procedures are required; and if he will make a statement. [17291]

  Mr. David Davis
  The list is drawn up in accordance with foreign policy objectives, international understandings or embargoes to which we are party, the non-proliferation credentials of the country concerned and the effectiveness of its export controls. A revised list was published on 19 July 1995 and is printed in the Official Report. The list is kept under constant review. The Government will consider future arrangements for export control legislation in the light of comments by Sir Richard Scott and the responses to the consultation paper announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Political Representation of Women
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met members of the European Parliament to discuss the political representation of women. [17292]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, other Ministers and I regularly meet Members of the European Parliament to discuss a wide range of issues. Our discussions have not included the political representation of women.

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government and opposition groups in Sudan. [17293]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have regular diplomatic contacts in Khartoum and London. In addition, there are regular meetings with opposition groups in London, Cairo, Khartoum and Nairobi. Most recently, in January our ambassador accompanied the Bishop of Bradford to the Nuba mountains where they met the Wali (regional governor), state ministers and provincial commissioners.

  United States Relations
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and the United States; and if he will make a statement. [17296]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Relations between the United
  Kingdom and the United States are excellent.

  United Nations (Financial Position)
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he is putting forward to improve the financial position of the UN. [17275]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  In his speech to the UN summit last October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed the importance of prompt and full payment of contributions; clearance of arrears; reform of the system of assessment; and greater focus on efficiency. Together with the French Government, we have now developed a package of proposals reflecting these concerns and designed to resolve the UN financial crisis. This package has been endorsed and adopted by the EU.

  Greece and Turkey
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist in preventing the rise of conflict between Greece and Turkey. [17280]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are encouraging both sides to eschew provocative actions or statements and look for ways of developing constructive dialogue. We have suggested to both that, on the specific question of Imia, the best way forward must be to submit the dispute to arbitration.

  Embassies and Missions (EU)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the embassies and missions established by the European Union to date, indicating the total cost, including staff and administration costs for the last year for which figures are available. [18768]

  Mr. David Davis
  The following list of all European Commission delegations in third countries is taken from the latest version of the Commission's external directory—the asterisk indicates countries where the Commission delegate is non-resident.

  Albania

  Algeria

  Angola

  Antigua and Barbuda*

  Argentina

  Australia

  Austria

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belize*

  Benin

  Bolivia

  256

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Bulgaria

  Burkina Faso

  Burundi

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cap Verde

  Central African Republic

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Comores

  Congo

  Costa Rica

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Djibouti

  Dominican Republic

  Dutch Antilles

  Egypt

  Eritrea

  Ethiopia

  Fiji

  Gabon

  Gambia

  Georgia

  Ghana

  Grenada*

  Guinea

  Guinea Bissau

  Equatorial Guinea

  Guyana

  Haiti

  Hong Kong

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Israel

  Ivory Coast

  Jamica*

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  Kenya

  Korea

  Lesotho

  Lebanon

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Mali

  Malta

  Morocco

  Mauritius

  Mauritania

  Mexico

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  257

  New Caledonia*

  Niger

  Nigeria Norway

  Occupied Territories

  Pakistan

  Papua New Guinea

  Peru

  Philippines Poland

  Romania Russia

  Rwanda

  Sao Tome E Principe*

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  South Africa

  Sudan

  Suriname

  Swaziland

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Tanzania

  Tchad

  Thailand

  Togo

  Tonga*

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  Uruguay

  USA Washington

  USA New York

  Vanuatu*

  Venezuela

  Vietnam

  Western Samoa*

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  The latest costs are shown in the 1996 European Community Budget. The total cost of all European Commission delegations in third countries in 1996 is 179.712 mecu or £151.03 million, comprising 72,247 mecu or £60.72 million in salaries, allowances
  258
  and reimbursements of expenses for officials and temporary staff, and 107.465 mecu or £90.31 million in other non-staff related costs. This budget comes under the administration section of the EC Budget—budget title A–6, pages 506–514 of the Official Journal of 29 January 1996.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations on Cyprus's application for membership of the EU. [17266]

  Mr. David Davis
  We welcome the prospect of accession and think it should contribute to a settlement. The Madrid European Council reaffirmed that accession negotiations will start six months after the conclusion of the IGC and taking account of its results.

  East Timor
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to raise the violation of human rights in East Timor by the Indonesian Government at(a) the forthcoming 52 session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and (b) other intergovernmental conferences. [18848]

  Mr. Hanley
  Together with our EU partners, we shall raise our concerns about the human rights situation in East Timor at the 52nd session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and at all other appropriate international forums.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a Minister of the British Government last visited the Turks and Caicos Islands; and for what purpose. [19140]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The last ministerial visit to the Turks and Caicos Islands was in April 1995, when the Solicitor-General paid a familiarisation visit to the islands, en route to the Caribbean Dependent Territories Attorney-General's conference in the Cayman Islands.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff presently serve in the Turks and Caicos Islands; and of what grades. [19141]

  Mr. Hanley
  Three Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff are serving in the Turks and Caicos Islands. One diplomatic service grade 4 officer; one diplomatic service grade 7 officer; and one secretary.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received from Ministers in the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands about the conduct of the governor of the islands; and from which Ministers. [19142]
  259
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  On 20 May 1994, the then Chief Minister wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). The Chief Minister subsequently wrote on 27 June 1994 to the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, claiming that his original letter was meant as a direct criticism not of the governor, but of the balance of constitutional powers.

  On 21 February this year, all six Ministers of the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands, together with the other elected members, and two out of the three nominated members of the Legislative Council, signed a petition to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary demanding the recall of the governor.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands; and if he discussed with him the incidence of corruption in the islands. [19143]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) the then Foreign Secretary, met the Governor-designate of the Turks and Caicos Islands in May 1993, shortly before Mr. Bourke took up his appointment. They discussed the importance of good government in the islands, but did not discuss specific instances of corruption.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are represented at the European Parliament. [19280]

  Mr. David Davis
  Annex II of the 1976 EC Act concerning direct elections to the European Parliament states that the UK would apply its provisions only in respect of the UK. We are committed to ensuring that Gibraltar's views are fully taken into account through the UK in EU decision making.

  Paris Embassy (Meetings)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 758, if staff of Her Majesty's embassy in Paris met Mr. de Kemoularia or Jean Pierre Mace in 1995 and 1996; who was present at the meetings; and for what purpose they were held. [19279]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Embassy staff had no working meetings with Mr. Kemoularia during the period in question, although he attended several social events at the embassy. The embassy has no record of any meetings with Mr. Mac00E9.

  European Parliament
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which areas of the EU residents do not elect representatives to the European Parliament. [19286]
  260
  Mr. David Davis
  Representation in the European Parliament covers all member states of the EU. For the purposes of EP elections, the UK member state is defined as the United Kingdom only, and does not include those European territories for whose external relations it is responsible.

  Angola
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of the peace process in Angola. [17278]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UN Secretary-General, in his report to the Security Council of 2 February, acknowledged substantial delays in the implementation of the Lusaka protocol, but considered that sufficient progress had been made to recommend the renewal of the mandate of UNAVEM III. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development urged both sides to reach a speedy conclusion to the peace process during her visit to Angola on 19 to 21 February.

  India
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government concerning the deaths and injuries suffered by civilians in Azad Kashmir on 26 January from fire across the UN line of control from Indian-occupied Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [18897]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: We have not made any specific representations to the Indian Government about this incident. We regret the tragic loss of life that occurred during an exchange of fire that day. We have repeatedly urged both sides to exercise restraint, and to resolve their difference over Kashmir through bilateral dialogue.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government about assassination attempts made against Kashmir leaders living in Indian-occupied Kashmir with special reference to Yasin Malik; what reports he has received about the identity of those responsible for such attacks; and if he will make a statement. [18896]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: The British high commission in India is in contact with the Indian Government about the security situation in Kashmir. The precise identity of those responsible for the attack on Yasin Malik and others in Anantnag on 21 February remains unclear. HMG condemn all such acts of violence in Kashmir.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has requested from the United Nations concerning information from UN observers on the line of control between Kashmir and
  261
  Azad Kashmir concerning the shelling on 26 January of Azad Kashmir from Indian-occupied Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [18898]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: We would expect the UN military observers group to report an incident of this nature to the UN Secretary-General in the normal way. The incident has not so far been brought before the Security Council.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the
  262
  company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above
  £10,000. [18137]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 1 February, Official Report, column 854.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answers given in another place on 22 January, Official Report, House of Lords, column 51, by the Minister for State for Overseas Development and on 1 February, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 119–122 by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence. In accordance with Cabinet Office guidance, such non-executive directorships are unpaid.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants (Interviews)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those civil servants, their names and Departments who in the past year(a) have given on-the-record interviews to (i) radio and (ii) television and (b) have written articles or letters for newspaper correspondence columns, indicating in each case the relevant date. [13281]

  Mr. Michael Frosyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Civil servant

  Date

  Item

  The Scottish Office

  Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Tony Cameron

  16 June 1995

  Radio interview for BBC Scotland on the Agriculture Council

  Ian Campbell

  5 February 1995

  TV interview on fisheries

  Ian Conroy

  15 November 1995

  TV interview for BBC "Here and Now" programme on regulatory role in Dundee local authority incinerator

  Derek Saward

  13 November 1995

  TV and radio interviews on fisheries research vessel survey on Beaufort's Dyke

  Central Services

  Shelagh Quinn

  22 February 1995

  STV "The Time and the Place" programme on equal opportunities

  Colin MacDonald

  21 November 1995

  BBC TV "Frontline Scotland" programme on ageism

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Captain Tom Henderson

  5 February 1995

  TV interview on fisheries

  Captain Tom Henderson

  5 February 1996

  BBC "Panorama" programme

  Captain Douglas Temple

  14 January 1996

  Radio 5 Live programme

  J. Torrie

  5 February 1996

  BBC "Panorama" programme

  Development Department

  David Dare

  9 March 1995

  BBC Radio Scotland on planning issues

  Historic Scotland

  Gordon Barclay

  Date unavailable

  Central FM Radio on the work of a castle custodian

  Nick Bridgeland

  Date unavailable

  Radio 4 "Breakaway" programme on Jedburgh abbey

  Doreen Grove

  Date unavailable

  BBC "Report Scotland" on world war II defences

  John Hume

  Date unavailable

  BBC Radio Scotland on historic lighthouses

  Neil Hynd

  Date unavailable

  Scotland on Sunday briefing on Edinburgh castle

  Frank Lawrie

  Date unavailable

  BBC Radio Scotland Tom Morton programme on listed policy

  Frank Lawrie

  Date unavailable

  Radio 5 Live programme on doors open day

  Frank Lawrie

  Date unavailable

  Evening News article on restoration of ruined castles

  Bob McIlwraith

  Date unavailable

  BBC Radio Shetland on Scalloway castle

  Bob McIlwraith

  Date unavailable

  BBC Radio 5 Live on Fort George

  Ingvall Maxwell

  Date unavailable

  "Country Life" interview on Duff house

  Graeme Munro

  Date unavailable

  Talk Radio on historic Scotland

  Graeme Munro

  Date unavailable

  "Scotland on Sunday" briefing on Edinburgh castle

  Chris Watkins

  Date unavailable

  BBC "Good Morning Scotland" programme on Braveheart party in Stirling

  Education and Industry Department

  Nisbet Gallacher (HM Chief Inspector of Schools)

  19 June 1995

  Interview for The Times Educational Supplement Scotland on "Higher Still"

  264

  Civil servant

  Date

  Item

  Nisbet Gallacher

  31 August 1995

  On the record briefing for all education correspondence on publication of "Higher Still" Framework document

  Douglas Osier

  1 March 1995

  Interview for The Scotsman on lay members of HMDSCI inspection teams

  Douglas Osier

  10 April 1995

  Interview for The Times Educational Supplement Scotland on lay members of HMDSCI inspection teams

  Dr. John Rigg

  10 October 1995

  Newspaper article on Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland 1993–94

  Department of Health

  Dr. Robert Kendell (Chief Medical Officer for Scotland)

  1 August 1995

  TV and radio interviews on AIDS/HIV spending

  Dr. Robert Kendell

  7 August 1995

  Radio interview for SCOT FM on maintaining medical excellence

  Dr. Robert Kendell

  9 August 1995

  BBC TV "Reporting Scotland" interview on AIDS/HIV spending

  Dr. Robert Kendell

  5 September 1995

  TV and radio interviews on annual report

  Dr. Robert Kendell

  14 November 1995

  BBC Radio Scotland on BSE and CJD

  Dr. Robert Kendell

  7 December 1995

  BBC Radio Scotland on BSE and CJD

  Dr. Robert Kendell

  18 January 1996

  TV and radio interviews on coronary heart disease report

  Geoff Scaife (Chief Executive, NHS in Scotland)

  9 October 1996

  TV and Radio interviews on crisis in the NHS

  Geoff Scaife

  18 January 1996

  Letter to editor of The Scotsman and Herald on staffing in the NHS

  Geoff Scaife

  25 January 1996

  Letter to editor of Press and Journal and Daily Record on rate of return on capital within NHS trusts

  Geoff Scaife

  29 January 1996

  TV and radio interviews on cardiac surgery waiting times

  Robin Wild (Chief Dental Officer)

  18 December 1995

  STV—launch of oral health strategy for Scotland

  Home Department

  John Boyd (HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary)

  1 June 1995

  Two radio interviews on annual report.

  Clive Fairweather (HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in Scotland)

  13 April 1995

  Radio interviews on report on women offenders.

  Clive Fairweather

  29 June 1995

  Radio interviews on report on Dungavel prison.

  Clive Fairweather

  29/30 June 1995

  TV and radio interviews on prison suicides.

  Clive Fairweather

  31 August 1995

  TV and radio interviews on annual report.

  Clive Fairweather

  12 October 1995

  TV and radio interviews on Barlinnie prison brutality.

  Clive Fairweather

  15 October 1995

  Radio interview on law and order.

  Clive Fairweather

  4 December 1995

  Radio interview on prison suicides.

  Clive Fairweather

  7 December 1995

  Radio interview on prison suicides.

  Clive Fairweather

  17 January 1996

  Radio interview on prison work.

  Clive Fairweather

  25/26 January 1996

  TV and radio interviews on Peterhead prison.

  Jim Innes (Director of Roads)

  25 July 1995

  Radio interview on route action plans.

  Jim Innes

  24 November 1995

  Interview on A74 opening.

  Jim Innes

  6 December 1995

  TV interview on M8 extension.

  Jim Innes

  12 December 1995

  TV interview on M8 extension.

  The Scottish Prison Service

  The chief executive, directors, governors, senior managers and members of the Scottish Prison Service communications branch, as appropriate, respond to media inquiries and/or comment about operational matters on a daily basis. No central record is kept of the number of occasions on which this occurs, nor of the specific content of these contacts since this could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS, indicating for each the(a) date of inception,(b) value and (c) duration. [17454]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has no contracts with EDS.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schoolchildren were excluded(a) permanently and (b) temporarily from schools in (i) Inverclyde and (ii) Strathclyde in 1995. [18047]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information on the number of school children excluded temporarily from schools is not available. The available information, consistent with that set out in the report on attendance and absence in Scottish schools 1994–95, published by the audit unit of HM inspectorate of schools, is as follows.

  Number of pupils permanently excluded from schools in 1994–95

  Number of half days of temporary exclusions from schools from January-July 1995

  Inverclyde

  0

  4,515

  Strathclyde

  0

  110,060

  Infertility
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland ( I) which health authorities provide NHS treatment for(a) assisted and (b) surrogate pregnancy for childless couples; and if he will make a statement; [17966]

  (2) what plans he has to designate (a) assisted and (b) surrogate pregnancies for childless couples on the NHS as clinically essential; and if he will make a statement. [17968]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information about which health boards provide NHS treatment for all assisted and surrogate pregnancies is not available centrally. It is for individual health boards to decide whether to purchase high technology infertility procedures and surrogate pregnancy services.

  Waste Disposal
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the number of landfill sites by district council; [18277]

  (2) if he will list by district council area, the number of tonnes of special waste arising and deposits for each of the last four years; [18281]

  (3) if he will list, for each year, for the last four years, by district council area, the number of tonnes of special waste arising (a) within the district and deposited within the district, (b) within the district and exported out of the district and (c) outside the district and deposited within the district. [18276]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Data on waste management in Scotland are published in the Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin, "Waste Collection, Disposal and Regulation Statistical".
  266
  The most recent issue of this document, containing data for 1993, was published in December 1995. A copy is in the House Library.

  Table B18 of the bulletin shows the number of waste management facilities by district and islands councils. Landfill operations form the bulk of these numbers but are not specifically identified. Of the 1,054 licences and resolutions in table B 18, a total of 635 were associated with landfills–458 licences and 177 resolutions.

  Table B9 of the bulletin shows the quantity of special waste arisings and deposits in Scotland for 1993. Corresponding information for 1992 is detailed in table B9 of the 1992 bulletin, a copy of which is in the House Library. There is no district level information available before 1992. Table A2.2 of the 1993 bulletin provides a time series of data over the five-year period 1989 to 1993 for the total quantities of special waste arising, imported, exported and retained in Scotland. Table B22 of the 1993 bulletin and table B21 of the 1992 bulletin also contain relevant information on special waste.

  Household Waste Recycling
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the percentage of household waste recycled for each year in Scotland over the past five years; and if he will make a statement regarding the target of recycling 25 per cent. of all household waste by the end of the century; [18279]

  (2) which Scottish local authorities currently operate recycling schemes; and what was the expenditure for each. [18280]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The table shows the reported rate of household waste collected for recycling over the four-year period 1990 to 1993 in the form of a percentage of all household waste.

  Household waste collected for recycling (percentage of all household waste)

  1989

  No data

  1990

  2.5

  1991

  3.3

  1992

  3.9

  1993

  4.1

  As regards the target of recycling 25 per cent. of all household waste in the UK by the end of the century, it should be noted that provision of local recycling facilities is a matter for local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors. The Government's initiative on producer responsibility for waste packaging will play a key role in developing local infrastructure and encouraging higher rates of recycling, together with other factors, such as the rising costs of waste disposal, including the proposed landfill tax, and improved markets for secondary raw materials.

  There are recycling activities in all district and islands councils areas. There are no current data available on expenditure relating to these schemes.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to seek a Europe-wide agreement on the use of monofilament nets; and if he will make a statement. [18287]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Government have no plans to seek such an agreement, but I have written to the European Commission to notify it of our proposal to allow a derogation for the carriage of large-mesh monofilament nets in Scottish waters.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he will be taking to ensure that lifting the ban on the use of large mesh monofilament nets by Scottish boats will not conflict with Government commitments to the conservation of marine wildlife under the agreement on conservation of small cetaceans in the Baltic and North seas, the European Union wild birds directive (79/409/EEC) and the European Union habitats directive (92/43/EEC); and if he will make a statement. [18286]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Arrangements for monitoring by-catches of marine mammals are already in place and will be extended to any large mesh monofilament nets that are used. These nets are unlikely to pose a threat to marine bird species as we expect the nets to be bottom set in deep water.

  Forestry Commission (Legal Advisers)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what length of time Pearsons has been the principal legal advisers to the Forestry Commission; and for how long he estimates this relationship will be maintained. [18566]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Pearsons has provided legal services to the Forestry Commission in Scotland for some 70 years. The Commission recently invited tenders for this work and has appointed another firm of solicitors with effect from 1 April.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds are being made available to further education colleges for the administration costs that will be incurred from the transfer of responsibility for bursary administration from local authorities. [18615]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Following consultation with local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, £45 million was transferred from the aggregate external finance settlement to fund the provision of further education bursaries in colleges in Scotland in 1996–97. This settlement is based on historic trends of local authority expenditure and includes an element to reflect administrative costs.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what transfer arrangements have been made for bursary administration staff in local authorities in respect of the transfer of this function to further education colleges. [18614]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  It is the responsibility of each college's board of management to determine its staffing requirements for this new responsibility. The 268
  Association of Scottish Colleges has encouraged its members to ensure that local authorities and their bursary staff are made aware of opportunities as they arise. Liaison has also been maintained with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  NHS Dentists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were registered with NHS dental practices in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995, showing this as a percentage of the population of Scotland. [17986]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Registration of patients with a dentist was introduced in October 1990. Patients are registered with an individual dentist, not a dental practice. The information requested is in the table.

  Patients registered with general dental practitioners in Scotland

  Year1

  Number of registered patients at 31 December

  Registered patients as a percentage of population

  1990

  812,057

  15.9

  1995

  2,649,100

  51.7

  1 Registration was introduced only from October 1990.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dental practices in Scotland have accepted new NHS patients in 1993, 1994 and 1995. [17987]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No information is held on dental practices. General dental practitioners are independent contractors who are free to decide whether to offer NHS treatment to each individual patient. The table shows the number of individual dentists who accepted new NHS patients or NHS patients on referral during each of the years in question.

  General dental practitioners in Scotland who accepted new or referred NHS patients

  Dentists

  1993

  1,749

  1994

  1,773

  1995

  1,799

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment's letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 12 January, what conclusions he has reached in respect of the official study of the Scottish Crop Research Institute report on the computation of safe isolation distances for field-grown genetically modified crops. [17907]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The findings contained in the final report of Scottish Office funded research projects are normally published to inform the wider scientific community and the industries which might benefit. Research conclusions may also have a bearing on policy or legislative considerations and provide a justification for further study.

  The conclusion from this particular four year project is that viable pollen will disperse to distances of up to 1.5 km from source. This broadly supports the accepted

  269
  views on pollen dispersal which are taken into account in each relevant case for the release of genetically modified crops.

  Homeworkers
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of(a) the number of homeworkers in Scotland and (b) how many are (i) self-employed and (ii) employers. [19167]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Labour Force Survey estimates that in spring 1995 there were 44,000 homeworkers in Scotland working at their own homes. Of these, 27,000 were self-employed. No reliable estimate is available for Scotland for the number of homeworkers who were employers.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16179]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: The information requested is as follows.

  All executive NDPBs sponsored by my Department have a statutory base except for the following which have no statutory base: Hannah Research Institute, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Rowett Research Institute, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee, Scottish Community Education Council, Scottish Film Council, Scottish Further Education Unit, Scottish Vocational Education Council and those which operate under royal warrant or charter—i.e. Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Sports Council.

  The river purification boards and Livingston development corporation admit members of the public to board meetings on a voluntary basis.

  The following bodies hold on a voluntary basis open meetings or open days which may be attended by members of the public: Crofters' Commission, Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee, National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and Scottish Sports Council.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16828]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The information required is as follows.

  Those executive NDPBs which are covered by the Companies Acts are required to publish annual reports and some other bodies are also required by the statute creating them to publish annual reports. These bodies are:

  Hannah Research Institute

  270

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Moredun Research Institute

  Rowett Research Institute

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  River Purification Boards

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Scottish Vocational Education Council.

  In a number of other cases the body is required by statute to produce an annual report on the exercise and performance of its functions for the Secretary of State which he is obliged to lay before Parliament. These bodies are:

  Crofters Commission

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland—required by statute at least every three years, but voluntarily produces an annual report

  National Galleries of Scotland—required by statute every three years, but voluntarily produces an annual report

  New Town development corporations

  Red Deer Commission

  Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

  Scottish Agricultural Wages Board—as part of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries annual report, which is a Command Paper

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Examination Board

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Tourist Board.

  Some bodies publish reports on a non-statutory basis. They are:

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee

  National Library of Scotland

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish Community Education Council

  Scottish Film Council

  Scottish Further Education Unit

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Medical Practices Committee

  Scottish Sports Council.

  Those bodies which are required to publish their annual accounts under the terms of the Companies Acts, the Friendly Societies Acts or other legislation are:

  Hannah Research Institute

  Macaulay Land Research Institute

  Moredun Research Institute

  Rowett Research Institute

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  River Purification Boards

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  271

  Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Scottish Vocational Education Council.

  Some bodies are required by statute to submit annual accounts to the Secretary of State who is obliged to pass them to the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is then obliged to lay copies of them before Parliament. These bodies are:

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Library of Scotland

  National Galleries of Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland

  New Town Development Corporations

  Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Examination Board

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Tourist Board.

  The Scottish Sports Council makes its accounts available on a voluntary basis.

  No executive NDPB sponsored by my Department is required to publish the minutes of its meetings on a statutory basis. Livingston development corporation voluntarily makes available for public inspection the minutes of those parts of its meetings which it opens to members of the public.

  No executive NDPB sponsored by my Department is required to publish the agenda of its meetings and none does so.

  Information about members' interests is available from Companies House in relation to executive NDPBs which are covered by the Companies Acts and the Friendly Societies Acts. These bodies are:

  Hannah Research Institute

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Moredun Research Institute

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Scottish Vocational Education Council.

  Although registers of members' interests are held by a number of other executive NDPBs none is required to publish them. The National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland and Scottish Homes voluntarily publish a register of members' interests. The Scottish Legal Aid Board will be publishing a register in its annual report, which will be available about July. Some other bodies hold registers which are, or will be during the course of this year, available for inspection at the offices of the body. These are: Highlands and Islands Enterprise—financial decisions relating to registered interests are published in the annual report; National Museums of Scotland—available from August 1996;
  272
  Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Enterprise—summary available at time of annual report and financial transactions involving board members published in annual report and accounts; Scottish Film Council and Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.

  Holyroodhouse
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by job title and salary the staff of the palace of Holyroodhouse. [17899]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: The staff of the palace of Holyroodhouse paid for by Historic Scotland are:

  Post

  Salary £

  Head of security

  16,023

  16 security officers

  112,836

  3 craftsmen

  115,386

  2.5 porters

  18,624

  1 Average.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply of 13 February 1996,Official Report, column 566, if he will give details of the professional and central administration costs connected with the palace of Holyroodhouse in (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95. [17977]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: Administrative and professional input to the conservation and maintenance of the palace forms only a part of the duties for a wide range of staff. Records are not collated in a manner which allows the specific palace costs to be extracted without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people visited the palace of Holyroodhouse in each of the last three years; and what income was derived from visitors. [17901]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: The Number of visitors to the palace of Holyroodhouse and the income derived from them in each of the last three years was as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Number of visitors

  276,866

  299,722

  253,714

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  Operating profit

  307

  358

  340

  Central costs

  (59)

  (56)

  (92)

  Curatorial expenditure

  (41)

  (47)

  (49)

  Net visitor income

  297

  255

  199

  Red Deer (Culling)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring he has undertaken of the culling methods of red deer on the Balmoral and Dalnadamph estates. [17900]
  273
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: The Red Deer Commission provides advice to land owners and their representatives in Scotland on deer matters and the Commission has been involved in discussions from time to time in connection with the Balmoral and Dalnadamph estates. In addition, the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 prescribes the permitted methods for culling red deer in Scotland.

  Experimental Nuclear Reactor Sites
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on land ownership and lease arrangements applying to the experimental nuclear reactor sites operated by the Scottish universities research and reactor centre at the former national engineering laboratory in East Kilbride. [18065]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: Ownership of the site of the former National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride now rests with Scottish Enterprise. The lease arrangements which apply to that site are an operational matter for that organisation. I will ask the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the funding contribution(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of total funding from the European social fund to each local enterprise company for the (i) youth training, (ii) youth credits, (iii) modern apprenticeships and (iv) training for work programmes. [18745]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many heroin-related deaths have occurred in each of the past five years in Wales; and if he will make a statement; [17529]

  (2) how many deaths have occurred in Wales in each of the past five years as a result of Ecstasy use; and if he will make a statement; [17515]

  (3) how many deaths have occurred in Wales in each of the past five years as a result of LSD use; and if he will make a statement. [17557]

  Mr. Richards
  The table, provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from information on death certificates, shows the number of deaths to residents of Wales registered between 1990 and 1994 with mention of heroin, Ecstasy and LSD.

  Heroin

  Ecstasy

  LSD

  1990

  0

  0

  0

  1991

  1

  0

  0

  1992

  3

  0

  0

  274

  Herroin

  Eestasy

  LSD

  1993

  0

  0

  0

  1994

  1

  2

  0

  Investors in People
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employers, and of what size, hold investor in people status; and what percentage of all employers of that size these constitute(a) in Wales and (b) in Mid Glamorgan. [17931]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office's records show that, in Wales, 142 organisations employing fewer than 200 people and 54 organisations with 200 employees or more have achieved the investors in people standard. The equivalent figures for Mid Glamorgan are 24 and 13 organisations respectively.

  These achievements represent 18 per cent. of eligible organisations in Wales employing 200 or more people and almost 20 per cent. in Mid Glamorgan. Percentage figures for those with fewer than 200 employees are not yet available.

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to compensate the local seafood sector following the tanker disaster in Milford Haven; and if he will make a statement. [17597]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral statement made by my right hon. Friend on 29 February 1996, column 1024–98.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the loss of life among each species of wild bird for the spillage from the Sea Empress; what support he is providing for those agencies seeking to save the bird populations; and if he will make a statement; [17938]

  Mr. Jones
  The latest estimate–28 February—on bird kills and birds oiled, by species is given on the following list. Compensation for cost incurred as a result of the oil pollution damage from the Sea Empress is available from the shipowners insurer and from the International oil pollution compensation fund, which is funded by levies on the oil industry.

  Sea Empress spillage

  Total oiled birds to date (1 March 1996)

  Species

  Dead total

  RSPCA rescued

  Manx Shearwater

  1

  0

  Fulmar

  1

  0

  Great Northern Diver

  4

  4

  Black Throated Diver

  1

  1

  Red Throated Diver

  8

  35

  Little Grebe

  0

  0

  Great Crested Grebe

  2

  1

  Red necked Grebe

  0

  4

  Slavonian Grebe

  0

  0

  Shag

  1

  10

  Cormorant

  27

  0

  Grey Heron

  0

  0

  Little Egret

  0

  0

  Mute Swan

  0

  9

  275

  Sea Empress spillage

  Total oiled birds to date (1 March 1996)

  Species

  Dead total

  RSPCA rescued

  Canada Goose

  0

  0

  Shelduck

  1

  0

  Scoter

  1,202

  2,452

  Velvet Scoter

  0

  1

  Eider

  0

  9

  R-B Merganser

  0

  1

  Oystercatcher

  6

  3

  Turnstone

  2

  0

  Black-H Gull

  2

  1

  Common Gull

  1

  0

  Lesser B-B Gull

  0

  0

  Herring Gull

  2

  7

  Great B-B Gull

  0

  0

  Kittiwake

  2

  2

  Guillemot

  643

  418

  Razorbill

  160

  21

  Unidentified

  142

  0

  Total

  2,208

  2,979

  Notes:

  These are minimum figures as the complete data set is not yet available. There may also be birds which have been picked up and cared for my members of the public, or taken to other bird hospitals which are not included in the RSPCA figures.

  Many dead birds will remain at sea, or come ashore in inaccessible places, and not be counted.

  Caution should also be noted with regard to the identification of oiled birds.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional financial assistance he will make available to maritime local authorities in Wales to enable them to minimize the pollution impact of the Sea Empress disaster. [17885]

  Mr. Hague
  While local authorities are responsible for the clean-up of any oil which comes ashore, the clear principle is that the polluter must pay. The costs will be reimbursed by the ship's insurers and by the International oil pollution compensation fund. In the intervening period, as I said on 29 February Official Report, column 1033, the Welsh Office will consider sympathetically any representations from local authorities about covering costs incurred.

  South-East Wales Ambulance Trust
  Mr Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what severance payments have been made to the former chief executive of the South-east Wales ambulance trust. [18080]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 28 February 1996,Official Report, columns 603–04.

  Higher Education Inquiry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what involvement his Department will have in the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education; and if he will make a statement. [18450]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend will be fully involved in deciding on the composition of the committee, and on its terms of reference. The Welsh Office will ensure that the committee is fully appraised of the features 276
  of the higher education sector in Wales. It will be for the committee to decide on its methods of proceeding but the Welsh Office will be involved in presenting evidence and information to the committee. In due course, my right hon. Friend will be involved in deciding on the Government's response to the committee's report.

  German and French Companies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by(a) German and (b) French companies in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [18266]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  French-owned manufacturing companies employ 4,620 people in Wales and German-owned manufacturing companies in Wales employ 5,630 people in Wales. They make a valuable contribution to the Welsh industrial base.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received since 1990(a) for and (b) against proposals for wind farm developments in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [18268]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since 1990, my right hon. Friend has received numerous representations about proposals for wind farm developments. The majority of representations have been against the proposals.

  Teachers' Pay Award
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the impact of the teachers' pay award on class sizes; and if he will make a statement. [18449]

  Mr. Richards
  Class sizes will depend upon decisions taken by local education authorities about the allocation of funding, the decisions taken by schools about the deployment of resources and by parents choosing the school they wish their child to attend. If local authorities decide to give priority to schools, we see no reason why class sizes should rise on average.

  Bala-Dolgellau Main Road
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received during the past two years on the Bryncoedifor section of the Bala-Dolgellau main road. [18620]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There has been one item of ministerial correspondence and 10 letters from the public addressed to the Highways Directorate about the temporary traffic lights near Drws y Nant on the A494 trunk road.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when work will commence on the Bryncoedifor section of the Bala to Dolgellau main road; and if he will make a statement. [18609]

  Mr. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 24 January 1996, column 297. The Drws y Nant
  277
  improvement on the A494 trunk road is programmed to start in 1997, subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of finance.

  New Patients
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many NHS family doctor practices have accepted new NHS patients in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement; [18820]

  (2) how many dental practices in Wales have accepted new NHS patients in each year since 1993; and if he will make a statement. [18658]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not available centrally.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were registered with NHS dental practices in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995, showing this as a percentage of the population of Wales. [18659]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of patients registered with general dental practitioners in Wales was collected centrally—by the Dental Practice Board—for the first time at the end of 1990. However, as it took some time for patients to register, meaningful data were not available until 1991. The available information is given in the following table:

  Number of patients registered

  Percentage of population

  30 September 1991

  1,229,875

  43

  30 September 19951

  1,622,426

  56

  1 1994 population figure has been used to calculate the percentage as 1995 data is not yet available.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS eye tests were given in Wales in(a) 1991, (b) 1993 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [18805]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on sight tests paid for by family health services authorities during the period in question is given in the following table:

  Number of NHS sight tests

  1991–92

  332,240

  1993–94

  397,310

  1994–95

  420,900

  GP Practice Charters
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of family doctor practices in Wales at present produce their own charters; and if he will make a statement. [18804]

  Mr. Richards
  As at December 1995, 59 per cent. of GP practices in Wales had practice charters.

  Rhondda Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has received from the Rhondda Healthcare NHS trust during the past year; and if he will make a statement. [18619]

  Mr. Richards
  Routine discussions between my Department and the Rhondda Healthcare NHS trust have taken place during the normal course of business. I have received one formal representation in response to the consultation on the formation of the North Glamorgan NHS trust.

  Charter Mark
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS Wales organisations were awarded the charter mark for outstanding service in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995, and if he will make a statement. [18806]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is as follows:

  Number of awards to NHS Wales

  1993

  3

  1994

  1

  1995

  7

  Schoolchildren (Exclusions)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schoolchildren were excluded(a) permanently and (b) temporarily from (i) junior and (ii) secondary schools in Wales in (1) 1993, (2) 1994 and (3) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [18818]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on pupil exclusions has not been collected centrally in the past. Returns to the January 1996 schools census, which asked how many boys and girls were excluded in the 1994–95 academic year, will provide information in due course and supplementary data have also been sought recently from local education authorities.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which applications from schools for grant-maintained status are being considered. [18922]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering an application for grant-maintained status from St. Brigid's independent school, Denbigh, Clwyd.

  Special Education, Flintshire
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funds he will make available to assist special educational needs in infant and primary schools in the new Flintshire county council. [18915]
  279
  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend's final decisions on the Welsh local government revenue settlement for 1996–97 were approved by Parliament on 8 February. It is for individual local authorities to determine how the resources that are made available are allocated between services, including education, in the light of their statutory responsibilities and their perception of local needs and priorities.

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pages of guidance notes have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) regulatory authorities and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three years. [18638]

  Mr. Hague
  This information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people living overseas applied to be registered to vote in the general election of 1992 in each of the Welsh parliamentary constituencies; and if he will make a statement. [18618]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on numbers of overseas applicants is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the numbers of overseas electors by constituency on the 1992 election register is given in table 1.4 of "Electoral Statistics 1993" (Series EL no. 20), a copy of which is in the Library.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the reasons for the low outturn of payments of the non-contributory pensioners' Christmas bonus in 1994–95. [17803]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimates for non-contributory Christmas bonus were based on previous projections of the demographic and case load data. The forecasts proved to be too high, resulting in an underspend against provision. However, the outturn for contributory Christmas bonus was greater than forecast, with the result that total out-turn on contributory and non-contributory Christmas bonus was in excess of forecast.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many written parliamentary questions were passed for answer to executive agencies and non-governmental departments in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14985]
  280
  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  Session

  Written answers provided by agency chief executives

  1992–93

  495

  1993–94

  442

  1994–95

  389

  1995–96 to date

  155

  Note:

  Written parliamentary questions concerning matters which have been delegated to the chief executive of an executive agency in its framework document, normally receive a reply from the Minister to the effect that he or she has asked the chief executive to reply direct to the Member by letter.

  Source:

  Departmental archive of written answers; figures were obtained by a clerical count and may be subject to error.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 30 January concerning a constituent. [17440]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A reply was issued on 23 February.

  Contributions and Benefits Agencies
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) contributions and (b) benefit agencies there have been in Scotland in each of the past 10 years; and how many are located in rural districts. [17105]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables:

  Contributions Agency

  Year ended

  Locations

  1990

  63 (including 20 rural)

  1991

  55 (including 18 rural)

  1992

  39 (including 17 rural)

  1993

  38 (including 17 rural)

  1994

  32 (including 17 rural)

  1995

  26 (including 17 rural)

  The Contributions Agency was established in April 1990.

  Benefits Agency

  Year ended

  Locations

  1991

  99 (including 34 rural)

  1992

  100 (including 34 rural)

  1993

  101 (including 34 rural)

  1994

  99 (including 32 rural)

  1995

  97 (including 30 rural)

  The Benefits Agency was established in April 1991.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Secuity what was the total number of staff working for(a) benefits agencies and (b) contributions agencies in Scotland for each year since 1993. [17108]

  Mr. Evans
  This information is set out in the table.
  281

  1 January 1993

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1995

  1 January 1996

  Staff

  BA

  CA

  BA

  CA

  BA

  CA

  BA

  CA

  Permanent

  5,755

  324

  5,940

  329

  6,336

  290

  6,610

  219

  Casuals

  239

  0

  281

  0

  351

  2

  354

  26

  Total

  5,994

  324

  6,221

  329

  6,687

  292

  6,964

  245

  Notes:

  BA = Benefits Agency.

  BA = Contributions Agency.

  Source: Personnel Data from each Agency.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from the Industrial Injuries advisory council on the draft regulations on reduced earnings allowance. [18275]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The council was content with the substance of the draft regulations, but suggested an amendment to the wording of the prescription for carpal tunnel syndrome and a delay in implementation of the provisions limiting to 12 months the backdating of new awards of reduced earnings allowance. A copy of the council chairman's letter and my response have been placed in the Library. The regulations have now been laid before Parliament as the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are(a) the total costs of administering the cold weather payment scheme and (b) the annual value of the contract with Meteorological Office for forecasting in respect of the scheme; and what proportion of the total budget for the scheme each of these sums represented in 1994–95. [18301]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A detailed breakdown of the administration costs of the cold weather payment scheme

  Percentage by which retirement pension uprated (Column A)

  Percentage by which income support uprated (Column B)

  Amount by which retirement pension increased (Column C)

  Amount by which income support increased (Column D)

  Column D as a percentage of column C (Column E)

  1995

  2.2

  1.8

  £1.25

  £1.15

  92 per cent.

  1996

  3.9

  3.0

  £2.30

  £1.95

  85 per cent.

  1. Amounts are for a single pensioner aged under 75 who is not disabled.

  2. Figures in column E are to the nearest whole number.

  Hearing Loss
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will meet representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the effects on the ex-service community of the abolition of lump sum payments for attributable hearing loss below 20 per cent.; [18952]

  (2) if he will meet representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the effects for the ex-service community of the abolition of lump sum payments for attributable hearing loss below 20 per cent. [18954]
  282
  is not available. Payments are issued automatically, so, administration costs are comparatively low.

  The cost of the cold weather payment scheme is dependent on weather conditions in any particular year. During the mild winter of 1994–95, 10,969 payments were made at a total cost of £76,786. Administration costs were therefore minimal.

  Out of a total of £15,806 charged by the Meteorological Office for the cold weather payment scheme during 1994–95, £7,755 was for forecasting. These costs are negotiated annually and are fixed costs regardless of actual weather conditions.

  As a breakdown of the total budget for the scheme, including administration, is unavailable, it is not possible to say what proportion of the total the charge for forecasting represents.
  Note:
  1. This figure will not sum as a multiple of the 1994–95 £7 cold weather payment figure, due to clerical awards made at amounts other than £7

  Retirement Pensions and Income Support
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage by which the state retirement pension and income support were uprated in April 1995 and will be uprated in April 1996; and if he will provide figures on(a) the amount and (h) the percentage that the applicable amount for income support for a single pensioner aged under 75 years has changed relative to the level of the state retirement pension. [18337]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Mr. Heald
  The removal of payment of gratuities for service-attributable noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss of less than 20 per cent. was part of a package of measures which included an increase from April 1993 of up to £5 a week above the rate of inflation for all war disablement pensioners. The most severely disabled gained most. Almost 265,000 war pensioners are now gaining from this increase at an estimated annual cost of over £26 million. The package was therefore of considerable benefit to the disabled ex-service community.
  283
  This matter has been discussed on several occasions at meetings between Ministers and representatives of ex-service organisations, including the Royal British Legion. I see no point in a further meeting at this time.

  Social Fund (Southampton)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of(a) social fund grants and (b) social fund loans which were (i) claimed and (ii) granted in each year since 1989 in the area covered by Benefits Agency offices serving Southampton; and what was the expenditure in each year on each benefit. [18844]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Denham, dated 5 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the total number of (a) Social Fund grants and (b) Social Fund loans which were (i) claimed and (ii) granted in each year since 1989 in the area covered by Benefits Agency offices serving Southampton; and what was the expenditure in each year on each benefit.The information requested is not available for the financial year 1989–90.When the Benefits Agency was formed in April 1991, existing Local Offices were grouped into Districts. Annex A gives the figures for the Southampton Local Office prior to the change. Southampton Office forms part of Solent and New Forest District, which also includes the Fareham and New Forest Branch Offices. Annex B, gives the figures for Solent and New Forest District from April 1991 to date. Figures are only available for the District as a whole.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A: Number of applications, awards and expenditure in Southampton office

  April 1990—March 1991

  Type

  Applications

  Awards

  Expenditure (£)

  Loans

  6,999

  4,531

  535,698

  Grants

  2,312

  934

  209,817

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Annex B: Number of applications, awards and expenditure in Solent and New Forest District

  April 1991—January 1996

  Type

  Applications

  Awards

  Expenditure £

  1991

  Loans

  14,200

  9,767

  1,315,691

  Grants

  6,742

  1,927

  475,818

  1992

  Loans

  16,256

  11,671

  1,603,254

  Grants

  7,838

  2,210

  509,998

  1993

  Loans

  16,153

  11,932

  1,839,088

  Grants

  7,807

  1,939

  507,242

  1994

  Loans

  17,431

  11,160

  2,079,101

  Grants

  11,642

  1,846

  547,542

  284

  Annex B: Number of applications, awards and expenditure in Solent and New Forest District

  April 1991—January 1996

  Type

  Applications

  Awards

  Expenditure £

  1995

  Loans

  12,988

  9,504

  1,896,291

  Grants

  6,215

  1,363

  445,735

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Family Credit, Southampton
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of households claiming family credit in each year since 1989, in the area covered by Benefits Agency offices serving Southampton; and what was the expenditure in each year in current prices. [18843]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of family credit is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Denham, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the total number of households claiming Family Credit (FC) in each year since 1989, in the area covered by Benefits Agency (BA) offices serving Southampton; and what was the expenditure in each year in current prices.

  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because the FC computer system holds records of the total number of claims received, awarded and disallowed on a national basis. Details are not broken down into individual towns or areas. The information is only available from 1993 as details relating to FC claims are normally destroyed after 18 months.

  However, statistics are available which indicate the number of families in receipt of FC within a BA office area at a particular date. Unfortunately, the scan does not identify at what stage of the 26 weeks entitlement the awards are at that date. The statistics available for the Southampton Branch Office are as follows. They are provisional and subject to change.

  Date of scan

  Families in receipt of family credit at that date

  20 August 1993

  1,966

  15 April 1994

  2,051

  10 November 1994

  2,224

  13 April 1995

  2,292

  10 November 1995

  2,462

  16 February 1996

  2,534

  Details of benefit expenditure is only available on a national basis.

  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Benefits, Southampton
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of households in receipt of benefits in the area covered by Benefits Agency offices serving Southampton in each year since 1989. [18845]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  285
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Denham, dated 5 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what estimate he has made of the number of households in receipt of benefits in the area covered by Benefits Agency (BA) offices serving Southampton in each year since 1989.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because statistics are collected on the number of benefit recipients and not by household. Information relating to centrally administered benefits such as Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Disability Working Allowance, Family Credit, Invalid Care Allowance and Retirement Pension are only collated on a National basis.

  Annex A gives details of the number of benefit recipients whose claims are administered by the BA Solent and New Forest District. The District consists of the Southampton, Fareham and New Forest Branch Offices. It should be noted that customers may receive more than one benefit. The information is only available from 1991 when the BA was formed.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Solent and New Forest District Number and types of benefit recipients from November 1991 to November 1995

  November

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Income Support

  44,283

  51,394

  52,053

  50,322

  49,577

  Sickness Benefit

  3,515

  3,853

  3,609

  4,385

  —

  Short term Incapacity Benefit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,750

  Invalidity Benefit

  8,253

  9,329

  10,342

  11,011

  —

  Long term Incapacity Benefit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,651

  Maternity Allowance

  205

  210

  154

  167

  180

  Severe Disability Allowance

  2,729

  2,795

  2,897

  3,057

  3,065

  Sickness Benefit figures include customers who claimed but were not awarded Sickness Benefit as they had paid insufficient National Insurance contributions, but were awarded National Insurance credits only.

  Sickness Benefit was replaced by short term Incapacity Benefit from April 1995.

  Invalidity Benefit was replaced by long term Incapacity Benefit from April 1995.

  Information has been provided by the BA's Central Data Unit, the data is provisional and may be subject to change.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for further consultations on the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [19625]

  Mr. Burt
  I am pleased to announce a joint consultation exercise that begins today on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  The Government will phase in the access rights in part III of the Act. Around the end of 1996, we will make it unlawful to refuse service, or offer it to a lower standard, or on less favourable terms, simply because someone is disabled. At the same time, we will prohibit discrimination against disabled people by those selling or renting property.

  We are consulting on proposals to regulate how these initial rights will operate in certain areas—insurance, services ancillary to education, and agents appointed to act on behalf of those unable to give an informed consent.
  286
  At the same time the National Disability Council is consulting on its proposals for a code of practice on these initial rights.

  The remaining rights in part III require service providers to make reasonable adjustments to allow or facilitate access for disabled people. The Government are also consulting on the timetable for bringing these duties into force.

  Copies of the consultation package are available in the Library.

HEALTH

  Casualty Departments
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of casualty departments by region in each of the five years up to 1993–94. [18072]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest available figures are shown in the table. Information is collected on the basis of trusts and directly managed units with accident and emergency services. Some trusts include more than one hospital each with its own accident and emergency department.

  Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are not available centrally.

  Trusts and directly managed units1 with accident and emergency department2 by region in England

  Region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  20

  19

  16

  Yorkshire

  18

  17

  17

  Trent

  15

  18

  14

  East Anglian

  10

  9

  10

  North-west Thames

  17

  13

  15

  North-east Thames

  17

  16

  16

  South-east Thames

  17

  15

  16

  South-west Thames

  15

  14

  15

  Wessex

  15

  14

  12

  Oxford

  11

  8

  10

  South Western

  15

  12

  15

  West Midlands

  26

  27

  27

  Mersey

  12

  11

  12

  North Western

  26

  29

  20

  SHAs

  4

  4

  3

  Total

  238

  226

  228

  Notes:

  1 A trust or directly managed unit may consist of a number of hospitals each with its own accident and emergency department.

  2 With medical staff on site and where the intention is to open 168 hours per week.

  Source:

  KHO3 returns.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what time limits have been placed on the period of service contracts entered into with those providing hospital buildings under the private finance initiative. [188251

  Mr. Horam
  The period of service contracts entered into with those providing hospital buildings under the private finance initiative is a subject for negotiation between national health service trusts and their potential private sector partners, and will vary from contract to
  287
  contract and from service to service. The two criteria for approval of NHS private finance initiative contracts are that they should offer best value for money and that they should reduce risks for the NHS by transferring risks to the private sector.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals are currently seeking PFI contracts in England; what estimate he has made of the number of contracts which will have been signed by 30 March(a) 1996 and (b) 1997; and if he will make a statement. [19230]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on PH contracts in(a) Amersham and High Wycombe, South Buckinghamshire NHS trust, (b) Swindon and (c) North Durham. [19229]

  Mr. Horam
  No. Contracts are currently being negotiated between the trusts and their private sector partners. These are commercially sensitive and confidential.

  Solihull Hospital
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will refer the determination of the future of Solihull hospital to an independent tribunal; and if he will make a statement; [18779]

  (2) if he will meet a delegation from the parliamentary constituency of Meriden to discuss the future of Solihull hospital as a stand-alone trust hospital. [18783]

  Mr. Horam
  The proposal to establish Solihull district general hospital as a national health service trust has already been considered thoroughly and rejected. The proposal to dissolve Birmingham Heartlands NHS trust and to establish a new NHS trust with Solihull hospital is still a matter for public consultation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make his decision about the future of Solihull hospital after careful consideration of the outcome of consultation, taking into account all the views expressed. I am, of course, willing to meet my hon. Friend and a delegation from his constituency and to listen to their views.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether Solihull hospital could provide accident and emergency facilities on a 24-hour basis with full consultant, medical and support facilities if the hospital merged with Birmingham Heartlands hospital. [18781]

  Mr. Horam
  This issue is being considered as part of the consultation exercise currently under way on the proposal to merge Solihull district general hospital and Birmingham Heartlands NHS trust.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will postpone the final date of the consultation period on the proposals for the future of Solihull hospital to allow fresh proposals to be considered. [18780]

  Mr. Horam
  No. If my hon. Friend has any comments to make in response to the consultation exercise I would ask that he forward these to the West Midlands regional health authority as a matter of urgency.
  288
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received during the independent consulting period about the role of Heartlands hospital in Birmingham in respect of the proposed merger with Solihull hospital. [18778]

  Mr. Horam
  All representations about the proposed merger between Solihull district general hospital and Birmingham Heartlands National Health Service trust have been referred to the West Midlands regional health authority, which is conducting the public consultation exercise on this proposal. Once the exercise is concluded, the regional health authority will report the results to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and we will give careful consideration to the views expressed.

  Redundant Hospital Buildings
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cost of maintaining redundant or empty hospital buildings(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in London and (c) on the site of the former Westminster hospital; [18851]

  (2) how many square feet of former hospital buildings remain (a) empty, (b) derelict and (c) unsold. [18852]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dentists and Pharmacists (Premises)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated by the NHS executive in each region for funding the improvement of premises occupied by(a) dentists and (b) pharmacists. [18776]

  Mr. Malone
  Dentists and pharmacists are independent contractors who make their own business decisions about any improvements that may be necessary for their premises. Their national health service fees cover remuneration and expenses.

  Northern and Yorkshire Outpost Headquarters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, columns 919–20, if the Yorkshire regional health authority's building at Park parade, Harrogate was (a) placed on the open market and (b) advertised for sale on the basis of competitive tenders before its sale; who provided an independent valuation of the building for the NHS before its sale; what the valuation was; and on what basis this figure was calculated. [18829]

  Mr. Malone
  The sale of the former Yorkshire regional health authority building at Park parade, Harrogate was linked to the procurement of new premises for the NHS Executive Northern and Yorkshire regional office, in Durham. This was to avoid the serious risk, confirmed by independent property experts, that the Harrogate offices might remain as a liability to the health service, unsold and unlet for a considerable period.

  The linked sale and procurement was put to competitive tender, and the tender was let to Dysart Developments Ltd. on the basis of the best financial return to the health service.
  289
  The building was valued prior to tender by the district valuer, at £2.5 million, on the basis of his appraisal of the property and his knowledge of the local market. The successful tender incorporated an offer for the Harrogate building in excess of this figure, at £2.825 million.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of(a) junior and (b) other hospital doctors in (i) 1985, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1995. [18740]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Total numbers of junior doctors and other hospital doctors in England

  As at 30 September

  Year

  1985

  1990

  1994

  Junior doctors

  21,520

  23,630

  25,780

  Other hospital doctors

  22,030

  24,970

  26,260

  Public Health Link
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the review of the public health link procedure; and if he will publish his conclusions. [18788]

  Mr. Horam
  The Chief Medical Officer has recently met leaders of the medical profession to discuss how arrangements for transmitting urgent communications to doctors should be improved. Based on the principles agreed, finalised proposals will shortly be put to the medical profession and to other interested parties to ensure procedures are understood by all concerned.

  Anaesthetists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of qualified anaesthetists in the NHS; and what is the shortfall for each NHS trust. [18775]

  Mr. Malone
  The number of qualified anaesthetists—consultant grade—employed in the national health service was 2,350' as of 30 September 1994. The Department does not hold information about vacancies at trust level.

  Note:

  1This number is rounded to the nearest 10.

  Transplant Surgery
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what examinations, and of what nature, his Department(a) has conducted (b) is conducting and (c) has asked other organisations to conduct into the use for transplantation or other surgical procedures on humans of transgenic or genetically-modified animals or organs or parts therefrom. [18802]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has asked a committee chaired by Professor Ian Kennedy to review the acceptability of, and ethical framework within which, xenotransplantation—the transplant of animal organs,290
  cells and tissue across species—may be undertaken, and to make recommendations. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens is considering the potential infection risks which might arise following xenotransplantation.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of planned savings in management costs which will result from more effective use of information technology. [18786]

  Mr. Horam
  Information technology pervades most of the activity of the national health service. Whilst benefits, including potential savings in management costs, are known for the use of information technology in some of these activities, the Department of Health does not maintain a total across all of them.

  Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all Department of Health funded pilots, trials and research studies which have been conducted since 1990 in(a) Doncaster, (b) Mexborough, (c) Doncaster travel-to-work area and (d) Mexborough travel-to-work area identifying (i) title, summary and duration of the pilot or trial, (ii) target population and total number of participants and (iii) whether each pilot, trial or research finding was published and the date of publication; and if he will list all other non-Deaprtment of Health research bodies or organisations involved in each pilot, trial or research scheme. [19089]

  Mr. Malone
  Research commissioned within the Department's policy research programme is set out in "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions 1994–95" copies of which are available in the Library.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Keith Jones, chairman of the Doncaster district health authority, for available information on local health studies.

  Patient Information
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish guidance to the NHS on the protection and use of patient information; and if he will make a statement. [19807]

  Mr. Horam
  We will be issuing guidance to national health service and other interested bodies tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library. The guidance will emphasise the legal duty of all NHS bodies and staff to protect patient confidentiality, as well as the importance of informing patients of the essential uses to which personal information, anonymised wherever possible, may be put.

  Childhood Cancers
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding of the National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB-R276, pages 100 and 109 in respect of the incidence of childhood cancers linked to natural background alpha radiation. [18761]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health and the Scottish Office provide core-funding to the National Radiological Protection Board which covers many areas, including assessment of the risk of childhood cancer from exposure to natural background alpha radiation. The work of the board on this topic as described in NRPB R–276 was resourced by this funding.

  Embryo Research
  Mr. Morely
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for new legislation on embryo research. [19159]

  Mr Horam
  There are currently no plans for further legislation.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to identify the donors of embryos for research; and if he will make a statement. [19155]

  Mr. Horam
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's code of practice requires all licensed centres to keep records in which the source of gametes and embryos is accurately and securely recorded.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for new measures on frozen embryos when the current five-year holding period ends. [19156]

  Mr. Horam
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos) Regulations 1996 No. 375 were laid before both Houses on 23 February 1996 and will come into force on 1 May 1996.

  Human Fertility and Embryo Authority
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring his Department conducts of the operation of the Human Fertility and Embryo Authority. [19158]

  Mr. Horam
  Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is required to produce an annual report which is laid before Parliament. Between reports there is regular contact between Ministers, departmental officials and the authority. It is Government policy that all non-departmental public bodies should be reviewed after five years in existence. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 19 October 1995,Official Report, column 367, which announced that a full review by the Department of Health is now in progress.

  In Vitro Fertilisation Centres
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often each registered IVF centre is inspected. [19157]

  Mr. Horam
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority inspects all licensed in vitro fertilisation centres annually.

  Professions Supplementary to Medicine
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he plans to take to ensure that an adequate number of free placements are available within the national health service for those students in training for professions supplementary to medicine who require such placements for clinical practice during their courses. [19216]

  Mr. Horam
  Responsibility for negotiating clinical placements rests with education providers. National health service organisations were reminded of their obligation to assist education providers to secure sufficient placements in guidance issued in August 1995. Where charging for placements currently exists, it is being phased out.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which bodies within the national health service will have responsibility after 1 April for fulfilling contract obligations entered into by regional health authorities with educational institutions providing training courses for professions supplementary to medicine; [19212]

  (2) which bodies within the national health service will have responsibility after 1 April for providing bursaries for students on courses of training for professions supplementary to medicine. [19213]

  Mr. Horam
  From 1 April 1996 regional offices of the Department of Health will have responsibility for the contracts with education institutions and for the provision of bursaries for students for the professions allied to medicine.

  Health Authority Appointments
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the new health authorities indicating their gender and occupation. [19217]

  Mr. Malone
  A list of all appointments to national health service authorities and trusts will be published in the summer of 1996. This will include both the gender and occupation of appointees.

  Meningitis
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases there have been of meningitis (i) A, (ii) B and (iii) C in each of the last five years(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in each EU country. [19225]

  Mr. Horam
  In the past five years the numbers of cases of meningococcal infection reported in England and Wales, including cases of meningitis and septicaemia, and due to each group of Neisseria meningitidis are as shown in the table.

  Isolates of N meningitidis received at the Public Health Laboratory Service's meningococcal reference laboratory 1990–95, England and Wales

  Group

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  A

  13

  6

  7

  2

  1

  0

  B

  997

  959

  923

  929

  789

  866

  C

  466

  394

  326

  319

  291

  444

  Other groups

  24

  39

  45

  47

  48

  64

  All groups

  1,500

  1,398

  1,301

  1,297

  1,129

  1,394

  1 Provisional date for 1995

  293
  Data for each European Union country is not routinely collated by the Public Health Laboratory Service and may not, in any case, be comparable between different countries because of different reporting systems and differing access to grouping and typing facilities.

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

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which countries in the EU give routine meningitis vaccinations to children. [19226]

  Mr. Horam
  Eleven of the 15 countries in the European Union give routine Hib vaccine, which protects against cases of meningitis due to Haemophilus influenzae type b infections. Hib vaccine was introduced into the United Kingdom childhood immunisation programme in 1992 and has been a great success. The vaccine has virtually eliminated Hib meningitis in young children.

  No countries in the European Union currently give routine vaccination against meningococcal meningitis—that is, cases caused by Neisseria meningitidis.

  Public Finance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in each of the last five years of public finance in the NHS capital programme. [19228]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  Hospital and community health services gross capital expenditure (£ million)

  Change (Per cent.)

  1990–91

  1,576

  9.1

  1991–92

  1,659

  5.3

  1992–93

  1,815

  9.4

  1993–94

  1,783

  -1.8

  1994–95

  2,049

  14.9

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received on the accountancy error made in calculating the income of the South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust; what replies he has made; and if he will make a statement on the effects of the error in terms of(a) bed closures and (b) numbers of people waiting for hospital treatment. [19274]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received two letters on this subject. The trust has drawn up a recovery plan which involves selective bed closures and estimates that its proposals will add approximately two months to in-patient waiting times for Manchester residents.

  Hepatitis B
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual cost of universal vaccination of children against hepatitis B. [19218]

  Mr. Horam
  At manufacturers' current listed prices, annual vaccine costs for one birth cohort would be in the region of £17 million. The total cost of universal immunisation against hepatitis B will comprise of vaccine costs, the costs of administering the vaccine, and other costs of carrying out the immunisation programme. Costs of administering the vaccine could vary depending on the immunisation programme chosen.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the World Health Organisation's recommendation on hepatitis B vaccination. [19219]

  Mr. Horam
  Hepatitis B vaccine has been used in this country since 1982 and is currently recommended for those at increased risk of infection. The Department of Health is considering the implications of the World Health Organisation's recommendation for countries such as the United Kingdom, which has one of the lowest prevalence rates of chronic hepatitis B carriers in the world.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost-effectiveness of universal hepatitis B vaccinations for children. [19220]

  Mr. Horam
  The cost-effectiveness of universal hepatitis B vaccination for children is dependent on many factors, including the prevalence of hepatitis B infection in the population, the age at which immunisation is offered, the coverage achieved, vaccine efficiency, changes in the risks of exposure to the virus, the cost of the immunisation programme chosen, and the morbidity and mortality prevented as a result of that programme. The Department has commissioned research to develop a mathematical model of hepatitis B transmission dynamics to assist in this work.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the duration of antibody response in children vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccination. [19221]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has not commissioned research on this subject.

  Vaccinations (Cancer Prevention)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relationship between vaccination and cancer prevention. [19222]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has not commissioned from central funds research into the relationship between vaccines and cancer prevention.

  However, the Department of Health, Medical Research Centre, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and Glaxo/Wellcome—a leading pharmaceutical company—have jointly set up the Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research, with Professor Peter Beverley as its first scientific head.
  295
  The overall research strategy of the institute will be
  "to improve understanding of the immune response and apply that knowledge to the development of new vaccines to prevent diseases resulting from infections and malignancies (cancers)."

  Chronic Liver Disease
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new diagnoses of chronic liver disease there have been in each of the last five years. [19223]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available.

  Methadone
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were prescribed and how many and what percentage of doctors prescribed methadone in each region, district, family health services authority area and nationally in each of the last five years. [19227]

  Mr. Malone
  Information is not available in the form requested.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
Lord Joicey—Lord Joicey—;Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Prison Service Expenditure Cuts
The Lord Bishop of Worcester The Lord Bishop of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the Treasury cuts to the Prison Service announced in January will not affect educational and other services within the prisons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, reduction in provision of regime activities, including education, may be made only as a last resort and after savings elsewhere have been sought.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Will she agree that when cuts are made in the face of a rising prison population, rehabilitative services like education and chaplaincy are always vulnerable? Will she further agree that if prisoners leave without qualifications to help them in the search for a job, they may return to crime and in turn add to the prison population?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the right reverend Prelate about the importance of both the chaplaincy service and education. For that reason, we believe that those services should be protected, not only because they benefit prisoners on release but also because they are material to good order inside prisons.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with her reply that the reductions would arise only after savings had been sought in other areas? I assume that she refers to the often repeated government assertion that savings on administration can always be made by all public services at all times. Surely the Government have a responsibility to be certain that cuts in the area of services to people in prison should not be made.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the House about some areas where I believe that efficiencies can be achieved: better shift systems to avoid wasteful deployment of staff—some prisons employ over-qualified staff on routine tasks; better use of part-time and contract staff; reduction of management layers; reduction of headquarters staff; exploring the scope for contracting-out services—for example, works services, ground services and vocational training; the improvement of energy efficiency. Prisons can improve their systems for managing performance. They can take prompter action in dealing with poor performance and
292
unsatisfactory attendance records. They can exercise better control over staff expenses and improve on and have more efficient procurement policies. The list is considerable and none of it affects frontline services in any other way than to improve them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us the cost to taxpayers of keeping a prisoner for a year?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that it is in the region of £25,000. However, I shall ensure that my noble friend receives the information.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the Minister provide justification for the damaging and horrifying cuts at a time when the prison population has reached a record level and when the Government plan to increase it by many thousands? This is at a time when we are told, in the words of a former Conservative Prime Minister, that we—the nation—have never had it so good.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, there is a general policy by the Government that we should make our services as efficient and effective as possible and that we can improve frontline services, while cutting out waste. That is the general policy.
Perhaps I may put into context the present efficiency reductions that are being asked for. In 1979 there was one prison officer for every 3.02 prisoners; today there is one prison officer for every 2.13 prisoners. That is an improvement of 30 per cent. The number of officers in the Prison Service has increased since 1979 by 76.6 per cent., while the prison population has increased by only 26 per cent. In 1979 there were almost 5,000 people sharing three to a cell. There are no prisoners now sharing three to a cell. In 1979 there were 11,700 sharing two to a cell; that has been reduced to 8,000. Spending has almost doubled since 1979, there have been 21 new prisons, 18,500 new places. More purposeful activity is taking place in our prisons than ever before: 300,000 hours of additional purposeful activity have been added since agency status. More prisoners than ever before spend more than 12 hours outside their cell. Those are the improvements effected by this Government since 1979.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, speaking of purposeful activities, will the Minister agree that the Open University offers a particularly valuable opportunity for prisoners to prepare themselves for release? Can she say what number of prisoners were taking Open University courses in 1995–96, and what number will be taking them in 1996–97? Will she also agree that it is to be deplored if prisoners are taken off Open University courses as a disciplinary penalty, without adjudication?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give the specific information for which the noble Lord asks. If I am able to obtain it, I will write to him.
The point made is an interesting one. It may well be that that is a more cost-effective way of providing information in prisons than the very high cost of a

293
teacher being before the prisoners, physically teaching in the prison. There are distance learning programmes and other ways of efficiently delivering education in prison. We want the Prison Service to think much more laterally about how it can provide education for people in prison. It is an important point that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister gave a long list of what the Government had done, and another long list as to where she believes the Government can save money. May I therefore take it from that that there are no proposals to cut educational and other services within the Prison Service?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I can give no guarantees at all. The noble Lord scoffs, but the Government have effected a great deal of improvement since 1979. The service today is better resourced and prisoners are better cared for than they were in 1979.
How the efficiency savings are found is a management issue. I have made clear, as has Mr. Tilt, the Acting Director-General of Services, that we expect the front-line services to be preserved. We expect priority to be given to stability, good order and security. Only as a very last resort should any of these areas be looked at for savings.
Lord Brain: My Lords, in view of the Minister's remarks about 30 per cent. savings, and other savings, will she be surprised to hear that the chaplain of Channings Wood prison in Devon has recently had a 30 per cent. cut in his budget?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot comment on any individual prison. If it is a 30 per cent. cut, there must be some reason why it is disproportionate to cuts in other prisons. The overall cut is nothing like 30 per cent.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister satisfied that it is right that Oxford prison should be closed, in view of the fact that it has splendid educational facilities and the men go out to education? I appreciate that the prison has been leased by the city council to the Prison Service. Nevertheless, does my noble friend agree that it seems the wrong moment to be closing down such a very good prison where the men are so happy?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: All terms are relative, my Lords.
There is a very buoyant prison building programme. I do not believe that any prison establishment at this time is closed without very good reason. I will pass on the reasons to my noble friend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister believe that prisons—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I think I take the sense of the House that with three more Questions to come, time is limited. I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow us to continue.

Community Hygiene Concern: Funding
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their decision not to increase funding to Community Hygiene Concern for their "bug busting" campaign in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, in January, Community Hygiene Concern approached the Department for Education and Employment for funding. The organisation was asked to refer its request to the Department of Health. It has not yet done so.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before asking any supplementary question, may I say how grateful I am that the Department of Health is to produce a leaflet, which I gather the noble Baroness will launch on 22nd April, promoting the "bug busting" campaign.
Does the Minister accept that it is unreasonable to expect this very small charity to provide education to school nurses and medical practitioners for a mere £25,000 a year? Will she look urgently at the question of funding, in view of the fact that many of the chemicals used are now producing resistance in the head lice?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Countess is right in that we do support this organisation from the Department of Health and have provided £25,000 each year over three years. If it wishes to make an additional request to us, we will consider it. If it has a cashflow problem, as I believe is the case, we would be willing to consider a bridging arrangement.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend assist me? What is "bug busting", and why does it require a campaign?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe it is commonly known as "nits".
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the "bug busting" campaign is a non-pesticidal, non-toxic, effective and cheap answer to what is a widespread and very distressing problem, especially among children? Until yesterday the DoH said that it was the DfE's problem, and then the DfE said that it was the DoH's problem. Is not that a perfect example of departmental nit-picking? Is it impossible for those two huge departments to split the difference and each find £577 a month to continue funding that conspicuously successful initiative, which is only asking for £3,500 a quarter for all the work that it does? Failing that, could one of those departments not accept full responsibility for funding it and admit that "the bug stops here"?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there has never been any doubt about which department is responsible for the organisation. It was the organisation, which

295
thought that it could get more money from another department, that has caused the confusion. The Department of Health has always been responsible for nits. I have never quite understood why I deserve that.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us what has happened to the small toothcomb, which many of us suffered in our youth? Why not bring it back? There would then be no need for chemicals.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the cheap element in the "bug busting" campaign. The pack produced by that organisation includes a very fine toothcomb. Parents and teachers can use it to eradicate nits.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are education implications in not supporting the campaign? Has an estimate been made of the number of school days lost when children are excluded from school because of nits?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords, I am not aware of the figures for the number of children who do not attend school because of that fact. We believe that parents feel strongly about the problem, as do teachers. That is why we support this organisation and indeed general practitioners and school nurses, who not only use that method but also apply lotions to the children.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that historically schools have been very much involved in diagnosing and head louse treatments and telling parents what to do when their children are found to have head lice? Does she agree that it is therefore very important that school nurses, teachers and others are properly taught how to use the "bug busting" procedures? It involves using an ordinary shampoo, lots of conditioner and combing out the hair while still very wet. That is repeated for four times in a fortnight, during which period all adult head lice are removed and no eggs are laid. If it is not used properly it will fail.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords.

Legal Aid: Fees Policy
2.52 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to encourage a fixed price service from lawyers in legal aid cases.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, there are already standard fee schemes in place for magistrates' court cases and for shorter cases in the Crown Court. During the coming year, I hope to introduce graduated fees for advocates in the Crown Court, which will extend the existing scheme, and standard fees for both advocates and litigators in civil cases. In the longer term, the contracting proposals set
296
out in the Green Paper, Legal Aid—Targeting Need moved, towards securing the provision of legal services at a fixed price.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord's Answer and urge him to press ahead with the proposals for the franchising firms that offer fixed fees. Does he agree that, since severe constraints on legal aid are a denial of justice and there must inevitably be a compromise to ensure access for as many people as possible, one of the most important aspects of limiting costs may be fixing fees? Can he tell us the reaction of the professionals to his initiatives?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree with the general view that has been expressed by the noble Lord that it is wise to do what one can to eliminate the expense per case if one wishes to get as good a distribution as possible of legal aid to those who need it. I believe it would be right for me to say that my moves in those directions have not been warmly and universally welcomed by the legal profession. But the Bar Council particularly has been extremely helpful in preparing the scheme for graduated fees for advocates in the Crown Court. The Law Society also participated in that process and in relation to advocates and litigators in civil cases as well. While matters were difficult for a time, they may well be improving somewhat.

A1 Fayed Brothers: Nationality Decision
2.55 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their decision not to grant British nationality to the A1 Fayed brothers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have no plans to do so.
Lord Spens: My Lords, now that it is no longer a serious offence to mislead, and given that that allegation is at the centre of the refusal of the Home Secretary to grant British nationality to those two gentlemen, does the Minister feel that it is time to put aside past prejudices and revisit this application, bearing in mind the enormous contribution made to the economy of this country and to charities by the A1 Fayed brothers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must take issue with the implied criticism that my right honourable friend acted improperly. The courts found that he acted lawfully in all aspects of this case.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I do not wish in any way to suggest that the Home Secretary has acted at all improperly in this matter. But can the Minister say, in considering the position of Mr. A1 Fayed, whether any evaluation has been placed upon his activities. 11 years ago, when he acted as an intermediary between the Government and the Sultan of Brunei—the Sultan of Brunei decided to support the British pound, which at that time was standing at 99 cents—and whether all that can be taken in the balance? Is she

297
aware that that action avoided having the Government run cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund at that time?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be improper for me to give reasons as to what was taken into account in this case. Indeed, my right honourable friend has no obligation at all to do so. Charitable works and goods works can be taken into account. All that is contained within Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act; namely, residency requirements, knowledge of the English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic languages, restriction under immigration laws, intention to make principal home in the United Kingdom and whether or not a person is of good character. But it would be improper for me to go into any further detail.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Fayed brothers have been described by the DTI as—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that none of your Lordships would ever want to see a Speaker introduced into our proceedings. I am in the hands of the House. As we have plenty of time, I wonder whether the House will allow the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, to speak next and other noble Lords will come in later.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Fayed brothers have been described by the DTI as having cheated and lied their way into buying Harrods, at which point they also cheated the Sultan of Brunei, although he is not willing to engage in a public controversy about it? Should not those two people be deported as undesirable aliens?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must repeat what I said earlier. It would be improper for me to respond to that kind of comment or question. I think that it would be improper of this House to discuss any individual in that way.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, not wishing in any way to follow the line of discussing the merits of this application, does not the grant of British nationality lie within the discretion of the Home Secretary, subject to limited control by the courts under judicial review? If that is so, and leaving aside the merits, can my noble friend say how may the Government reconsider, looking at the Question, a decision that was never made?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 says, among other things, that,
"The Secretary of State…shall not be required to assign any reason for the grant or refusal of any application under this Act the decision on which is at his discretion".
That is the point made by my noble friend. The decision of whether or not to grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation as a British citizen is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I can also say that Section 44(2) is lifted from Section 26 of the Nationality
298
Act 1948. The Secretary of State was first exempted from having to give reasons for granting or refusing certificates of naturalisation in the Nationality Act 1870. So it is a very long and well-established tradition.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness note that, if these two brothers come to Wales and open a couple of shops like Harrods, we shall give them the Order of St. David?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is noted.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if we now believe in open government, is it not time that the provisions which the noble Baroness read out were reviewed? On the one hand, if the reasons why the Secretary of State does not have to explain why he has refused nationality are to do with embarrassment to the applicant if the reasons were revealed, could not the reasons be revealed by agreement with the applicant? If, on the other hand, the Home Secretary declines to give reasons due to the fact that he does not wish to open a front for possible litigation by the aggrieved person, is that not a very bad ground for maintaining secrecy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have given the history of this piece of legislation. I can say that almost all governments have visited and revisited this aspect of it and have decided that the discretion should be the Home Secretary's and that reasons can be withheld. If the noble Lord believes that the law should be changed, then it would be up to Parliament to consider that. I believe that there are very good reasons why that discretion should be left to the Home Secretary. There are often very good reasons why the reasons are not made public.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that British nationality is a privilege to be cherished and that it is not something to be obtained either by bullying, blackmail or endeavouring to interfere with British processes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree absolutely with my noble friend. The granting of nationality is an extremely serious issue. It is right that it should be considered properly and that there should be an appeal system which allows the decision to be challenged. It has been challenged and my right honourable friend has been found to have acted lawfully in this case.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, accepting that the Home Secretary can use the British Nationality Act as a reason for not explaining why a particular grant of nationality has been refused, what are the reasons for not explaining to the people themselves why they have been denied nationality?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there may be many. It may be the way in which the information about them has been sourced; it may be about protecting other people or national security. There may be all kinds of reasons. But the fact that the law, as it has been visited and revisited, has allowed it to be a discretion on the part of the Home Secretary, and as it states quite

299
explicitly in the Act that reasons need not be given, I believe that my right honourable friend has exercised his right under the law.
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course one accepts that the Home Secretary exercised his right under the law. The question is whether or not he will reconsider it and exercise his right under the law again. Is the Minister aware that the refusal of the Government to reconsider this matter is viewed by many people as verging on the spiteful against these two men and that the Government should think hard about it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with what the noble Lord has just said. An application was made; it was rejected; it has been challenged, and my right honourable friend has been found to have acted lawfully. We have no plans and indeed no reason to reconsider the matter. It is of course open to the two Mr. A1 Fayeds to reapply. We normally recommend that at least two years should elapse since the last application. If they wish to reapply nothing that has happened hitherto will impede proper consideration of their application.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in his first supplementary question, the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said that "misleading" had been legitimised. I can only presume by that that he meant that the rejection last week by a vote in the House of Commons of the Scott report, which found that the Government had misled Parliament, effectively legitimised "misleading"—or, as someone described it, telling porkie pies. Can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to correct that impression that may have been conveyed to the British people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was a thorough distortion of what the Scott report said and has absolutely no relevance to this matter. The court has found that my right honourable friend acted lawfully, and that is an end to it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, of what was meant by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, could be quite a time-consuming and perhaps wasteful exercise?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am attracted by the notion put forward by my noble friend. Perhaps I may also say that there was an implicit criticism that my right honourable friend had been dishonourable, and I take issue with that.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, after the debate on expenditure in universities and before the debate on developing countries, my noble friend Lord Lucas will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the judgment of the European Court of Justice on fishing interests.
300
I should like to say a word about today's debates. In the first debate, other than the mover, Front Bench spokesmen and the Minister replying, speakers will be limited to eight minutes and in the second debate to nine minutes. Perhaps I may also remind your Lordships that when the digital clock shows eight minutes, the full eight minutes have elapsed and the speaker is already trespassing on the time of others.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Annan set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Earl of Sandwich also set down for today to two hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

University Funding
3.7 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to call attention to the cuts in current expenditure and in capital (including equipment) grants which have been imposed upon universities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to begin by congratulating the Secretary of State on being a woman. After a series of males, each one more disastrous than his predecessor, it is a relief to have someone who immediately calls in Sir Ron Dearing to review the funding and operations of universities. For 12 years we have had policy for universities made off the cuff. But now I hope that we have someone who wants to listen to those in higher education and hear how they suggest the formidable problems that face government and themselves might be solved.
Sir Ron Dearing's appointment reminds me of the bad old days in industrial relations when a strike would be called, followed by weeks of fruitless negotiation and millions of pounds lost, and then Mr. Jack Scamp was called in to produce a settlement. I never could see why Mr. Scamp was not called in at the beginning of the dispute. So let us be grateful that Sir Ron, the scamp of the 1990s, has been appointed before the vice-chancellors carried out their threat to impose a £300 tuition fee on all students. Let there be no doubt that it was that threat—which the vice-chancellors no more than the Government wanted to carry out—that brought the department to the negotiating table. The Secretary of State has displayed admirable sensitivity in seeing how serious the situation had got; and it is serious.
There seems to be only one thing in which the Government want to be wholeheartedly European and that is to make our universities resemble those on the Continent. There, for instance in Rome, buildings designed for 10,000 students accommodate today 100,000. There students never meet or discuss their

301
work with their professors. Is that what we want? For years Britain has been admired for the quality of its university higher education. Foreign students are amazed by the personal attention and tuition they got, and still get, from their teachers. I know this from the German students who for the past three years have lodged with us and studied at the LSE and at the University of Essex. Do we want to throw that away?
I have no doubt that in his reply the Minister will say that universities have to learn how to teach larger numbers of students. Student numbers have certainly increased—since 1979 by 45 per cent. In the past six years recurrent funding per student has declined by 28 per cent. and a so-called "small" class now numbers 25 to 30. The old tutorial system is in danger of collapse. Heads of departments, particularly in science, tell their junior staff that, if they devote time to tutorials instead of getting on with their research and adding to the department's publications list, they will not get promoted.
I remember Lord Robbins, back in the 1970s saying that he thought that perhaps staff/student ratios were a bit lavish. He thought that a ratio of 1:15 would be reasonable. It is now 1:20 as an average, excluding medical schools. In practice, that means a ratio of 1:30, or more in popular subjects. In the management-speak in which the present Permanent Secretary at the department is a master, that would be called an enormous increase in "productivity", having regard to the "down-sizing" of staff.
And what has been the reward for academic staff? Since 1979 they have seen their salaries fall far behind those of any other professional group. I am not going to join the Government in bashing school teachers—most of them deserve better than they get. Still their salaries have risen by over 30 per cent. since 1985. Academic staff salaries have risen by 10 per cent. Is that a fair deal? It is simply an indication of how much the Government despise dons. They treat them like petits pions, a low form of life to be sneered at or bullied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
On top of that gross unfairness, the Government have added vastly to the paperwork demanded of universities. Indeed, a new monster has appeared, the Higher Education Statistical Agency, which is churning out demands for information never before demanded. Then there is the quality exercise, in which every department receives a visitation every three years and is assessed. The paperwork, the waste of time—time that should be spent on teaching and research—is incalculable.
What about the inspector from a former poly who told a junior lecturer in a prestige London University college that how well she knew her subject was not the concern of the inspector, but she should not stand before her class because it was too "authoritarian".
Skilful heads of department jockey with each other for assembling impressive lists of publications. Anyone who has been a don knows that mere numbers of publications are a delusion. The more entrepreneurial vice-chancellors never miss an opportunity of luring on to their staff by hook, and often by crook, scholars or
302
indeed simply writers whose publication record seems to be impressive. The other day a talented consultant at one medical school perfectly reasonably was offered a post as professor at another medical school, but only on condition that he was in post by 31st March. "Why that date?", asked his present employer. It became clear that had he been in post by 31st March, all his publications for the past five years would have enriched the research record of the hiring university and would have deprived the university in which he had been for the past five years of their credit.
I hope in answering this point the Minister will not talk a lot about "accountability". When was there last a complaint about the quality of university teaching or of the devotion of dons to their pupils in the old universities? I challenge the Minister. There have been complaints, we know, of bad teaching in some primary and secondary schools. But when were there similar complaints of universities? Let us have chapter and verse.
I would not dispute that some departments need visitations. But do the pre-1970s universities require this? Once a university has been audited and found in good shape, can it not be left alone for, say, seven to 10 years? It is not likely to get all that better or all that worse during that time.
What does the Secretary of State expect from Sir Ron Dearing? I hope she will ask him to do what he did when he examined education between 16 and 18. I mean by that to issue a general principles paper by December of this year which can be sent to all interested parties for consultation.
I do not think there is any doubt that Sir Ron will have to propose a different balance in finance between the state, employers and graduates. Every quality newspaper now accepts that students must make a contribution to their own fees. They, or their parents, may not be able to make it at the time when they are undergraduates, but something like a contribution by those who have graduated must come about. I recognise that some will question whether someone such as myself who graduated in 1938 should now be required to pay this tax or whether it should be levied upon those who graduated post-1960. Speaking for myself, I would willingly pay such a tax provided it was hypothecated and guaranteed to be used for higher education and not disappear into the maw of the Treasury. I can imagine that the Treasury will refuse that because it always declines to accept anything which is hypothecated.
Above all, Sir Ron must bring other government departments such as the DTI and the Department of Health into these matters. When universities are cut, the staff of the hospitals of the Secretary of State for Health are affected. Posts have to be frozen and consultants' posts cut. I am told that there are at least 17 cases in which essential work in hospitals will be curtailed because of the present cuts.
There are now 105 universities and it seems to me inevitable that there will have to be two clusters, one of which will be full research and teaching universities and the other teaching universities whose courses are linked to professional institutions, though that would not

303
inhibit a particular department gaining support for research from industry or even indeed from the Higher Education Funding Council.
Government policy is so full of paradoxes. They came into office determined to cut bureaucracy, yet they add layers of bureaucracy in the universities. They create opt-out secondary schools and special technical schools, but they abolished the distinction, without any consultation, between universities and polys—and what is more, threw a considerable sum of money at those new universities as an indication that they were now in the top league.
When Sir Toby Weaver persuaded Mr. Crosland to create the polys, he envisaged them as a cheaper form of higher education because the polys made no pretence at being research institutions. In fact today unit costs at a number of the old polys are higher than those in the old-established universities.
And what has happened to the Department of Education and Science? It is now the Department for Education and Employment. Science has been turned out and made to walk the streets of Whitehall like a whore. At last she has been picked up by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is as if Jane Austen had been told to lodge with Casanova. It is ridiculous because for years scientific research has been angled towards industry. What is needed now is protection for the fundamental research that has to be done if new applied research is to be developed from it.
The problem before us this afternoon is not so much what should Dearing recommend; it is what is to be done between now and 1999, when such recommendations as Sir Ron makes may be implemented, so as to enable universities to weather the storm caused by a cut of 6 per cent. this year, 5 per cent. next year and 5 per cent. the year after that, and a cut of 47 per cent. in the capital and equipment grant. Capital grants are used to buy equipment. It will mean that books cannot be bought for the library or equipment for the extra students in the labs. At Durham the grant is sufficient only to upgrade IT equipment—nothing else.
The Government say, "Go out and find benefactors under the private finance initiative". But you cannot get private finance to fund the repair of fume cupboards which have been condemned by an inspector from the Department of Health. I wonder whether the department realises just how large a contribution the private sector already makes to universities. Consider Sheffield university, a fine old but not unrepresentative civic university. Today 47 per cent. of its income comes from private sources. Per contra some of the newest universities get 94 per cent. of their income from the taxpayer via the HEFC.
When the HEFC sends universities their allocations for next year the wizard Merlin will not be needed to predict what will happen. Vacancies will be frozen. Worse still, more students will drop out. I am sure that the Government will blandly answer all questions in this House by saying to a noble Lord who airs any grievance that he should not address them but the HEFC. In 1994–95, 21,000 students, 20 per cent., left universities without qualifications for academic reasons. That rate of drop-out was unheard of 10 years ago.
Incidentally, perhaps the Minister can tell me why it is that the Scottish and Welsh universities have been cut less than the English universities. Is it hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will cross the Floor of the House in gratitude?
This afternoon I have spoken out of character. Noble Lords who have heard me speak over the past 30 years know that I always play the part of Bottom:
"I will roar you as gently as any sucking dove; I will roar you as 'twere any nightingale".
Nearly always I have been a blackleg among vice-chancellors because I thought the universities were selfish in the days of their prosperity, did little to help the government reduce their expenditure and were indifferent to the plight and standards in the schools. But today I speak in anger. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, as a university teacher may I declare an interest that I hope is more than just pecuniary? Like all of us, I owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating the debate today. University education in this country is now in a state of crisis. This is odd, because there are many positive things that can be said. First, the reputation of our universities stands high. Secondly, the higher education sector has expanded by 100 per cent. since 1979. Thirdly, there have been so-called efficiency gains of some 28 per cent. over the past four or five years. The per capita investment in each student from public funds compares favourably with that of most industrialised nations. There is a reasonably coherent system in place to make available cheap loans to help students pay their maintenance. We know that a thorough review by Sir Ron Dearing's committee is expected by September 1997.
Of course, the crisis arises from the swingeing cuts that have been recently announced. These cuts come after the 28 per cent. so called efficiency gain—that is to say, the reduction in unit funding, over the past four years. On the university and tuition side—recurrent funding—the cuts announced amount to a 4.7 per cent. squeeze in real terms in the coming year, rising to 9.4 per cent. in real terms by 1998–99 in relation to last year's funding. On top of that, capital grants will be down 47 per cent. by 1999. These are savage cuts. Some universities may be bankrupt before Sir Ron Dearing's reforms can take place, which will not be before 1999. One has to add to that the plight of individual students. Here I talk about student maintenance. For example, at current rates, a four-year science student who begins his or her studies this October will have a loan of £7,811 by the year 2000 on graduation, to which one must probably add inflation. If on an average salary, the student will be expected to pay off that loan within five years.
For years the Government have been advised on all sides to have an income-contingent repayment scheme—that is to say, a graduate tax. Neither party has had the guts to grasp the nettle of a new tax. What disturbs me is that the impending crisis, which arises largely from increased student numbers, has been blindingly obvious for at least three years, as noble

305
Lords have been telling my noble friends with remarkable consistency. Where is government policy? In September 1993 when Labour produced, and then suppressed, a shadow Green Paper—for which the shadow Minister in the other place, Mr. Jeff Rooker, was dismissed from his position—my right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State for Education, called a press conference. He dismissed it with ridicule with its talk of a graduate tax and the hint that students might be asked to contribute to tuition costs. When Mr. Patten was succeeded by the current Secretary of State the first thing that my right honourable friend did was to commission a study. A few months ago her Green Paper was said to exist in draft. A year later, where is it? Where is government policy?
I wish that I could say better for the party opposite. The then Leader of the Opposition dismissed Mr. Rooker from his position; but what happened to the policy? Indeed, what is their policy? The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in the Second Reading debate on the Education (Student Loans) Bill two weeks ago, spent some time discussing the Conservative Political Centre's report entitled The Future of Britain's Universities. I am sure that the CPC was suitably grateful. But where was the exposition of Opposition policy? What is that policy? I hope that in four minutes we shall begin to learn.
In his speech the noble Lord alluded to four clear principles on which the Labour Party was alleged to be working: to encourage access; to protect and enhance quality; not to discriminate among students; and to be fair both to students and the taxpayer. Your Lordships will be surprised that he omitted motherhood and blueberry pie, but was there a glimmer of policy among that welter of platitudes? There was none. Is Labour advocating a graduate tax, as Mr. Rooker was said to have done? Sometimes, it sounds like it. I hope to know in three minutes' time. This country has not been well served by the Opposition in the matter of higher education. They have suffered a collective loss of nerve. In the past couple of years successive Ministers of Education have also failed to grapple with these obvious and emerging funding problems. One may harbour the suspicion that officials in the Department for Education have not been energetic in proposing alternative strategies.
If serious lasting damage is not to be inflicted on our universities and student population, something has to be done now. We can expect more from government and from the opposition than drafts of Green Papers which never see the light of day, and more than a committee of inquiry to report in 18 months' time—however welcome it will then be—and to be implemented we know not when. We hope we shall see swift action.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, Mark Antony in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar looks down at the stab wound in Caesar's corpse made by Brutus's knife and says,
"This was the most unkindest cut of all",
306
so giving grammarians the most famous example of the double superlative adjective to achieve emphasis, and your Lordships' House the most "bestest" description of the Chancellor's bloody butchery of universities in his last Budget. The Chancellor's knife removes £107 million from the capital programme, a cut of 31 per cent. at a stroke. Capital expenditure is not simply expenditure on buildings. This cut will affect the purchase power of libraries, will lengthen the backlog of maintenance of properties, compromise health and safety standards and prevent the purchase of vital equipment.
Take engineering, which is essentially an equipment-based subject. One vice-chancellor recently pointed out that funding of engineering in British universities had unquestionably declined relative to the rest of the world. He said that the replacement rate for engineering equipment—normally about three years—would become seven, eight, nine or ten. Computer equipment becomes redundant 50 per cent. in year one; 25 per cent. in year two; and you can write it off after about four years. But no, not in British universities—not any more.
Let me give your Lordships two examples: first, in Sheffield University, where Professor Ian Cooke's department of obstetrics and gynaecology was planned to move to the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in a big new scheme. That is now in jeopardy, because the university's £2 million share of the project is under threat from this recently announced cut. That department is one of the world leaders in the field of molecular aspects of fertility. Its successes in treating infertility are world famous. It will be a calamity if its development is prevented by being forced to work in huts and hovels, anywhere that the vice chancellor can find it.
Secondly, consider the case of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. UMIST has nothing but departments, some of them world-renowned, whose major expenditure is on scientific equipment. The same is true of Imperial College in London. Yet UMIST's capital grant is cut from £2.8 million to £1.8 million at a stroke and at short notice. As its vice-chancellor said recently:
"If this capital cut is not reversed in next year's funding round, the Government will be signalling the UK's withdrawal from the international competition in science engineering".
Hard words!
Those two examples can be multiplied by every university in the country, and were there time I would quote the example of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School. But gaily and insouciantly, the Government have suggested to universities that the private finance initiative is the solution to all their problems. The Secretary of State for Wales, writing to the University of Swansea, says so:
"Planned capital expenditure for higher education has been reduced in line with most other public expenditure programmes. The reduction in provision reflects the policy that capital should, wherever possible, be financed through private finance".
He speaks as if there is some queue of beneficent capitalists waiting to shower universities with money, and asking next to no return for considerable risk. There

307
is not, just as there is no queue of banks and building societies eager to finance a student loans service. Surely the student loans Bill before us is now irrevocably doomed when the NatWest has turned down the Government's blandishments?
No, the PFI simply will not solve this problem, and I can tell the Government why. First, universities have to prepare bids, and very significant costs in time and money are required to do so. At all the stages of their preparation, they incur professional charges from accountants, lawyers, architects, engineers, and the like, and all those costs have to be borne by the organisation seeking private finance. I am told that sums of the order of £500,000 can be incurred by universities from public funds without any certainty whatever that the project concerned will go ahead.
Secondly, the PFI is comparatively inefficient. Universities have a long tradition of borrowing from banks to raise funds for capital projects. This can be done quickly because the parties know one another; universities are recognised as good risks, and so they get very competitive rates of interest, often much more favourable than a private developer could obtain. So why bother?
Thirdly, where university buildings are concerned, only things like student residences, sports facilities or catering outlets are even vaguely suitable for PH funding. Those have a separate income stream, and they can be used intensively throughout the year; but even for residential accommodation normal loan finance is usually better value for money than the PFI. But academic buildings like laboratories, on the other hand, generate no separate income stream, and the only return for private sector investment comes from recurrent funding of the universities themselves. So to use the PFI to fund academic building would simply be a drain on recurrent funding, and such a switch would simply reduce the already ludicrously low unit of resource available for teaching. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.
The PFI has been powerfully trumpeted by the Government in recent years. They seem to think that it is the solution to problems created by this 47 per cent. cut in university capital budgets in the three years from now until 1998–99. It is not. PFI applies only to a small section of university buildings, and it is next to useless for equipment. I challenge the Minister here today to explain to the House how the private finance initiative could possibly be used to fund the purchase of an anti-proton storage ring. But the utter irrelevance of the PH as a solution to the crisis facing universities in the next five years is proved beyond peradventure by its past record.
The PFI's record in universities is not encouraging. People do not want to take it up. Why should its future be different? The CVCP has given due warning: if this cut is not rapidly reversed, major building programmes will be abandoned; there will be massive reductions in library books, computer and other equipment; there will certainly be staff redundancies; and we may see universities facing unmanageable deficits, closure or merger.
The mindless savagery of this 31 per cent. cut in capital expenditure proves beyond doubt the utter bankruptcy of this Government's policy for higher education. In the words of the poet John Donne:
308
"'tis all in pieces, all coherence gone".
No wonder they have run away and left Sir Ron Dearing to sweep up the bits.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I make the point that I spoke only for six minutes out of my eight. May I offer him 30 seconds to say whether Labour has a policy on these matters, as I asked in my speech?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if I may be granted the leave of the House just a few seconds to answer that question, I refer the noble Lord to what I said in the debate which he quoted, which he will find clear and sufficient to answer his question.
3.37 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I enjoyed that exchange but I hope that it does not come out of my eight minutes. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing the debate and for the delightful image of Jane Austen seeking lodgings with Casanova. I enjoyed the exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Morris of Castle Morris. There is more than one party opposite the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. Our party has already grasped the nettle of an income contingent repayment scheme in our new policy which my noble friend Lord Tope will develop in more detail.
When we introduced that, my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown said to us as we were considering it, "If you reject this policy, you have three other options: to let quality continue a rapid decline; to put 4 pence on the income tax; or to lie". The first of those is clearly the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and has always been. I wait to know which of those three is the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition.
I must of course declare an interest in this debate, not only as a university teacher but, more specifically, as a teacher at King's College, which has suffered a particularly savage cut in its recurrent grant. We are a college that does individual tutorials, and will continue to do so as long as we can. In the humanities, in the research assessment exercise, we came second after Cambridge. Having assisted in doing the research assessment exercise, I would be reluctant to ask the House to take that information too literally, but that does not happen to a second-rate place.
If this was done deliberately, it is curious. If it is the result of a formula, the House knows what I think about formulae. I am advised that it is going to cause us a lot of problems with teaching rooms. It will impose on us a need, through the closure of some rooms, to teach in smaller rooms, which means either more teaching hours or fewer students. I am also, like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, deeply concerned about books. Without books in my subject one might as well not be there at all.
The House knows my general views on universities and I shall not repeat them at length. However, in addition to my party policy I now find that I must support the proposal of the CVCP for a fee charge on individual students. The House knows what I think of the financial burden on students. The House will believe that I feel like Cromwell dissolving the Rump—that

309
I have sought the Lord day and night that He would rather slay me than put me upon the doing of this work. But we cannot await Dearing. If we do not do it, we might as well close down.
Having spoken so many times on universities I will say something on a subject on which the House has not heard me. It is the private finance initiative; the Deus ex machine which is supposed to fill up all the gaps. The private finance initiative does not seem to have been cast taking into account that most of our capital budget does not go on great glorious new buildings. It is not that kind of period. It goes on repairing the roof, buying computers, mending window frames and so forth. The Welsh and Scottish Offices understand that those items are not suitable for the private finance initiative. I wish that the Department for Education and Employment did the same.
The private finance initiative is essentially a lease-back system. It means that the costs are deferred and, as anyone with a mortgage will know, the ultimate total cost rises. I wish to know whether the Treasury has calculated the long-term cost of the private finance initiative to the state. They think only in five-year terms down there; we up here ought to do a bit better.
The lease-back of small items creates problems. I am reminded of the time when Camden Council, borrowing money from Japanese banks, passed over to them the title to every bath tap in every council house in Camden. I wondered how the Japanese bankers would foreclose if that were necessary.
We face much the same problem. If we have banks and private firms getting titles to defective window frames I do not know what they will do with them. It has been pointed out that repayment can come only out of recurrent grant. Defective window frames do not generate income. It is also crucial to the private finance initiative that ownership of the item in question is passed over. If ownership of a teaching room is passed over to a private body it must become involved in decisions about what is done with the room. What is done with the room will determine the teaching programme of the university in question. We are getting private firms involved in the planning of academic teaching and it really will not work. It is one of a succession of hare-brained schemes which go a long way back.
When Henry IV of France visited King James I, King James held forth on the cost of his court. Henri Quatre assured him that one could feed 300 courtiers for two days on one ostrich egg. In the accounts of the Keeper of St. James's Park a few months later appears the entry: "To Coles, for one month's trial to hatch ostrich eggs; 13s 4d". Those eggs did not hatch and neither will these.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I must first declare my interests in institutions which are significantly affected by changes in government funding of universities. I have been Chancellor of the University of Sheffield for 17 years. I thank previous speakers for their
310
references to that university, which were so gracious and were so well deserved. I am also president of the Royal Post-graduate Medical School and president of the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council, which is a medical research charity devoting most of its income to encouraging and paying for research within the universities. In common with other medical charities, it is profoundly affected by what happens to the universities.
I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating the debate, which is very timely. I will not attempt to match his flights of oratory but shall begin by quoting the words of the opening speech of a similar debate in another place. In arguing for the simple and, in my view, entirely just proposition;
"that the obligations imposed upon the universities are matched by the resources made available to them",
the speaker said,
"We are at present witnessing a crisis on the campuses of Britain's universities … the universities are being forced to make major restrictions not only in fringe matters but in some of the essential services that enable universities to do their job properly".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/78; col. 2016.]
Then he elaborated on the effects of the cuts in teaching, research, libraries, scientific equipment and other cognate matters which have been amply illustrated today. From my vantage point as chairman of the University Grants Committee, and with my heavy responsibilities, I could only applaud and endorse all that the speaker said, which applies with much greater force today.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind—for the speaker was none other than today's Foreign Secretary—was completely right. In looking back at my UGC papers, I remembered one year in which the university inflationary cost index, which was nearly larger than the Government's deflator, touched almost 30 per cent. By throwing in all our reserves, switching the capital furniture and equipment grant to meet recurrent costs and by appealing at length, and successfully, for some help to the then Secretary of State, who became the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, we managed to reduce what would have been an entire catastrophe: a cut of almost 30 per cent. to one of just over 11 per cent.
The noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Renfrew, told us that the best indicator of the trend in government funding of the universities is the average amount of recurrent annual income per student from government directly and also from fees in respect of British and European Union students. It is called the average unit of resource. My UGC papers showed that in 1972–73 that was £2,762. Using the Government's own annual deflators, which are specifically—and I quote the Government—
"provided for use in constructing comparisons over time on a consistent basis",
I calculate that what that cash bought in 1972–73 would require £19,000 of today's money. What is the position today? The old universities—and I restrict myself to them because they are the only ones for which the data are sufficient over a long period—are not receiving that sum but £6,700 of today's pounds. In other words, the cut over the period has been 65 per cent. which is

311
two-thirds. Often that is referred to as an "efficiency gain". That is a misuse of the English language because it is nothing of the sort.
How did the universities react throughout the prolonged period of repeated cuts in recurrent funding? In my view, they have been exemplary. They loyally accepted the duty of the expansion of higher education which the country needed and for which the Government called. Inevitably, teaching loads increased and staff/student ratios deteriorated dramatically. House of Lords Paper 60, issued on 19th July last year, shows that, despite the great increase in student numbers, the total number of established staff of those universities increased by only 4 per cent. in the 16 years after 1978. More detailed statistics are available for 1984 onwards. If one looks at the age profiles of the staff one will see that they have risen by about 10 years. That indicates little recruitment of younger staff, which is never a good sign in universities where youthful intellectual vigour and imagination is essential if quality is to be maintained.
Finding themselves in that very difficult position, the universities assiduously sought and received funding from sources other than the funding councils, principally research grants and contracts. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has referred to the performance at Sheffield. I am grateful to be told about things that I did not know in relation to my own university. That extra money was used mainly to support so-called contract researchers, whose numbers trebled from about 7,000 to 22,000 in 16 years. Those people keep research activity alive and help with teaching. They comprise many people of high quality but, as the same House of Lords paper shows, they constitute an underclass of temporary staff and are disadvantaged in all manner of ways relative to established staff of comparable age. Moreover, the women in that category are even more disadvantaged and are a kind of "super underclass". I shall not expand on that because I hope that your Lordships will be able to debate that particular issue after Easter. I merely use that as an illustrative example today.
Your Lordships can see that, faced with those figures, there must be a real crisis, worse than that identified by Mr. Rifkind. But even worse is to come. Government plans call for recurrent funding to be cut further; money for building and equipment to fall by 17 per cent. per annum in the next three years. That will erode further the science base, as has been mentioned, although it is generally acknowledged that the laboratories of universities are no longer "well-found" as they should be, if universities are to maintain the standards in research and teaching which the nation demands.
The Government have stated that non-governmental sources can make good those cuts in government capital funding either by direct arrangements or the private finance initiative. I have inquired of industry what is the position and Dr. Peter Doyle, who runs Zeneca, which is an extremely large and successful high-tech company, has said that it will not support the initiative. I am told also that the Association of Medical Research Charities is resisting paying indirect costs and the research councils, government departments and the European Union have strict financial rules which give them little, if any, manoeuvrability to help in relation to capital funding.
312
I know that all those points have been made to the Department for Education and Employment and many are in the public domain. At last, that department has acknowledged that there is a problem and has responded by setting up a national committee of inquiry. We must all be grateful for that. But the committee will not report until late 1997 and any decisions based on its conclusions will be even later. What is needed is action now to resolve the financial crisis that faces the universities now. All I ask is that today's equivalent of the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, will acknowledge the parlous financial realities and will persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce that absolutely minuscule sum from the Budget in November which would enable the projected cuts in capital and recurrent funding to be revoked until we can have a proper plan for the universities. I assure your Lordships that I know that I am not alone among those who have experience of university funding in expressing those views.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, some 30 years ago at an international conference in Canada I followed the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in a discussion about university finance. At that time I said that I thought that a higher education system wholly dependent on the public purse was very vulnerable. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, was a little more optimistic than I was.
Today we see the consequences which are not of the particular malice, wickedness or incompetence of particular Ministers because the problem that we face is shared by everyone. We face the problem that we have allowed one generous impulse—the expansion of higher education—to override what should always be in the mind of any government putting forward a new policy; namely, how they were to persuade the country to pay for it. It is my view that the problem is not due to a particular government and therefore I do not wish to enter into controversy with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. It is due to the fact that we have come up against a ceiling in the public apprehension of the proportion of taxpayers' money which should be spent on higher education as it was understood 30 years ago.
Therefore, we face not merely the current crisis—and I shall not elaborate on that because there are people who are closer to the current scene than I am—but the need to rethink from the beginning the whole of our system of higher education. Instead of 105 universities, we must consider groups of universities performing different functions and requiring different levels of finance. No country in the world, not even the United States, has 105 research-led major universities. If we had 10 or 12, we should be doing better than most countries of our size and with our resources.
Universities will be asked to face merely not this current problem, whose seriousness I do not under-estimate, but a total change in the way in which both their own expenditure is financed and, as we have learnt, the way in which students are supported.
It is clear that some contribution in some form from those who benefit from university education should be demanded. Some of us pointed that out in the original

313
debate on student loans some years ago and were ruled out of court by the then government and the then Minister. That is coming back—income contingent refunding.
After all, that is what happens elsewhere where there are major universities. I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that the last thing that we want is to have universities on the Italian, North German or, indeed now, French model, although in the case of the French and in a different way in the case of the Germans, that is made up by research and high-level teaching being concentrated in particular institutions. All that needs to be done. It is a major operation which is bigger because it must be done relatively quickly if the crisis is to be overcome. It is a major operation which can be compared only with the extension of secondary schooling after the war.
For a year the Government have been apparently indulging in consultation. I must say so far as I perceived it, that consultation was not very radical or deep, and clearly the results have not satisfied the Government or they would have published them. Therefore, the matter has now been handed to a new committee. But it is all very well to say, "Let us wait for the committee". What is the committee going to produce? If it produces, as I hope and believe it must, that major transformation of the whole higher education scene—the grouping of universities, the singling out of those led by research and the singling out of those where individual teaching is maintained at a high level—inevitably it will offend and upset a great many people in the higher education system. You cannot have radical change and satisfy everyone.
If that is the case, that committee will need to have the understanding, approval and sympathy of the entire university community. I do not believe that the Government have altogether grasped that point. Sir Ron Dearing is no doubt a valuable and experienced public servant, but he has no experience of higher education at any level. As I have been going round since his appointment was announced consulting people from a variety of universities, I find everywhere a lack of confidence that he can on his own overcome that considerable disadvantage. After all, if a hospital has a patient who has to have a heart bypass, it sends for a surgeon; it does not send for a plumber however good the hospital plumber may be.
This is a serious matter because the fortunes of the committee depend on two things: terms of reference which will allow it to consider from the beginning the kind of higher education system that we should have, the institutions that should compose it, and the finance that should go into it; and how we prevent this appalling falling off in the standards of our student welfare and the serious lessons of the drop-out rate. For that we need at least a Lord Robbins. I do not know—it would be presumptuous of me to know—who is the Lord Robbins of this generation. But he has to be found. Even if Sir Ron Dearing remains as chairman, it could be possible to find members of a committee to consider those issues from the kind of experience with which we have been favoured by noble Lords who have spoken
314
today and those on the list before us. But it will not be easy and it is as well that Her Majesty's Government should realise the difficulty of the task.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, we owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for putting this Motion before us today. Not only Members of this Chamber but many thousands of people outside are affected by these education cuts. I must confess to a little trepidation in putting my name down on the list of speakers. It looked almost what I might term a closed shop of providers from the higher education field. However, I plucked up my courage—at least until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, refer to plumbers. Perhaps I am the plumber in this context. I did not go to university. In many respects that gives me all the more determination to ensure that people have the advantage of going to university where their ability allows them to do so.
I have an interest to declare. I am a member of the Council of the Open University. It is from that aspect that I should like to address my brief remarks. In student numbers it is the largest university in the country, with 150,000 students. Many of those are people I met in my former days as a trade union officer. I met them on factory floors and in the office. I met people who never had the opportunity to go to university and to have the higher education provision that many fortunate people now have.
With the development of the Open University there has been development of different course structures. As a consequence, 37 per cent. of all part-time students in the United Kingdom in university education are within the Open University provision.
If the proposed cuts are agreed, it will mean that the Open University will have to reject 5,000 students next year. I gather that that is the equivalent in student population of a medium-sized traditional university in Great Britain. That is frightening. I suggest that it is also a big threat to Britain's competitive position in the future. I make no apologies for introducing in a debate about education our overall well-being as a nation in the industrial and commercial field competing world-wide. The fact of the matter is that many of our people at work today have not been given the education training back-up that they need to enable the country to compete world-wide. That pressure will increase. It will not go away. It will not decrease. Cuts today in education mean a deficit of skills in a decade's time. That is what we need to consider in the debate.
Seventy per cent. of students at the Open University maintain full-time employment while they are on their courses. I regard that as a tremendous achievement, not just for the education sector but for those people as individuals. It is tremendous to see the pride they have for the skills and the education that they receive.
The problem is that the Open University feels a little like the meat in the sandwich, between government policy on the one hand advocating strongly that part-time courses are the way forward, and, on the other, the Higher Education Funding Council cutting back on the funding provided for the Open University.

315
I suggest that it is not the fault of the HEFC. At fault are the overall budget provisions available. If the measures are carried through, at worst it could mean next year a cut-back in funding of £6 million against an increase in expenditure of £1 million.
Those are real concerns. Today's debate is to me a privilege to partake in. It is like sitting in on a master class, a tutorial, not on a one-to-one basis but with this marvellous array of eminent and extremely experienced people from the education field for whom I have the utmost respect. I hope that in the debate we do not forget the many thousands of people out there who depend upon the education system for determining not only the quality of their lives in the future but how they provide for themselves and their families.
I should like to refer to the impact that these cut-backs will have on medical education. It is almost a double jeopardy. I declare a tenuous declaration of interest. I am the deputy chairman of University College Hospital in London. We have strong links with University College London. The partnership that UCL has with the NHS on research and capital expenditure is of major benefit not only in the education field but as regards the health of the nation. The cut-backs will mean some quite profoundly damaging implications, involving something like £3 million.
However, these bodies are told that they will have to raise the money through the public finance initiative. We have had some initial experience of that in the National Health Service. At present the University College Hospital is engaged on a tender process involving PFI for a new hospital. When faced with such cut-backs, where does the Minister expect the universities to obtain the resources involved as regards a business plan with all that a public finance initiative means? It is not an easy thing to do. One cannot do it in-house. One is talking about a major investment resource in that respect alone.
I recently found out about the dual support system relating to research. Noble Lords will understand this issue better than I do. In 1992 there was a change in the way in which that was calculated and assessed for the research council grants. It meant a £3.2 million loss to University College London.
We are faced with serious issues here and now in the education field—whether in the future people will have a good quality of life and be allowed to develop as individuals in the way in which they should be allowed to do. I share the concerns of noble Lords who have spoken. I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to answer those key issues.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, looking at the recent budget on university funding, clearly the most dramatic and potentially damaging items are the cuts in capital spending which have been alluded to. There is a 32 per cent. cut for English universities this year, rising to 47 per cent. in 1998–99, compared with 1995–96. The Scottish and Welsh universities will suffer similar deprivations. The suggestion that this can be made up from the private funding initiative is—as many noble
316
Lords have suggested, and in the opinion of the vice-chancellors themselves—laughable. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, elaborated on that matter in his speech. Funding by this means is not well tested and it would certainly take a period of time to set up and get running in the universities, and time is in short supply. The consequence of the cuts in capital spending will certainly mean that many building projects will now have to be halted or cancelled.
It should be remembered that apart from buildings the capital budget provides for books and equipment. Without books—even in this age of information technology provided by computers—there is no university as we understand it. Unfortunately, technological progress means that equipment, particularly scientific equipment, rapidly becomes outdated and has to be replaced if universities are to pass on those skills required by society, and if they are to maintain themselves in the forefront of research and not begin to drop behind their competitors.
The commercial partners in PFI can have no interest in providing and investing in hooks and equipment: unlike buildings, they cannot provide extra income. It is ironic that one inevitable consequence of decreasing funding will be the loss of active university teachers. This cannot be compensated for by improved efficiency or productivity through introducing newer teaching technologies such as computer-aided learning because the equipment budget is being cut at the same time. There appears to be no way out of this dilemma except by lowering standards, and possibly the bankruptcy of some institutions of higher education.
However, while the capital spending cuts are most dramatic, there is another less sensational effect of this budget but which has no less serious consequences, and that is the effect on unit costs. In England there will he a decrease in the total funding in cash terms of 2.1 per cent. in 1996–97 over the previous year. As a result of inflation and a small rise of 0.4 per cent. in student numbers, the net effect on funding per student is a drop of just over 5 per cent. over the year. This is predicted to continue on the same scale in the following two years.
It really is almost impossible to describe the effects that this will have on the morale of already overstretched university staff. They are already badly paid in comparison with those in like professional occupations, and they are falling behind in public esteem. They certainly cannot expect any recompense for the additional stresses they will be put under. However, that is not my main concern.
My main concern is with the quality of education that future university students are likely to receive. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has discussed this particular aspect but I think it needs to be stressed strongly. Degrees at British universities used to be highly valued throughout the world. We used to think that a bachelor's degree from the United Kingdom was superior to an American bachelor's degree from most universities in the States. Sadly, I feel this is no longer the case. We then had graduates of high quality and a low drop-out rate. The higher education system was,

317
in economic terms, highly efficient. This was partly achieved by having dedicated, highly motivated academic staff who had the space, in time, to become excellent scholars and researchers in their own fields. They were often men and women of international reputation, teaching students by way of lectures, tutorials and small group seminars, and they often had close personal contact with their students, providing inspiration for learning and often acting in a pastoral role as well. That was, of course, an expensive, élitist system and was probably only possible with small numbers in the higher education system. So, inevitably, it has had to give way to a system in which there are huge lecture theatre audiences and tutorial groups which are large and impersonal and cannot engender the one-to-one discussion and debate that used to exist. So what we used to think of as education of the individual is fast becoming the force feeding of a passive audience with information to be regurgitated at exam times.
It is clear that there is room for improvement in the methods of passing on knowledge. Traditional lectures in some ways are outdated, except those given by the occasional inspired performers, and not many university lecturers will claim to be that. Pre-recorded lectures by good presenters, such as have been pioneered by the Open University, with professional quality illustrations, animated diagrams, film clips and the rest, which can be run and re-run by students in their own time, have definite advantages for both students and teachers. However, it seems to me that what we cannot do without in a university education worthy of the name is the teacher of small groups of students—the tutorial—who challenges and probes assumptions, and allows the critical approach to knowledge gathering to become a part of the student's intellectual equipment. This is as true for history or literature as it is for science and engineering.
What this cruel Budget will do is to continue the process of underfunding each student's education, which must inevitably lead to further reduction in the staff/student ratio; reduce the quality of our highly valued university education; and result in a great increase in the number of student drop-outs and failures. Can the Government really wish this to be the ultimate consequence of their important and vital experiment in providing more universal higher education? They must back their vision with adequate financial investment of public money; it cannot be done on the cheap.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating this debate which could not possibly be more timely. At the outset I apologise to him and to the Minister for the fact that I may not be able to stay until the end of the debate because of a pressing early evening engagement. I had set down my name to speak in this debate having been assured it would be likely to last some two-and-a-half hours.
318
The universities of this country have served the country well. They have a high graduation rate still. The honours degree which most of them award is justly regarded highly, nationally and internationally. When I had the privilege two years ago of debating in your Lordships' House the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology of an inquiry which I had chaired on international investment in UK science, it was clear that because of the quality of the science base in the United Kingdom—much of it within our universities—40 per cent. of all American and 42 per cent. of all Japanese overseas investment in science came to the United Kingdom. That science base is now not only under threat: it is in decline.
There has been a universal welcome in the higher education sector for the Dearing review; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, it is crucial that it looks at a restructuring exercise relating to the higher education structure as a whole, although it is important to realise that one can never tell within such a setting where the new rising star in research is going to appear. For that reason any such restructuring must not be too rigid in grouping universities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said, the recent 30 per cent. cut in capital expenditure for the coming year and 47 per cent. over three years has been the unkindest cut of all, and I agree with those who have said that the assumption that this can be replaced by the private finance initiative is totally misplaced, at least in relation to equipment. I have never known any decision which so enraged the vice-chancellors, who now oscillate between anger and despair. Last week's announcement of the Higher Education Funding Council settlement means that many universities now face staff redundancies, deficit and closure or possibly merger. These are not idle threats. They are a genuine statement of the present position.
The salaries of academic staff now begin for a young lecturer with a PhD, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, at £14,137 per annum—almost less than a private soldier would earn—rising after many years of service to £33,898 as a senior lecturer, and a professorial minimum of £32,000, far below comparable professions. Now we see the repeat of the annual charade where the universities will not be able to pay the award of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body, normally translated for clinical academic staff, until there has been a decision about the pay of other staff, if any, the department has said, with salary scales at that level. It is intolerable that the academic staff should be so far held back. Thank goodness for the review of clinical academic medicine which used to be undertaken by the Oxford academic, Sir Rex Richards. As I said in last week's debate on the NHS, there are 24 vacant clinical chairs in United Kingdom medical schools, 10 of which have been vacant for lack of suitable applicants for more than a year.
Higher education is costly and I wholly agree that no developed country can afford to pay full maintenance grants and fees. But when will the Government realise that the present loan system, even modified as proposed by the legislation under consideration in your Lordships' House, is pleasing no one? It is crucially important that

319
we should move to repayment through the national insurance or tax systems, beginning when the individual has begun to earn an appropriate sum, and repayment of the sum borrowed like repaying a mortgage, not a lifetime graduate tax. I know that the Minister will yet again, rather wearily no doubt, repeat the comment that has been made on this matter before, that the national insurance and tax systems are not there for debt repayment. Why not, my Lords? This has worked in other countries. Why can we not make it work? How long will the Treasury continue to wag the tail of the governmental dog?
The National Commission on Education, which I had the privilege of chairing, strongly proposed that not only should the maintenance grant be repaid through such a mechanism but also a contribution towards university fees, say, a flat rate of 1,000 per annum. That would be wholly acceptable to the student body. Medical students, who have a five or six-year course like dental students and veterinary students, are suffering particular hardship, working as they do a 48 to 50-week year, with no possibility of earning outside their training. It is therefore very important to recognise how great is their hardship when we have a shortage of doctors. As the NHS debate last week showed, doctors are difficult to recruit in accident and emergency departments and the Government now propose, very reasonably, an increase of 200 medical students per annum. Where are the resources going to come from with these cuts in the universities?
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has now listed 17 vital, high priority capital schemes in medical schools, many of them in partnership with the National Health Service, where the university must contribute a capital sum and the National Health Service will contribute another capital sum. All of these, in the light of this savage cut in capital expenditure, are now under threat and I am given to understand that some of these vital schemes may have to be abandoned.
We will welcome the outcome of the Dearing review, but these issues simply cannot wait and I trust that the Government will be persuaded to think again about this capital cut, at least in November's Budget this year, if not before.
4.25 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, on 19th February this House addressed the Second Reading of the student loan Bill. I did not speak but I listened. It was striking how speaker after speaker, having commented on the Bill, often to dismiss it as irrelevant, went on to address the wider issues of funding. It is therefore most timely that the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, should give us the opportunity to examine these issues in detail today. I have an interest to declare as the chairman of the governing body of a former polytechnic, now one of London's new universities, and also as the current chairman of the Committee of University Chairmen. Chairmen of universities collectively—although they may be less heard in public—feel no less strongly than their vice-chancellor about these issues. I speak with concern and, I have to add, in sorrow. I shall divide my remarks into three parts: what has gone wrong; what is the current effect, and what might be done?
320
What has gone wrong? It is easy to see with hindsight. As numbers have expanded further and faster than was predicted, there has been a failure to adapt a limited elite system to an open access system with a participation rate recently increased three-fold to about 30 per cent. Universities were urged to increase numbers in higher education. They responded with energy and with success but there was no overall plan. There was no preparation for the increased funding which clearly would be needed if those numbers were to be achieved. In effect, those running universities were conned, and I am not suggesting that there was any intent that they should be conned. I am suggesting that this was the effect of the funding regime under which they were achieving this expansion in numbers. After the rapid expansion came a rapid application of the brakes. There was an inability to continue recruiting into courses already started and financed in many cases. There were annual changes in funding methodology which led to additional problems in budgeting, probably most so in the case of those with a high proportion of part-time students.
My Lords, what is the current effect of this? Universities have to be thought of in funding terms as medium-sized businesses, some of them at the small end of large businesses. Typically, 70 per cent. of their total recurrent costs are attributable to staff, both teaching and non-teaching, and the conclusion is obvious. If funding falls in real terms, courses and departments will be cut and are being cut. Choice will be limited. Some of this one accepts as inevitable as competitive forces distinguish successful from less successful courses. However, to cut staff when student numbers are not reducing has the obvious effect: student/staff ratios deteriorate towards the point of frustration for those working in the system trying to deliver an adequate educational experience.
I therefore have to join those who urge that we find the courage to resist the misuse of the word "efficiency". We never quite reach the point where all efficiencies have been achieved. That should not be a claim. However, we are long past the point of diminishing returns. One can perhaps achieve another 10 per cent. efficiency in a particular area, but that leaves one with only 90 per cent. That is a real cut.
I am cautious about joining those who cry wolf about the quality of our system. It does no good to denigrate what is still, in general, an excellent product. It goes without saying that all concerned in the system will do their utmost to maintain that quality of education.
So what do we see in practice? The 40 per cent. cut in real terms in funding over 10 years has resulted in fewer books, and in some cases fewer libraries in which to house them; fewer computers on which people can work; longer queues; and buildings in which we can no longer take pride. Managing that process brings no satisfaction.
I turn now to consider what might be done. The first conclusion is that the present system, and many of its constituent universities, will not stand another dose of start/stop. The least that is needed in the short term is a stable funding regime against which to plan without the

321
threat of further real cuts in the recurrent funding. I associate myself with the remarks made about the shock sustained from the swingeing cuts in the capital funding budget last November.
We need to face facts. Sources of core funding are central government, local government—neither of which is able to come up with any additional money and, indeed, both are consistently cutting budgets—and the student community itself and the families who support it. It is therefore long overdue that there should be a serious and urgent study of a system of graduate recovery. That has worked successfully in other countries and there is no reason to suppose that it should not work successfully here. It has to be a system which is seen as acceptable and fair. I make only one observation in that respect. Current student loans are repayable over four years once the threshold is reached. If a first-time buyer in the housing market can get a 25-year mortgage, why should not education for a lifetime be thought of in the same terms? The second caveat is that the system has to bring additional finance and should not be used merely as a means for further cuts in central government provision for higher education.
My final point concerns Sir Ron Dearing and the task that faces him. Sir Ron may not have a degree but he has earned the respect of the education sector and deserves all the help that he can get in his important and urgent task. I listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Beloff. It is easy to follow him intellectually in his argument, but it leaves me with a great anxiety. I do not believe that Dearing should be thought of like Robbins. There is no time for that. That is not to deny the need for such a fundamental root and branch analysis, but Dearing has to concentrate on numbers and finances. We have income from foreign students which is estimated at £700 million a year. That would be at risk quite quickly if it was felt that standards were deteriorating.
There is little point in designing the best possible higher education system for the 21st century if many universities may not be in business to see the millennium.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as Vice-Principal of the University of Aberdeen. I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for providing the opportunity for this debate. I am also conscious of the number of noble Lords who wish to speak, and as I spoke on the student loans Bill I shall be brief today.
The causes of the present difficulties facing higher education have been very well identified by other noble Lords. In essence, what has been happening over a number of years is that the universities have responded to government policy by increasing student numbers, and they have been rewarded by continuing and increasing reductions in the funding per student. In other words, we have the sheer perversity of policy penalising productivity and of government penalising virtue. That is not a prudent way forward.
322
During the period of rapid expansion the pressure of efficiency savings—or, to be brutally honest, cuts—was partly hidden by universities expanding out of their immediate difficulties through increasing student numbers, although that was often on the particularly disadvantageous terms of so-called fees-only students and was effectively storing up trouble for the near future. So even before this year the system had been squeezed and squeezed again.
There comes a time when the seeking after efficiency gain after efficiency gain becomes the enemy of effectiveness. That is the state that we have reached in higher education. The immediate problem has been made evident by a policy of consolidation of student numbers, therefore cutting off the quick-fix approach of immediate expansion, together with a funding settlement which produces an actual cash reduction in the amount of money available to universities.
My day job is that of what is now known as an academic manager. As I roll forward my own faculty's plans for the next three to five years, I have to tell the Minister that there is already a real crisis in terms of maintaining activity and quality. When plans are rolled forward on the basis of the Government's stated policy the situation deteriorates, and it does so very quickly indeed. That is the fundamental and urgent danger we face today.
The Government have announced the Dearing review. That is both welcome and important. It is perhaps our last best hope, but it is not enough. The danger is that very severe and possibly irreparable damage will be inflicted on the system before Dearing can report and long before Dearing can be implemented.
I urge the Government as strongly as I can to review the course upon which they are presently set, to recognise and repair the damage caused by this year's decisions, and above all to put into the system a period of stability, particularly over the crucial period between now and the report and implementation of Dearing. If that is not done then Dearing will be confronting a system going rapidly into a tailspin. That is the danger.
In Scotland, we have seen the development over recent months of a near disaster in the area of local government finance, producing a last-minute panic reaction from the Secretary of State for Scotland. That disaster was the product of a combination of ignorance and arrogance in the Scottish Office. If the same happens with higher education, the Government cannot plead ignorance.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, I do not suppose that there is anyone in your Lordships' House who is not in favour of better educational opportunities for everyone. It probably comes higher in the scale of virtues than motherhood and blueberry pie, to which the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred. Only one argument against it carries any weight and it is the only argument that we have heard: that we cannot afford it. But in making the case, have the Government given proper consideration to the economic benefits of education against the costs of a poorly educated Britain? Among them we may count unemployment, crime and an unskilled workforce.

323
Other big spenders are defence, health and the social services. Of those, only health could be argued to have an economic pay-back that is comparable with that of education. I shall quote an example which is close to my heart and has been eloquently referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. It is the Open University. Do the Government believe that by allowing a reduction in the number of Open University students of 5,000 this year, they are contributing to the future prosperity of the country?
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, if there were any doubts in the minds of noble Lords before the debate began, there can be none at all now that our universities are in a deep state of financial crisis. Noble Lord after noble Lord has referred to the latest cuts which came as a result of the 1995 Budget. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, indicated, they come on top of a series of cuts since 1981 which have reduced the unit of resource considerably.
Like other noble Lords, I have to declare an interest as Chairman of the University of Bradford and a member of the Committee of University Chairmen, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick. Bradford University is a medium sized university, but as a result of the 1995 Budget it will be £750,000 worse off in recurrent expenditure. That might not seem a large amount, yet it is equivalent to 30 members of academic staff—and not junior members either. On top of that, there has been a further £750,000 reduction in capital expenditure which means that capital expenditure, this year will have to be concentrated on maintenance work in compliance with health and safety regulations alone. Yet, like other universities, the University of Bradford has been struggling to meet a long list of essential priorities in maintenance and renewal of equipment.
Since 1981 there have been: first, a confusing stop-go policy on recruitment which has made effective planning difficult. Secondly, changes in methods of funding research have added to the bureaucracy and administrative burden of universities. Thirdly, there has been underfunding of the cost of living salary adjustments each year. Fourthly, there have been fundamental changes in student support.
All that has meant that the recurrent funding per student has declined by about 28 per cent. over the past six years; that the research selectivity exercise, now approaching its third round, is increasingly polarising universities in terms of whether or not they conduct research. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, may be right when he said that not all our universities should be involved in research, but we cannot tolerate the present system which has introduced a disruptive, inefficient and expensive level of competition between universities in search of research stars which leaves nothing to be learnt from the transfers that football clubs carry out. Fortunately, the end of this month will see the end of that scramble because it will no longer be worth while poaching research staff.
It has also meant that academic salaries have lagged far behind other professions, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, indicated. The dual support of grant and
324
loan plus the withdrawal of benefits has led to an unacceptable level of student poverty which contributes to the higher levels of student withdrawal before courses are completed. I am not saying that we can continue to fund about 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the 18 year-olds at university in the way that we funded 12 per cent., regrettable though that decision might be. But we need a much more sensible student loan system than the one we have at the moment or the one that the Government now propose under their new Bill.
Moreover, universities have not been helped by the tight and often contradictory policies and procedures of the Higher Education Funding Council. I again use Bradford as an illustration. Universities are now expected to set a tight student recruitment number. If a university fails to meet that target, it is penalised financially. If it overshoots the target and recruits more students than it said it would, again it is penalised. The University of Bradford will suffer a penalty of about £435,000 this year because it under-recruited by 279 students.
A further example is shown in the table published in The Times Higher Education Supplement of 16th February. It shows a strange diversity in the funding of similar courses which results apparently in Oxford Brookes University receiving £468 per student taught more than the mean. The University of Luton receives £484 less than the mean. Bradford University is funded at £136 less than the mean per full-time student. That has led to a reduction in its funding of £777,000, compared to funding at the mean. On top of that, it would have received additional funding if its part-time students had been funded at the mean. There are many anomalies in the system which contradict the policies which the Government appear to put forward.
Universities have coped with these problems remarkably well, and have attempted to follow government policy while at the same time maintaining standards and thus the high reputation of British universities. However, I am afraid we are now in a situation where that cannot continue. Some very drastic steps will have to be taken to repair matters. Like the CVCP, I suggest that the first significant step should be to remove the 1995 cuts.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, although this debate, which we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is a welcome opportunity to draw attention to the acute financial distress in our universities, I would like, as a preface to my words, to insist that, for my own part, our educational priorities as a nation must be solidly at the primary level: the first five or six years in the education of our youngest children. This needs to be emphasised not only because this sector has for too long been at the mercy of mediocre ideas and practices but because it is the sector which provides for all our children and not just the agile minority who go on to university. It is the sector, what is more, on which universities themselves crucially depend if the pool from which they recruit their students is to be replete with the wherewithal for a full and challenging basic education.

325
So I for one am very glad that, over the past 10 years, strenuous efforts have been made to transform primary education, with a national curriculum and a system for monitoring and enhancing standards which we can be confident will bear fruit in due course.
Those same 10 years have wrought a transformation in higher education too, at which—in many respects—we can rejoice. We have discarded the increasingly artificial boundary between the polytechnics and universities, producing a single system but one that embraces an attractive and healthy diversity of mission. We have achieved a dramatic increase in the proportion of our youngsters going on to university, putting the UK at the top table internationally in respect of our participation rate. In the early eighties, there were about 1.5 million university graduates in this country; by the end of the present decade, we shall have about 3 million.
But this sea-change, as we have been reminded repeatedly this afternoon, on which all concerned are to be thankfully congratulated, whereby a university education—once the preserve of a lucky few—is now nationally perceived as being within reach of the indefinitely many, is at a cost that has become more frightening with every passing year. As an arts man, I see this cost not least in our libraries. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of students per member of library staff has risen by over 150 per cent., while the number of books per student bought by the libraries has fallen by 30 per cent. More broadly, during the past six years alone, while student numbers have risen by an impressive 45 per cent., the nationally funded unit of resource has fallen by a horrifying 28 per cent., and the HEFCE allocation announced last week for the approximately 80 institutions in their sector of the UK entails a further immediate reduction of several more percentage points.
It is all too likely that the effect will be to destroy the benefits that increased participation in university education should bring, and I deplore (for example) the signs of waste through drop-out—a phenomenon this country hitherto has been proudly able to avoid. And of course it is particularly worrying—as other noble Lords have said—that whatever panacea emerges from the Dearing inquiry, it can only be for a future some years down the road and can bring no comfort to universities wrestling with an incomparably grim present.
Now, I have no doubt that all the universities addressed by the HEFCE are in a similarly tight predicament. But I make no apology for expressing a particularly grave concern for a minority among those 80 institutions—a minority, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has indicated, on which we draw disproportionately heavily for the quality of the research and postgraduate education which has a direct and immediate impact on the intellectual, economic and industrial health of the nation. And since I have a naturally close interest in the colleges of London University, I was shocked, for instance, to find that Imperial College was to have an immediate cash reduction of 3.7 per cent., King's of 3.8 per cent., Queen Mary and Westfield of 4.4 per cent., and the School of Pharmacy of a staggering 4.7 per cent. Even with fairly
326
low inflation, this means actual and immediate cuts of around 8 per cent. or even more. We simply cannot afford thus to snuff out excellence at British institutions of world-class quality. And Imperial College is one that obviously comes into that category.
So let me ask the Minister to give urgent consideration to an expedient which, though bringing little relief, I fear, to the majority of institutions, could do something positive for the leading research institutions—and which need not wait upon the deliberations of Sir Ron Dearing.
In November last year, the Office of Science and Technology received a report by Coopers and Lybrand reviewing the current operation of the dual support system. This report argues convincingly that the present level of support for indirect costs provided by the research councils was—at 40 per cent.—grossly inadequate for the research infrastructure in university departments which each research grant automatically assumes. Rather, says the report, these indirect costs should be funded at a rate well over 50 per cent. and perhaps by as much as 65 per cent. The benefit to the research councils (and to the nation they serve) would lie in higher quality outcomes from better resourced projects, while the benefit to the universities where the research is actually done is likely to be quite extraordinarily significant. Let me illustrate from figures provided by a London college which I have not yet mentioned but with which I have—like the noble Lord, Lord Annan—a particularly close tie: UCL, the biggest of them all.
At University College London—the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has already alluded to this—it is reckoned that since the changes to the dual support system introduced in 1992, diversion of funds to supplement the indirect costs of research has come to be running at £1.5 million a year. If the Coopers and Lybrand report were accepted and implemented even at a level well below the optimum therein suggested (say at 53 per cent.), the resulting redeployment of funds would be enough to restore UCL's annual loss of £1.5 million—and partially offset the certain annual loss of £4 million (and rising) that that particular college now starkly faces. But UCL is just an example. The changes recommended in the Coopers and Lybrand report would bring comparable benefit to all our top research universities—institutions on which, as we must surely all agree, our future most especially depends. It is in such a spirit of disinterested enthusiasm that I urge this proposal upon the Minister.
5 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I too express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing the debate, as, I am sure, will many colleagues throughout the universities of Great Britain. I should declare an interest as a professor working in the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at London University, bridging the gap between medicine and science in a university setting. It is rather difficult to be the fifteenth speaker in a debate of this kind. Nearly all my points have already been made, in many cases much more eloquently than I could make them and by those certainly more eminent than myself. I have some

327
sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who must speak at the end of the debate. Perhaps I may come back to that sympathy in a moment.
It might be most appropriate if I speak briefly about medical schools. That is the area of my greatest expertise. It cannot be denied that there is a very serious problem, which typifies much of what is happening in our educational and research base. Salaries have already been mentioned. At London University we effectively face a much bigger cut. Because the basic cuts are involved with the additional funding needed for salary increases, our institutions will be in particular trouble. It is interesting to examine the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. For the non-medical schools in London, the overall cut is around 2.75 per cent. I calculate that for the medical schools it is something in the order of 4.1 per cent. or 4.2 per cent. That will be much more when account is taken of the salary increases needed. That affects recruitment; it is very important for research; and it is quite critical.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords one example. Our country is proud of the Nobel Prize awarded to Cambridge University—Watson and Crick, who understood the structure of DNA. That is a signal and most important achievement in science. It is now altering our fundamental understanding of human life and medical treatment. When one considers how DNA technology is now being employed, it is clear that there is a very real problem. It is a technology in which we led the world. The universities are currently threatened with cuts which mean that in one place a genetic research centre probably will not be built; in another university a child health department will be cut, which depends absolutely on the molecular genetics; animal house facilities which are currently being built and which are absolutely essential for the study of molecular genetics, because of the need to look at gene action in animals, may be cut; and at another university an immunology department is under serious threat. All over the country, where new molecular genetic set-ups are being undertaken, containment laboratories cannot be built.
In my own institution we need containment for recombinant DNA experiments. Obviously, one cannot afford to allow infected viruses to get out into the population. That means that either the research will not be done at all or that it will be done with some danger to the research workers and the surrounding population.
Yesterday in my clinic I spoke to a medical student who came from the north of England. She is at one of the very good universities in the north and her story is quite typical. I asked her, as a fourth-year medical student, what were her current bank borrowings and what she thought most of her colleagues in a similar situation in the penultimate year of medical school were facing financially. She said that her current bank borrowings were over £6,000 and she expected them to be closer to £10,000. She felt that most people in her university year would borrow £10,000 by the time they qualified.
That may seem like excessive spending. But in that particular university, in order to have their medical education, those young men and, in particular, women
328
need a motor car to travel to quite far-flung areas to obtain clinical experience. So one begins to see that they will have a huge debt at the start of their career. If they are to go into medical science, there is no way that they can repay the debt. As a house surgeon at £15,000 a year and on a fairly reduced salary, it will be a serious burden for them to pay off the debt. We do need to look at that.
Noble Lords are very protected. I was in my operating theatre this morning when one of my colleagues was operating and during an idle moment I looked through Dodd's Parliamentary Companion (I also watched the operation). I took a sample of just under 600 noble Lords. Some 62 per cent. went to a university and 42 per cent. went to Oxford or Cambridge. It is interesting that a very large number of your Lordships went to Trinity College; then came New College, Oxford, and Balliol featured very highly—not Jesus College, Cambridge. My point is that many of us have come from very protected institutions which are relatively wealthy. But the truth is that out there in most red brick universities—the universities should be providing our research base—there is that very serious problem.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be gracious enough to give way. I take the point that he makes about the shortage of finance. I have two daughters currently at university. I am convinced that the three-year term for which they are there could be reduced to two years, or the four-year term reduced to three years. That may not be necessarily right for medics. But if the students worked a little harder, a great deal of resource would be released and money saved, which could then be used for the kind of purposes mentioned.
Lord Winston: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to make that point himself during his own time. Perhaps I may briefly continue and make one final comment despite that interruption. I do not see this as a political issue or even an electioneering issue. It is an issue at which we need to work collectively.
The fact of the matter is that we are in a society which now has a very much reduced manufacturing base and that will inevitably continue. The future of Britain must lie in our science and technology. Looking at the Far East, we begin to see the threat that looms up for our children. We must provide that kind of educational base in order to be competitive, to attract people back into this country and to promote our technology.
In conclusion, the Minister has had a very clear message from everybody in this House. No one has disputed the crisis that now faces our universities. I ask the Minister to take back the message and see what can be done by the Government this time.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should declare an interest in the subject of this debate, as

329
Chancellor of the University of Hull. Hull is not a new university but is, relatively speaking, one of the younger universities. It is a sobering thought, I suppose, that I am likely to be the last chancellor of Hull who is older than the university.
Though it was founded on the generosity of locally based industry, personified by Mr. Ferens of Reckitts, it does not have the benefit of private endowments on the scale of some of the older universities. So we are heavily dependent, as are all universities (some even more so than Hull) on the public funding which we receive, through the HEFCE, from the Government, from local education authorities and from research councils.
Our unit of resource—the amount of money paid in respect of each student each year—has been diminishing steadily and sharply for some years now. On the present plans, the reduction will by 1998 have amounted to the best part of 40 per cent. in eight or nine years. Of course, the university has been doing everything that it can to trim costs and improve efficiency. It has cut back desirable expenditure on books and libraries, and on buildings and maintenance, where possible—often short-term expedients with long-term penalties, but they have had to be accepted in order to safeguard core educational objectives and programmes.
We were at one time able to blunt the effect of the reduction on our overall funding by taking on large extra numbers of students with the expansion of higher education. But numbers have in effect been frozen for several years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, pointed out, and will continue to be frozen for several years to come. This relief is no longer available to us.
The problems would not be significantly eased by charging students an entry fee. Indeed in our case, and I suspect in the case of many other universities, the consequence of such a fee would be likely to be that fewer students would come forward for admission, because of inability to afford the entry fee. The effect would thus be to deny access to higher education to some students who would otherwise get it and benefit from it. Is that what we want to achieve?
Universities are rightly expected to use their resources prudently and efficiently. But we cannot expect universities to be able to meet rising expectations; to cope with greatly increased numbers of students; to play the sort of role that they ought, and would like, to be able to play in their local communities; to uphold, improve and enlarge the country's research base, and to give a good standard of tuition and pastoral care, on the basis of the present amounts of, and arrangements for, funding.
Reducing the number of students is no answer to the financial problem, even if we were willing to reverse the trend of recent years, since the size of the grant, albeit diminishing, is directly related to student numbers. Our expenditure, as has been pointed out is, above all, on staff, and if we are to achieve spending reductions of the size now being imposed upon us, we can really do so only by reducing the number of staff. Inevitably, the first to go are likely to be younger staff
330
on short-term contracts—just the people on whom the quality of future teaching and research specially depends.
The alternative to that is of course to pay older staff public money to take early retirement. Either way we shall be taking measures to meet short-term financial constraints at the expense of long-term quality and effectiveness. What sort of sense does that make?
Apart from the need at least to maintain the amounts of funding for universities in real terms, and the effects of the cuts which we are discussing, there is the separate issue of the uncertainty created by changes year by year in the amount of funding provided.
I am old enough to remember the time when UGC grants were set not annually, year by year, but quinquennially, for five years at a time. Even the Treasury—that tail which wagged the government dog—in those days understood the need for a measure of stability in university funding. Indeed, I believe that in those days the Treasury, led by Mr. R. A. Butler and at official level led by that great, good and wise man, Sir Edward Bridges, would have regarded annual reviews of university funding levels as an unacceptable erosion of academic freedom.
If that view was held, it has long since gone by the board in Whitehall and in Westminster. But the principle was right. If we are to have universities which fulfil all the purposes to which I have referred, what is needed is a wider understanding of the nature and purposes of higher education, and an altogether more stable system of funding.
So we at Hull, and all noble Lords here this evening, very much welcome the appointment of the educationally ubiquitous Sir Ron Dearing as the chairman of the committee on higher education. It must be about the only part of education which he has not honoured and graced with his attention. Some noble Lords have suggested that he cannot be expected to do the sort of job that the Robbins Committee did a generation ago. I disagree with that and I hope that he and his colleagues will be able to do what Robbins and his committee did a generation ago: assemble and set out the facts, figures and arguments, and so provide the universities and the country with a solidly constructed base from which to proceed for the future. They will need to redefine for our day and age the nature and purposes of higher education, the aims to which universities should be working, and the implications of all that for funding, from private as well as from public sources.
Of course, that will take time. I hope that the Government will make sure that the universities have the resources to enable them to sustain themselves until Dearing's report is available and can be acted on. If we cannot do that, and as a result establish a greater measure of trust between the world of universities and the world of government and politics, we shall be at grave risk of doing serious damage to our system of higher education, from which it will take a generation to recover. We owe our young people a duty to do better than that.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goold: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating this debate on higher education which comes at a most opportune time. I must also declare an interest as the Chairman of Court of the University of Strathclyde. Like others, I welcome the appointment of the Dearing Committee of Inquiry. I believe that this review is timely because higher education is at a crisis point.
The past 10 years have been a period of great achievement. There has been a massive expansion—over 50 per cent. in student numbers. Research funding has been focused on areas of excellence, and the management and the output of university research have improved considerably. New systems of public accountability have been introduced, and rightly so, with both teaching and research now subject to rigorous peer review—not, I hasten to say, from your Lordships' House.
There is an evident concern on the part of the universities to maximise the beneficial impact which they have on their communities—and it is immense. In Scotland, the tremendous economic impact of the higher education sector has been analysed in the McNicoll Report, published recently by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals. Scottish universities generate some 68,000 jobs, and more than half of these are created in other sectors of the economy through the knock-on effect of the universities' activities. The economic impact of the universities on the Scottish economy is equivalent to some £2.5 billion each year—significant achievements indeed.
Higher education has therefore been a success story for the Government, and the achievements have depended on the commitment and dedication of university staff. So what of the future? I am afraid that the achievements of the past decade are now being threatened by a misguided belief that universities will continue to provide a first-class service with sharply reduced levels of finance. An efficiency gain of some 30 per cent. has already been achieved by the sector in the past five years. There are few, if any, similar gains still to be made.
If, as planned, the Government now cut funding by a further 10 per cent. over the next three years, many of the staff who have contributed to the successes of the past decade will soon be redundant. Staff numbers will be driven sharply down. University estates will deteriorate as institutions try to protect staffing budgets by making savings on maintenance. Some will try to weather the storm by borrowing and will simply mortgage their future. Some may even go out of business. It is essential that the Government should take stock before taking this policy further.
The Dearing committee has been asked to consider the size, structure and funding of the university sector. In doing so, particular note should be taken of the following points. As regards the size of the university sector, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has for many years urged further expansion. That is an understandable line for such a body to take,
332
but I am strongly of the view that the maintenance of standards is now a far more important issue than the promotion of expansion. Further growth is not vital: the protection of standards is.
Regarding the structure of higher education, I would like the Dearing committee to address three issues. The first is the question of so-called "research universities". Here I am sorry to take issue with the comments of my noble friend Lord Beloff and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton. The Russell Group is a small club of prestigious universities which would like to monopolise funding for research, leaving their fellow institutions with the less glamorous job of teaching. Sir Ron Dearing and his committee should quash those ambitions. The Government's current policy of focusing research funding on areas of excellence is the correct one. There are areas of excellent research in universities the length and breadth of the country which will be starved of vital funds if the ambitions of the Russell Group are realised.
Secondly, Dearing must consider the role of further education. Many of the newer universities would like to expand through merger with further education institutions. That development concerns me. It may undermine the role of the FE sector, reducing the commitment of FE institutions to meet the nation's need for basic skills training. Dearing should support a strong, independent FE sector.
A third issue in relation to structure is Scotland. We hope that Dearing will recognise the distinctive nature of Scottish higher education and the value of a distinct Scottish funding system. Since 1992 when the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council was established, Scottish universities have benefited from close dialogue with their funding body and with Scottish Office Ministers. That close dialogue has had tangible benefits. Scotland has led the way in developing its academic computing infrastructure through the Metropolitan Area Networks. Those networks may now be the key to realising the vision of a University of the Highlands, as set out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his recent statement to the Scottish Grand Committee.
The final and perhaps the most significant area of the Dearing committee's work relates to the funding of higher education. In terms of the funding of the universities themselves, if the Government are serious about high academic standards and enhancing the quality of teaching and research, the current policy of progressive funding cuts must be halted. If we will the end, we must also will the means. While the Dearing committee is deliberating, the current level of funding should be maintained.
The funding of students is another vital issue, as many noble Lords have said. Graduates already contribute enormous amounts to the Treasury through income tax. It can be argued quite plausibly that they already pay for their higher education. That being said, with the financial pressures which the Government face, it may be reasonable for student maintenance to be funded in future through loan rather than grant. Alternatively, some form of graduate tax or fee could he the answer. What the Dearing committee can contribute to this issue

333
is clarity. Uncertainty over student funding has now been a cause of distress to students and their parents for several years. We should hope that a committee of inquiry which has cross-party support can come to a clear recommendation which will settle the matter.
In conclusion, therefore, I welcome the establishment of the Dearing committee. The past decade has seen great things achieved in higher education by the Government and by the higher education institutions. Perhaps I may be the first in this debate to congratulate the Government and my noble friend the Minister on those achievements. However, our priority now must be to maintain the fine standards which have been set by our universities.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, like other noble Lords I must declare an interest because I am Chancellor of Staffordshire University. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating the debate and congratulate him on his splendid speech.
We have heard many speeches critical of the Government and underlining the havoc that has been wrought by the many cuts in the higher education budget. However, after that bombardment of criticism from both this House and outside it is amazing that the Government do not seem to comprehend the magnitude of the cuts or their effect on the universities. That is astonishing.
Members of this House, Members of the other place, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, university lecturers and students have all complained about the cuts, yet the Secretary of State made a remarkable statement in another place a little while ago. On 19th February, when responding to the legitimate claim that higher education faced a crisis, she said:
"I cannot accept that any sector that receives £7 billion of funding—21 per cent. of the total funding of the education system—is in crisis".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/96; col. 24.]
The official declaration of the Secretary of State in another place was "no crisis". However, speaker after speaker today has talked of a crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was outspoken in his criticisms and he was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—unfortunately he is not in his place—who referred time and again to a "crisis". In fact, as noble Lords will remember from our recent debate on student fees, the noble Lord said then that there was a crisis which may lead to a "catastrophe". There should be no doubt in people's minds about the present situation or about the Government's failure to appreciate that the universities are facing a crisis.
Perhaps one of the reasons why the Government do not fully understand the seriousness of the situation is that many universities are afraid of acknowledging that they face a crisis. When Ministers meet members of universities, they may be given a false sense of security and a complacent impression. The universities are understandably reluctant to admit publicly that they are in crisis. They are trying to attract students from both home and abroad and do not want to declare themselves
334
a disaster area. That is understandable, but it may well be misleading. I should like the universities to be able to be more outspoken about the seriousness of their situation. If the Government continue to turn a Nelsonian eye to the crisis in our universities, they are storing up trouble not only for themselves, but also for the universities.
The CVCP has warned time and time again that major building programmes will be abandoned, about massive reductions in library books and computers, and that salary bills may have to be reduced, leading to redundancies and closures. Anyone connected with the universities knows about the larger classes, the queues waiting to use computers and the unfilled academic posts. Despite the Secretary of State's £7 billion, but because of her cuts, our universities are resembling decrepit firms worrying about bankruptcy. There is blight at every level of our university system. There has been negligent corrosion of the system that is designed to develop our seedcorn.
I shall speak only briefly because a number of other noble Lords are waiting to speak, but I must point out that I believe that the Dearing inquiry and the subsequent report will be of great benefit to our universities. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who, as always, made a marvellous speech, but who criticised the fact that Sir Ron Dearing is to lead the inquiry. It does not matter that Sir Ron is not as knowledgeable as the noble Lord would like him to be. In fact, I think that that is a positive advantage because Sir Ron will not be full of the prejudices, anxieties and partisan views which can affect so many of those who have been involved in the university debate for so long. I think that that will be a great asset. Sir Ron Dearing is an outstanding individual, whom I have had the great privilege of meeting. He is a marvellous, well-endowed man. Apart from the singular note struck by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, he is rather like David Attenborough. They are the only two men who are universally loved and admired. Sir Ron Dearing will do a marvellous job, but his report will not come out until after this Government leave office.
I do not wish to make a partisan point, but we must face facts. The Labour Government will have to cope with Sir Ron Dearing's report. In the meantime, this Government will have to cope with the crisis. All of these facts, which are adduced by people who are far more knowledgeable about the universities than I am, add up to a condemnation of the present university system. Students and university staff are suffering, and therefore the nation is suffering. University education is being neglected and is going downhill. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in the constructive fashion adopted by all speakers who have participated in the debate.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for securing this most timely debate. Like others who have spoken, I am dismayed at the magnitude of the budget cuts announced last week. I think of the well-known literary adage:

335
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery".
But that statement treats only of a marginal situation. The prospect that faces some 200 universities and higher education colleges is far from marginal. A steady decline in budget income has prevailed for several years, but now, instead of a breather without budget cuts to allow for rebuilding and consolidation, out of the blue come the most swingeing cuts of all, in both recurrent and capital expenditure.
The implications have been variously stated and referred to by earlier speakers. The one that I should like to stress is that of the Association of University Teachers. Last Thursday that body said that many universities were their town's biggest employers and claimed that the cuts would lead to more than 10,000 job losses. As to this, I think of a university like St. Andrews in Fife, Scotland. It is one of our most ancient. The town is the university and the university the town. I know it well, because my eldest daughter obtained her degree there. The situation is analogous to that of a large firm that is cutting back. There are actual job losses and, in real terms, a decrease in spending power of the directly employed. But there is a halo effect throughout the community which affects the viability of shops and suppliers of services such as restaurants—in fact nearly everybody.
Professor Gareth Roberts, vice-chancellor of Sheffield University (where I have a house) and chairman of the CVCP, warned that some universities could close as a result of the cuts and that four—which he did not name—were already in trouble. The Government appear to rely for mitigation of the effects of their cuts, in my opinion unwisely, on two matters: first, the inquiry into the funding of higher education by Sir Ron Dearing, who is due to report in the summer of next year. The principle of this move is admirable and will, I am sure, be extremely valuable, but the results will come much too late to mitigate the present cuts. Even if he meets his deadline—it is an enormous task—it is hard to see how legislative teeth can be put into his recommendations before 1998 at the earliest, probably 1999.
Secondly, the other tactic upon which the Government seem to rely is the application or the private finance initiative (PFI) to higher education. The CVCP's reaction is that such funding, if appropriate at all, is relevant and can be effective only in a tiny segment of their members' area of capital costs, for example student accommodation and perhaps sports facilities and catering outlets, because these are revenue-bearing, especially with an eye to conference and seminar use during vacations. They argue persuasively that the great bulk of capital expenditure on construction and maintenance of academic buildings, laboratories and computer systems will have no appeal whatsoever to PFI providers. There are also significant costs in putting together a PFI bid. They may be as high as £500,000 without any certainty that the project will go ahead. There are only a few successful PFI projects in the pipeline, and in any case the costs of leasing
336
capital under PFI will have to be taken from the now reduced recurring funding, which is not meant to be used to pay for capital.
The funding per student is in very worrying decline. Having fallen by over 28 per cent. over the past six years, the prospect of a further near 10 per cent. over three years is profoundly alarming. I believe that this point was made forcefully to Mr. Eric Forth, the Minister of State for DFEE, on 11th January. The reduction in funding per student should particularly alarm your Lordships. Supervisors have a corporate responsibility not only for their students' academic progress but their general welfare. For example, if a student repeatedly attends for supervision looking worn out, the supervisor has a responsibility to inquire why and, more time-consumingly, perhaps to do something about it. One university has reported to the CVCP that each member of staff now has to take responsibility for 40 per cent. more students than as recently as 1989.
It is a worrying fact that student stress, drop-out and breakdown are increasing as, more tragically still, is student suicide. The announced student funding cuts are in a literal sense most unhealthy. They are also unhealthy for academic staff. Salaries are often falling in real terms and stress-related illnesses are rising. We face the real prospect of the increasingly sick having responsibility for looking after the increasingly sick. Book purchases per student are falling. Outside, overseas and more highly paid staff cannot equitably be recruited generally and, in particular, to research teams for which Britain is famous. Staff drop-out and chairs cannot be filled. It is a litany certainly not in line with the strategic general and economic aims of this country.
While I am the last to say that a degree is essential to the production of leading men and women—arguably, the greatest Briton of this century, Sir Winston Churchill, hardly shone in his early education—nevertheless significant numbers of graduates tend to enhance the performance of industry, commerce, the professions, the arts and the public and administrative sectors. Although both of my degrees are from Oxford, nevertheless I believe Cambridge to be a wonderful place. I am sad to see that it heads the list of budget cuts at 7 per cent. or £6 million in real terms. That is a sad state of affairs for a country renowned as a centre of innovation, invention and academic excellence. One Cambridge College, Trinity, has produced more Nobel laureates than the whole of France.
I turn to capital grants. I have already mentioned the CVCP's argument that PFI is inappropriate for the bulk of academic buildings and equipment. Whether for arts or sciences, equipment that is required for teaching today, particularly for research, is frequently computer-based and very expensive. With the pace of modern change, it requires constant renewal and maintenance, as do buildings. When in the late 1930s Sir Howard (later Lord) Florey and his team at Oxford developed penicillin and tested it successfully on the first human being, it was done largely on the basis of bucket chemistry. Perhaps it should be described as bucket bacteriology. Buckets come cheap. Not so today's equipment. New universities, without the riches of medieval, post-medieval or Victorian industrial

337
magnates' endowments, are at a particular disadvantage, as are new colleges within older universities. I think of my own college, St. Katharine's, Oxford. It is particularly relevant as the founding master, the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, is a Member of your Lordships' House, as is the present master, the noble Lord, Lord Plant. Some donations have been embarrassingly large, but it is difficult to compete with, say, Henry VIII.
In conclusion, I both deplore and am greatly saddened by what is happening. I very much bear in mind the biblical words that as ye sow, so shall ye reap. I fear that we shall reap the wind if we go on like this.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, when the debate started this afternoon I thought that I would be one of the few people with no interest to declare. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, made an unfavourable comparison with the pay increases of school teachers and university lecturers. I suppose that I should now declare that my wife is a school teacher. I feel a little as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, did in looking at the list of distinguished speakers. Having heard 19 of them, they have expressed an astonishing degree of unanimity. Comparisons have been made with the debate on the subject of student loans the week before last. I recall that in that debate there was one speaker who supported the Government. Today, we have yet to hear a speaker support the Government, although I suspect that there may be one before the end of the debate.
Speaking as the fifteenth speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said that many points had already been made. That is even more true speaking as I do as the twentieth speaker, but most of those points bear repetition of course. Much reference has been made to the Dearing review. It was in fact announced on the day that we had the Second Reading debate on the student loans Bill. I gave it then a qualified welcome which I am happy to repeat now. We welcomed it as being at least a recognition by the Government that there is a problem in higher education which needs addressing urgently.
But, as others have said, the Dearing review will not be reporting until the summer of 1997. That is after the general election, and it is hoped that many of its proposals will need some legislative action, certainly if the funding arrangements are to change. We are probably looking at real changes not coming into effect until the end of the century. That assumes that we have a government who are willing to tackle these difficult problems.
The funding crisis is now; it is here; and it needs to be tackled now. We cannot do nothing until the end of the century, merely waiting for a useful report to be made. By then, the damage will have been done. Today people have spoken with real feeling, knowledge and experience of the problems that they know that their universities are experiencing. Reference has been made to the fact that since 1989 student numbers have increased by 45 per cent., yet funding per student has
338
decreased by 28 per cent. Mention is often made of economies of scale. I read that one institution had put starkly to the CVCP its own experience:
"Each member of staff now has to take responsibility for 40 per cent. more students than in 1989 … there are no economies of scale in the need for individual attention to each student's work … their examination papers or their pastoral care".
Reference has also been made to efficiency savings. To someone who is much better versed in the role of an LEA than a university, reference to efficiency savings comes as nothing new. Speakers have pointed out that we are long past being able to make savings on anything like the magnitude expected by the Government through increased efficiency. The sort of things being euphemistically called "efficiency savings" now are real cuts and damaging cuts. That is the case in local government, and I am certain that it is equally the case in the world of our universities.
Capital funding has also been mentioned. Reference has been made to the 30 per cent. reduction in next year's capital budget, and its halving over the next three years to 1999. I was going to talk of the effects of the PFI. It has been well and fully covered in the debate. I shall not allude to it except to repeat what others have said. PFI is in no way an answer to the capital crisis facing our universities. Indeed it can worsen the crisis. Significant costs are usually involved in preparing a scheme for the PFI. Those costs must be borne, and there is no guarantee that the application will be successful.
What will be the effects of the cuts? New and much needed projects will have to be abandoned or, at best, postponed indefinitely. Urgently needed, up-to-date equipment will not be acquired. Our universities will no longer be able to offer modern state-of-the-art facilities. That is bad enough, but I have sufficient confidence in the energy and initiative of our universities to believe that against all the odds they will overcome some of those difficulties. What concerns me even more are the effects on the unglamorous but vitally important area of care and maintenance budgets. As we all know, one can postpone maintenance and care for perhaps a year or two years, but one cannot do it year after year after year without there being some disastrous effects.
I wish to quote from the National Audit Office report entitled The Financial Health of Higher Education Institutions in England. In 1994 it noted that a backlog of maintenance work and work needed to comply with health and safety legislation was putting pressure on the majority of the sector. In its submission to the public expenditure survey the following year, the CVCP estimated:
"a backlog of maintenance work totalling £1,269 billion across the university system, as a result of government underfunding".
Those problems are urgent and they will not go away. We need to find a means of tackling them.
Earlier in the debate, my noble friend Lord Russell trailed my giving some information about my party's proposals in this area. There are few people who are fortunate enough to have my noble friend as a warm-up man, but I shall do my best in the few minutes that remain to me. I need to say for the benefit of my colleagues, if not for the House, that the proposals are

339
to be debated at our spring party conference the weekend after next, and only then will they be party policy.
The proposals recognise that we can no longer expect the taxpayer to bear all the cost. We say that as a party which is committed to increasing taxation if necessary to fund education. We recognise that the cost needs to be shared among the three stakeholders—we claim that we thought of the word first—in education. The first is the Government. We would increase contributions from the Government to tertiary education, although that would not be our top priority. We recognise that employers have a role to play in contributing towards the education of their employees and society generally. We propose a 2 per cent. remissible education and training levy on company payrolls, although we would exempt small firms.
Perhaps most important and relevant to the comments that have been made in the debate, we recognise that individual learners themselves will have to make some contribution. We do not propose a graduate tax. We propose an income contingent repayment scheme. We will establish what we would call a learning bank into which the contributions will be paid, and in which each student can open an individual learning account to receive contributions, if necessary, borrow from it, and to repay in the way I have described.
I cannot do full justice to a 17-page document which is not yet party policy in the few moments left to me. Those are our proposals, and as my noble friend Lord Russell pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, there is more than one opposition party on this side of the House. Those are our proposals. They are up for discussion and consultation. As my noble friend also pointed out, our leader Paddy Ashdown in launching the proposals said that there are only three alternatives to them or something like them: one is to let quality continue its rapid decline; the other is a 4 pence increase in income tax; and the third is to lie. We know which policy the Government have chosen. We wait to hear which policy the Labour Party is going to choose. I look forward to hearing the next speaker outlining that. She has had at least 10 minutes more notice of it than I had earlier.
To conclude, the terms about which we are talking, and the implementation of the Dearing review, which may well bear a startling resemblance to what is in the document, will need to be implemented, but they are not likely to be implemented before the turn of the century. We need an urgent solution to the problem. We need the Government to tackle it. We cannot wait for the Dearing report. We cannot wait for the election of a Liberal Democrat Government, although the two may well be coincidental in timing.
By setting up the Dearing review, the Government have recognised that there is a problem with higher education that needs addressing. The Government must be brave enough to recognise that the funding crisis is here and now. After the debate today they cannot possibly not recognise that. It cannot wait for another two or three years, especially with the cuts proposed for those years. Action is needed now. We should support
340
the CVCP's call for a significant reversal of the proposed funding cuts next year, and especially over the following two years. Preserving the quality of our education for the future is much more important than tax cuts now.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on initiating what has been for me, as a comparatively new Member of this House, one of the most informative debates that I have attended and in which the unanimity of views has been remarkable. In introducing the debate, he referred to the parameters of the cuts during the past six years, the collapse of the tutorial system and the need for us to recognise that in this and other areas the Government have increased the cost of bureaucracy and paperwork by the policies they have introduced. It is also important to note, as he did, the need to obtain agreement on how higher education is to be funded.
The Government are in danger of pretending that the problems arising from the cuts in revenue and capital spending will go away during the period in which the Dearing Committee is to produce its report. The problems will not go away, as so many speakers have made plain. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in referring to the danger of students dropping out and the problems which are faced if the cost of student drop-outs begins to come into the equation. Perhaps I may refer to a university lecturer who pointed out that as regards tuition, maintenance and infrastructure costs British university degrees are the cheapest in terms of public funds for completed degrees within the OECD. However, the same lecturer went on to point out that part-time students are so tired that the drop-out rate is increasing. That is a problem not only for the universities but for the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred to the importance of the cut in capital funding. That point was raised by speaker after speaker in terms of its effect. My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris spoke of the problems of capital funding having to cover libraries, health and safety equipment, maintenance and computer equipment. He gave graphic illustrations using Sheffield and UMIST. He could have cited many universities across the country. What answer will the Minister give in the light of such widespread anxiety?
The issue of PFI capital has run like a recurrent thread through the debate. In introducing PFI as an idea for funding, the Government in the early stages recognised that it must be additional to essential underpinning capital expenditure and not used as a substitution. The much referred to Treasury dog is now turning it into a substitution as an alternative to the full and necessary funding. What is the Minister's answer to the fact that many universities are unable to match the private-sector funding which is essential to their ability to develop PFI initiatives?
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the problem of most of the capital having to be spent on repairs and maintenance, and not on investment and equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to the Government's

341
misuse of language in efficiency savings. As a comparatively new Member of this House, but as a much more longstanding member of the local government team, I cannot but echo and strongly underline his point. It is pointless for the Government, in the teeth of the detailed, knowledgeable, carefully researched opinions put forward by the universities, to maintain that efficiency savings during the next three years, and during the wait for Dearing, will solve the problems of the cuts which now face the universities. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, also referred to the growing concern about contract research and the conditions in which young people work. We are in danger of losing them.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, surprised me somewhat, if he will forgive me for saying so. I had not realised that he was so close to being recruited to New Labour. I was delighted by his contribution in which he raised extremely important comparisons with other European Union countries. We hope that that factor will be taken into account by the Dearing committee because of the mobility of students and the need for us to be effective in competition with our European Union partners. As someone whose father was a plumber, I hope that the noble Lord was not suggesting that Sir Ron Dearing is in danger of behaving like a plumber as regards timing, because if so the universities will be in deep trouble.
My noble friend Lady Dean referred to the problems facing the Open University. It would be a tragedy if the cuts were to go ahead. It would be a particular tragedy for the students because of the exciting work that is being developed by the Open University in collaboration with other universities in credit transfer schemes, which may be a solution in particular for mature students. Furthermore, the European Union has recognised the contribution of the Open University to the quality of the different styles of learning developed in the UK.
It is impossible to cover all the points raised by all the speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to the quality of the science base in our universities which attracts inward investment. That point is critically important in terms of the economic viability of the country and the fact that partnership schemes are being put at risk.
The noble Earl, Lord Limerick, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to the question of whether there should be concentration. The only point that I would raise in advance of Dearing is the importance of accessibility in as many parts of the country as possible to the full range of course options because of the growing number of non-standard entry students.
My noble friend Lord Sewel was right in saying that the current Government policy penalises and punishes success. It is extremely important to recognise that it would be a tragedy if during the period leading up to the Dearing Report the Government believed that they could rest on what today's debate has demonstrated are some pretty shaky laurels in terms of the position of the universities during the next two or three years.
We cannot say that efficiency savings will protect our universities from cuts. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, referred to the tragedy that would be caused
342
to the local economy were any of our institutions to become bankrupt during that period. I come from a small town whose former polytechnic is now a university and I know the importance of that point. We cannot afford to allow any of our universities to become bankrupt in quality or bankrupt in terms of finance.
It has been a wide-ranging debate. The Government are on the witness stand in terms of what they intend to do. If before it is possible to implement Dearing the Government have money to subsidise a private-sector loan scheme, would it not be better to use that public money to protect the system so far as possible before changes are made with all-party support after Dearing reports?
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether the only expression of New Labour policy that we are to hear this evening is a glimmer, allegedly from my noble friend Lord Beloff.
5.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, like my noble friend, I was very interested in that exposition of the higher education policy of the party opposite.
Some time ago the noble Lord, Lord Porter, said that he suspected that in this House most of us are in favour of education, motherhood and apple pie. That made me think of the remarks of W.C. Fields who said that someone who hates children and dogs cannot be all bad. That is not my policy nor is it the view of Her Majesty's Government. We very much value education in the whole and higher education in particular.
I join all noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on introducing this debate and on attracting such a considerable amount of expertise in the higher education sector to it. It was not until we reached the Front Bench speakers that the lay voice was allowed to be heard. I believe that only one speaker before that did not have a connection with the higher education sector. Therefore, to some extent it has been a one-sided debate but it is none the worse for that. I have certainly taken on board the messages given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and others on this occasion and by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he came to visit the department the other day, and I am sure that he will visit on other occasions.
I heard the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, about the old UGC and its relationship with the Treasury. He reminded the House that in the old days grants for the UGC were set by Her Majesty's Treasury. If that were still the case today, I should not be standing at the Dispatch Box because one of my other noble friends would be here representing the Treasury. I understand that in those days it was not a matter for the Department of Education, in whatever guise.
I begin by setting out some of the background. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, poured scorn on the figures given by my right honourable friend. But I do not apologise for saying that the Government are currently spending over £7 billion of the taxpayers' money on

343
higher education in the United Kingdom. That is a very substantial sum by any standards. I do not believe that it indicates, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, expressed it, that we despise dons. It may be that that was unworthy of the noble Lord. The allegations of butchery put about by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, are also unfair. That spending represents over 20 per cent. of the £35 billion total public funding for the education system as a whole. I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, for stressing the importance of other parts of the education system and that extremely difficult choices have to be made in terms of achieving the right priorities. I remind the House that in what turned out to be a very difficult spending round—and I appreciate that it was particularly difficult for the higher education sector—we were able to increase funding for schools by a fairly considerable amount.
I remind the House also that we spend more per higher education student than any other country in Europe and rank among the top five in the world. Obviously, we spend far more on each higher education student than we do on each student at school, whether at primary or secondary level, and we spend far more on each higher education student than we do on each further education student. It must be asked at some point whether that gap should be widened or whether it is about right. I hope that Sir Ron Dearing will address that point among the many other points which need to be addressed by his review.
In the late 1980s and the early 1990s, higher education was one of the fastest growing public spending programmes. In real terms funding from my department for higher education in England rose by over 23 per cent. between 1989–90 and 1994–95. I accept that at the same time we saw an increase of some 57 per cent. in student numbers. But that is something on which the universities should be congratulated and I hope that they will accept those congratulations.
Like every other publicly funded service, higher education is part of the wider economy. The 1995 Budget was designed, as I hope are all Budgets of whichever government, to control public spending in the interests of a healthy economy and a speedy recovery. The Government expect the universities to manage within the public funds that are made available.
I accept that much has been said in recent weeks about the Budget settlement for higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, made a rather interesting point that many higher education institutions are afraid to make their concerns known to Ministers. That picture of blushing virgins somewhat amazed me. I have not noticed any shyness on the part of any higher education institutions in relation to coming forward and telling Ministers in no uncertain terms exactly what they feel. I should have thought that this evening's debate was a good example of that. I suspect that the noble Lord may wish to retract or withdraw those remarks.
Reports have highlighted reductions of 6 and 7 per cent. in funding compared with 1995–96. When transfers to the Teacher Training Agency are taken into account, the recurrent and capital grant and tuition fees
344
for English institutions will reduce by 2 per cent. in cash terms. That represents a reduction of 5 per cent. after allowing for inflation. Therefore, that is marginally lower than the 6 or 7 per cent. which has been alleged.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that that is broadly the same as the position in Scotland. The position in Wales is slightly different, but I assure the noble Lord that there are perfectly valid reasons for the difference in the Welsh figures. They are not based on any attempt to try to lure the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Cledwyn, over to these Benches. I am sure that our own arguments will do that in due course.
Despite a very tough Budget, our spending plans maintain the recurrent provision announced in 1994. They allow for the participation of young people to be maintained at what I think everyone accepts is the current record level of over 30 per cent. and for increases in the number of part-timers, most of whom are mature students. The total package of student support has been increased in line with inflation.
But our policy is that capital expenditure should wherever possible be financed from private sources. The Budget reduced the universities' capital provision in line with that with most other publicly funded programmes. We believe—and I shall say more about this in due course—that the private finance initiative offers scope for private sector expertise as well as private funds to deliver value for money.
I accept that that reduction in capital provision for 1996–97 is substantial. But it is small in relation to more than £1.6 billion of capita] investment financed by universities in recent years. Universities will receive a single grant and be free to make their own decisions on the balance between capital investment and other priorities.
I turn now to the private finance initiative, about which many anxieties have been expressed. I accept that it will take some time to develop in the higher education sector. But universities and colleges are used to commercial transactions. The private finance initiative offers opportunities for them to achieve better value for money by transferring risks and management of projects to the private sector. There is also scope for funding capital projects through loans or facilities management-type contracts.
A number of firms have approached the private finance panel to discuss potential PFI projects of all sizes. Higher education institutions are taking forward some fairly exciting PFI projects. I could give examples and examples have been given. There is a general acceptance that a number of projects are relatively easy to carry out, particularly in the larger sector; for example, student halls of residence and so on.
But I do not accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that the PFI cannot be used for smaller-scale projects. There have been successful smaller projects. There have been a number of such projects in the National Health Service where we are talking about sums in the range of £1 million to £2 million. Again, I could give examples but in view of the time, it would be wrong to do so this

345
evening. Experience in the NHS suggests that the key factor behind private sector interests in a project is not its size but its type.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked whether we could fund an anti-proton storage ring by means of the private sector finance initiative. Obviously I cannot say whether one could or could not. I can give an example from my own department of a small project relating to equipment which we managed to fund by PFI and made considerable savings as a result. That was one where the Employment Service turned to the private sector to replace its outdated computerised personnel system. The chosen system will save an estimated £1.2 million over the seven-year life of the contract. Payment is related to the number of live records on the system but ownership of the computer remains with the private sector. I believe that ideas of that kind can be explored further.
I note the concerns that have been expressed by the CVCP and others about the impact of the Budget settlement. I know that there are considerable worries about the effect of continuing productivity improvements on the quality of teaching and learning and on research. I know that there are concerns about the scope for private finance to meet the full range of universities' capital needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, quite rightly asked, as did others, what we should be doing as a result of those pressures between now and what we call post-Dearing. As the noble Lord will be well aware—he came to see us the other day—we have listened to the CVCP and we shall continue to listen to it. We have set up two groups to work with it. The first group will collate evidence about the impact of public funding levels on universities and report to us in the department. The second group will examine the scope for PFI in higher education in achieving value for money and will assess its potential for offsetting the reduction in public funding for buildings and equipment. It will identify apparent obstacles to PFI and the means of overcoming them.
As I said earlier, I pay tribute to the excellent work of the higher education sector in achieving efficiency gains approaching some 30 per cent. since 1989–90. Those who claim that the squeeze has gone too far should note that up to 1993–94 universities and colleges achieved higher efficiency gains than the Government had planned through their own recruitment decisions. Independent assessment reports from the Higher Education Funding Council for England suggest that quality is at least satisfactory and in some places excellent. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who pressed me to give examples of teaching which was unsatisfactory. I shall not give him such examples; there are no such examples. What the report indicated was that to date some 26 per cent. of courses have been found to be excellent, 73 per cent. satisfactory, and only 1 per cent. was initially judged to be unsatisfactory. All of those courses which have since been re-examined have been found satisfactory; so universities are managing.
Further—it was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, would like us to explore—new technology can open up the possibility of new ways of teaching
346
and learning and delivering higher education in new and exciting ways. Again I refer not only to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, but also to a very interesting article on this subject in today's Daily Telegraph. I imagine that even the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, can bring himself to read the Daily Telegraph on occasions. We have identified this area in the terms of reference for the Dearing inquiry. I very much hope that that will be pursued.
On research, funding benefited from the fast growth in higher education spending earlier in the decade when it was not subject to the efficiency gains delivered in teaching. In 1996–97 the Higher Education Funding Council for England allocated a total of £638 million for research. We have asked the funding council to have particular regard to equipment needs, especially equipment for research. And with the Office of Science and Technology it has set up a challenge funding initiative to fund research equipment in Technology Foresight priority areas. Subject to matching funds from industry, charities and other users, these and similar schemes run by the other higher education bodies could yield up to an extra £36 million for research equipment.
As regards the specific point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to the major contribution which our leading research universities make to our intellectual and economic well-being. I understand his concerns to ensure that they receive appropriate funds for the indirect costs of publicly funded research projects. It is certainly one of the issues which the Government will be taking into account when considering the responses to the review of the operation of the dual support system referred to by the noble Lord.
I turn now to the inquiry itself. Many noble Lords have stressed the importance of a properly funded university sector. That is why we believe that it is necessary now to review the future of higher education over the next century. I can give an assurance that our own internal departmental review looked at the issue and developed its own ideas. However, it recognised that there are extremely complicated and complex issues. That is why on 19th February my right honourable friend announced a national committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Ron Dearing. I am certainly grateful for the fact that Sir Ron agreed to take this on.
I am grateful for the welcome that many noble Lords have given to the fact that Sir Ron will take on the task. Perhaps I may assure my noble friend Lord Beloff that he is a man of considerable experience in the world of education and in higher education. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, he is a chancellor of a university—in this case Chancellor of the University of Nottingham. Perhaps I may correct my noble friend Lord Limerick. He has a degree from the University of Hull, I understand, but I presume that that was before the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, was a chancellor of that university. As others with, I believe, greater experience of the educational world will know, he also has considerable experience from his times as chairman of the Council of National Academic Awards, of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, of the

347
UFC and of the HEFCE. He also has considerable experience throughout the entire education world from his work with SCAA and from the various reviews that he has done. I have considerable faith in Sir Ron. I am pleased to note that so many other noble Lords in this House also have faith in Sir Ron and what he will provide.
His committee and the composition of its size have not been decided. It is a matter for discussion. We welcome views. I think that many noble Lords would have strong views about the size of the Committee. I believe that most would agree that it should not be too large. As regards its composition, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, it is important that it should have representatives of higher education. We also believe that it should have representatives not only of the providers but also the consumers of higher education. It must also have representatives who deal with the world of research, or from other parts of the country; it is not purely an English review. Getting the composition right, and keeping its size at the right level, will be difficult. But I and the department will be more than happy to consider all recommendations.
Sir Ron Dearing's committee will consider and make recommendations on future funding arrangements. It can only do so once it has considered other fundamental issues first.
As we move into the 21st century, the decisions that we take on the future of our higher education system must enable universities to retain and develop their capacity to innovate. They must foster universities' contribution to the research base which underpins the United Kingdom's ability to harness scientific and technological advances, and they should encourage universities to enhance wealth creation and our quality of life, and help to drive local and regional regeneration through services to employers. That is why we have asked them to make all the recommendations on how the shape, structure and size of the sector should develop to meet the needs of the United Kingdom over the next 20 years. It is only in the context of those fundamental issues that it can then move on to the funding arrangements, many of which have been discussed this evening.
I do not believe that anyone will expect me to comment today on the merits of a graduate tax, a pay-roll tax. That might or might not be the policy of the party opposite. I can see considerable dangers in terms of increasing the non-wage labour costs for large numbers of employers, putting a large number of jobs at risk. I hope that that is an issue which the Liberal Conference—I shall not be attending it over Easter—will manage to address.
Obviously there are other matters which can also be addressed: whether the national insurance system can be used, whether there should be a loan or whether it should be an income contingent scheme. However, I stress that our scheme is partially income contingent; and that should be recognised. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that I very much look forward to receiving that report, and receiving it when in government.
As I said earlier, I believe that with the £7 billion going to higher education, the universities are generously funded from the public purse. But, as I have made quite
348
clear, I understand the concerns that have been expressed today. As I have said, we have taken note of those concerns and we will continue to take note of those concerns. We have listened to the CVCP, and on occasions when addressing this House I have felt I have been listening to the CVCP. We will continue to listen to the CVCP. As I said, we have set up two joint working groups with it to consider the very points that it has made to us.
Higher education has expanded and it has expanded rapidly, but we now need to plan for the next century. I believe it is Sir Ron, and Sir Ron's framework and his conclusions, which will set the framework. In future young people are going to need the higher levels of skills, understanding and flexibility to enable us to compete in the modern economy.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have been dying to interrupt him on the question of the private finance initiative, but I did not do so because I think interruptions are a bit of a nuisance, especially in a time-limited debate. But before the noble Lord finishes, I hope he can be helpful to me. I find it difficult to get precise facts and information about how many instances of the private finance initiative there are successfully working within universities. If there is information available within the noble Lord's department, I hope that he will be so kind as to write to me at some future date.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should like to write to the noble Lord on that issue, but on the wider issue of private finance throughout the whole of government I believe there are lessons which the higher education sector can learn from others. I shall certainly write with greater detail because I think, having already exceeded my 20 minutes, now would not be the time to embark on a new debate.
Lord Annan: My Lords, it only remains for me to rise and thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. It has been a remarkable debate and I thank noble Lords for attending. I hope that I may make one point to the Minister. Despite what he said, I have the feeling that in the past years antagonisms, and rather unhappy ones, have arisen between universities and successive Secretaries of State. Would it be possible for the Secretary of State to meet the vice-chancellors en masse and, having heard what they have to say, the Secretary of State could say, "I have heard your problems; may I tell you some of mine?", because she has problems which concern the funding of schools. If we cannot get school education right, the universities will be turned into remedial teaching institutions for their first-year students. I do not know whether the Secretary of State would be bold enough, or indeed wise, to appeal to a Dunkirk spirit in the universities. However, it looks to me as if that is what she will have to do if no further funding is forthcoming. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Fishing Interests: European Court Judgment
6.22 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I understand that this may be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement reads as follows:
"Madam Speaker, it is helpful to have this opportunity to develop further the points that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, my honourable friend the Minister of State and I made yesterday in immediate response to the text of the Factortame judgment.
"Let me first deal with the court's judgment. It is a stage, albeit an important one, in the action brought in the UK Divisional Court against Her Majesty's Government for damages in respect of the losses that Spanish and other owners of fishing vessels incurred as a result of their exclusion from the UK register and consequent inability to fish. The Divisional Court sought guidance from the European Court and the latter has now ruled that member states are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to the state where the national legislation was responsible for the breach in question and where the breach is sufficiently serious. Importantly, the court also ruled that it is for the national courts to decide whether such a breach has occurred and what damages are available.
"There has been speculation about the damages that might be payable. It is far too early to comment because it is for those involved—namely, the Factortame applicants—to decide whether to proceed with their action, and if so, to substantiate any claim to the full. The court's judgments in this and the earlier Factortame cases have highlighted the fact that quotas allocated to each member state do not always benefit the fishing communities of that member state. This is because the eligibility for quotas and their administration by member states has to take account of general treaty provisions, for example on the right of establishment and the freedom of movement. This has certainly undermined the benefit which the UK fishing industry has been able to secure from the fishing opportunities available to it under the common fisheries policy.
"It is clear that we should not go on as we are. That is why both the Deputy Prime Minister and I explained to the House yesterday that the Government are looking at all the options. These include pursuing treaty or other changes at the IGC. What we want to do is to achieve measures that enable member states to ensure that fishing opportunities arising from their national quotas provide real benefits to their own fishing communities and not to others".
There endeth the Statement.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer that was given in the other place to a Private Notice Question put down by my honourable friend Dr. Gavin Strang. This is a sad day for British fishermen, for the British taxpayer, and, I would add, for those who support, however sceptically, the principles of the European Union. I wish to repeat a remark that I have made before; namely, that the common fisheries policy, as it begins to be worked out, is beginning to make the common agricultural policy look like a beacon of common sense and sweet reason.
We should be quite clear what this means. It means that the Spanish and other fishing vessel owners are to be compensated for loss of trade despite deliberately joining the British register to fish against the British quota and then landing their fish, unchecked, in Spain and elsewhere outside the UK. Will the Minister confirm that 103 fishing vessels with a significant Spanish interest, and 39 boats with a significant Dutch interest, are still on the British register, and they represent some 28 per cent. of the total British fleet, and, as regards some species, over 40 per cent. of the quota?
A Written Answer given in another place yesterday was referred to in today's Statement. In the Written Answer Mr. Hogg stated,
"There is an inconsistency underlying the quota regime of the common fisheries policy in that the quotas allocated to each member state do not always benefit the fishing communities of that member state".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/96; col. WA 130.]
That is the understatement of the decade!
The cost of the judgment has been estimated at £30 million. I know that the Minister will say—this was mentioned in the Statement—that he is not able to comment on these estimates. However, I wish to ask him about the costs of the action. The Statement confirms that the quantum of damage is for the British courts to decide. I am not a lawyer but, as I understand it, costs usually follow the compensation. Is it possible that the final figure, including costs, could be well in excess of the various estimates that are being mentioned at the moment for the costs of the compensation for damage?
The Government say—this is a welcome conversion; this has been pressed by the Labour Party for some time—that they now intend to try to use the renegotiation of the treaty at the IGC to reform the common fisheries policy. Will the Minister confirm that any such renegotiation will have to be unanimous, and will therefore be open to veto by any single member state? We know that the Spaniards obviously have a veto. Will the Minister also confirm that whatever happens at the IGC will not affect this judgment? As I understand it, the renegotiation of the treaty cannot be retrospective. Therefore, whatever success the Government achieve at the IGC will not affect the judgment which has just been handed down.
There has also been mention that alongside the renegotiation through the IGC, some use might be made—or attempt to be made—either of the European regulations, or of a protocol to the treaty which would achieve much the same effect. Could the Minister

351
confirm that this is in the Government's mind as an approach and, if so, is it correct that this would be the subject of the qualified majority voting and not of the unanimity which is required for a fundamental reform of the treaty? Is it also a fact that the Factortame case has much wider implications because it enables an individual, including employees, to claim damages against a member state in that state's courts, if damages have been suffered, providing the member state has broken a Community law? As I understand it, that is the nub of the Factortame judgment and it has now been upheld by the European Court. This could have substantial effects outside the fishing industry.
As a final point, much has been made of the effects of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping Regulations Act 1993 on this matter. I am not merely seeking here to make a party point. My own party in the other place and here has supported the principles of the Merchant Shipping Act. It is a fact, I believe, that there was legal advice at that time which suggested that the Act as amended by the Government would lead to this outcome. It is a point, I understand, that was raised in Committee in the other place at the time but the Government rejected the argument. It now seems, and this is not hindsight because others were saying it at the time, that the licensing route might have been a much safer way to deal with this matter rather than the course that the Government adopted for the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. May I remind the Minister of what he said when we debated the common fisheries policy on the 14th February, Hansard column 667, when he said,
"On the other hand, Factortame was concerned with provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which were designed to achieve much the same end, but in the context of special registration rather than licensing, by requiring that vessels should be mainly British owned and controlled."
I understand that warnings were given at the time that the route the Government were following for special registration had a chance of leading to this outcome, and it seems that those who supported the idea of achieving the effect that the Government wanted through the licensing route in fact were correct. We will certainly support the Government in their efforts to renegotiate the treaty so far as the CFP is concerned, but I have to say that they might find that somewhat easier to do if they did not have the semi-detached attitude to the European Union which is their current stance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has gone into the whole matter very thoroughly. This is a tremendous smack in the face for the Government. Their method of trying to control what is in fact a cheating device in order to get protection has failed and it looks as though they will have to pay in addition massive compensation.
In the Statement the Minister has just read it says that we must reform the CFP as an urgent matter, but it will take a lot of time. It is, however, absolutely vital. What the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about the CAP and the CFP was a crack I was going to make and I can only applaud it as perfectly true. The CAP looks like a simple and successful piece of legislation alongside the total
352
failure of the common fisheries policy. I can only reiterate that negotiations should be undertaken urgently; that the Government should bend themselves to it and try to get some sense into it.
In the meantime, I wonder whether the Government could look at our own regulations. At the present time, as I understand it, and the Minister might confirm this, these registered boats have to call four times in six months at a British port but they land their catches wherever they wish, particularly in Spain where the registration and collation of data are very suspect indeed.
What would happen if the Government laid down regulations that, not only had they to call four times a year, but in addition they had to use the other alternative and land at least half their catches at a British port? This at least would give us some idea of the size of the problem and the amount of fish they are catching and would make it, I hope, uneconomic for them to adopt this cheating device.
However, I agree that the main priority is to renegotiate the whole business and then to police it properly. The CFP in theory should work but outside a few countries you cannot trust the figures. Certainly on the high seas there is very little chance of stopping everybody who is breaking the rules. It needs a determined attack and it needs money spent on control before we get a policy which the fishermen themselves will believe in. The Government have a tremendous task in hand and we on these Benches would back any effort to improve it and get some justice into the situation for our own fishermen.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support that we have received today from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for the action which we are proposing to take. It is a very sad day, not for the common fisheries policy, because it is not the common fisheries policy which is at fault in this instance, but for our understanding of the way the common fisheries policy operates within the Treaty of Rome.
The judgment reached by the European Court is that the Treaty of Rome takes precedence over the provisions of the common fisheries policy, whereas we, and I believe all other member states, have been operating on the basis that the common fisheries policy was a reasonable exception in some ways to the provisions of the treaty. Indeed, that raises major questions as to the future of the common fisheries policy and whether it is operable and acceptable to member states. We believe that those concerns will be widely shared and that the impetus to put the common fisheries policy back where it should be, which is in terms of a national right to an agreed share of the common fish resource, is something which will be pursued at the IGC and will be pursued vigorously by us. We believe that we shall receive a great deal of sympathy from other member states because nobody believed that the way the European Court has interpreted this situation is the way in which the common fisheries policy was envisaged when we all set out together to make it.

353
So far as the statistics are concerned which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked for, we estimate that there are about 150 vessels on the UK register which are currently foreign owned or have significant foreign interest in them. Of these, about 100 have a Spanish interest and the remainder mainly have a Dutch interest. In numbers quota hoppers represent some 5 per cent. of the UK's offshore fishing fleet but account for more than 20 per cent. of its tonnage. Indeed, in some species such as plaice they take 44 per cent. of the quota. Overall they take about 10 per cent. of our white fish quota, but there are obviously some species where they are much higher than that. So far as the costs of any judgments which may be given in time by the UK courts against the Government are concerned, we will have to wait and see what they are. We do not know any more about them than we do about the damages.
So far as the question the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the IGC, I reiterate that it is not the reform of the CFP we are looking at: it is the reform of the treaty. That has to be unanimous and any such reform would not affect the judgment in the Factortame case or its consequences. However, we will look at all ways of achieving our end. I do not think we are stuck on any one particular formula. What we are looking to is putting back the relationship between the common fisheries policy and the treaty that we and others always thought was there, and putting back the status of UK fishermen versus UK quotas that we always thought was there and always believe should be there.
So far as the wider implications of Factortame, yes, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is again right. This is a judgment which may well affect other situations, such as the denial by Spain of rights of transit for ferries from Gibraltar and the rights of British beef exporters when it comes to selling in Germany and other such areas. It is something which seems to us to be in that limited sense a very reasonable judgment and may as a result have a lot of good consequences for intra-community trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the legal advice that we received at the time. I do not have that information with me, but I shall write to the noble Lord to cover that point and the question of the licensing route. My understanding is that the licensing route would not work. Indeed, we cannot see anything that will work without an amendment to the treaty or some close equivalent. We have looked at a great many options, and spent a great deal of time with our own and outside legal advisers, and have not come to any conclusion which would suggest to us any other way of dealing with the problem, either now or in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, covered many of the same points but suggested that we might change our present regulations so that half the boats' catch should be landed in the UK. That would seem quite a sensible regulation to put in place, but it is not something that we could succeed in doing under current treaty interpretation by the European Court. We are quite clear that we could not. Nor could we impose residence requirements on the people operating the boats, or
354
nationality requirements or any other means by which the boats might be made British. They are all areas we shall be looking at, but as far as we understand, and according to all the advice we have, they would all require treaty amendment.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while the European Court's task is simply to interpret laws—and unfortunately the judgment that has just been made has been what I was expecting—does this not make a nonsense of a system of quotas allocated by nationality?
I have raised the subject many times in your Lordships' House, and I spoke when the Merchant Shipping Act passed through this House in 1988, when I supported the revised register requirements included in it. As regards the queries of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in our debate on 14th February I gave the percentages of quota taken by boats from Spain and Holland, which were as much as 40 per cent. in some cases. Those figures were confirmed by my noble friend Lord Lucas.
The European Union has been trying to pursue two policies at the same time which are totally at variance with each other. One policy attempts to merge nationalities and enable any EU citizen to set up and do business in any member country. The other regulates fisheries by a system of quotas based entirely upon nationality. They are incompatible and conflicting policies.
As it is vital that conservation of fish stocks be achieved, will the Government urgently press for a major change of the present basis of the quota system, namely nationality, or for its replacement?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I agree completely with what my noble friend said. The judgment throws up a major deficiency in the common fisheries arrangements as they are at the moment and as they relate to the treaty. It is a matter that we must do something about as quickly as we can. However, since it requires treaty amendment, the IGC is the place for that. I do not believe that there is anything that we can do faster, but we shall work very hard when it comes to the IGC.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, to mix my metaphors, it seems that the stinking fish are coming home to roost. Is the Minister aware that there is outrage in the country as a whole, and particularly among the fishing community, at what has happened? The noble Lord was in the other place with me this afternoon. Does he agree that there was all-party condemnation of the situation which has been brought about by the judgment of the European Court of Justice and of the route by which we got there? Unfortunately, the situation goes back a long time. Does the Minister agree that, after the Factortame judgment, not only the Government but this House and another place agreed far too easily to set aside the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was designed to protect the livelihood of our fishermen and to conserve our fish? Have the Government not learnt from that that they ought not to do the bidding of the European Court with quite such alacrity and in such a short period of time?

355
What will the Government do if, as is most likely, the other countries of the European Community will not agree to a treaty revision? They will be faced with an almost impossible position, unless they are prepared to re-establish the sovereignty of Parliament over not only fishing but also other rights. If they are faced with the implacable opposition of our competitors in the other member states of the European Union, will they be prepared to come to Parliament and repeal Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 in order to give back to Parliament the powers which it so wilfully and foolishly gave up at that time?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord takes a rather bizarre and extreme view of our partners in the European Union. I do not think that it is shared widely in this House, and it is certainly not shared by the Government. We believe that the dismay that we feel at the interpretation of the relationship between the common fisheries policy and the Treaty of Rome is shared, even if the immediate pain is not so heavily shared by other member states. We believe that with our negotiating skill—which I am sure the noble Lord appreciates—and the good will of our partners, which we experience every day in our dealings with the European Union, we will achieve a satisfactory outcome, and we see no need to speculate on improbable, extreme and uncomfortable results.
As regards the 1988 Act, we believe that we took the right action at the time in bringing it forward, as did all sides of the House. We believe that we took the necessary action when the European Court of Justice expressed its opinion. Indeed, given the final resolution of its judgment, that has turned out to be right. We recognise that the Treaty of Rome is quite properly policed by a court to which all national governments should pay respect.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate that the Government's patience with the European Court is beginning to wear out, as this is not the only example of gross interference by the court in matters which should be dealt with in this Parliament? Will they make it clear that unless a quick concession is made over this issue we take very seriously the suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite that we should pull out of the jurisdiction of the European Court?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I do not agree with my noble friend at all. This seems to me entirely a case in which the European Court of Justice is the proper court. It has decided between two aspects of European policy—the Treaty of Rome and the common fisheries policy. It is the right body to do so. We think that it has come to the wrong judgment. We believe that of our own courts from time to time, but nonetheless we give them the respect that is due to them.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there will be strong support on all sides of the House, and beyond this House throughout the country, for the tone in which he has dealt with this difficult problem in his answers? In particular, he has
356
made clear that the people of this country can benefit from this defeat. The important principle established by the European Court that liability to pay compensation for damage suffered as a direct result of a serious breach of Community law is an entitlement of the individual citizen can be used by the people of this country when the public authorities of other states violate the Treaty of Rome against their interests. Is the Minister aware that that important principle is one from which we can benefit greatly, however sad it is in the context of this particular case that we have suffered this defeat, with deplorable effects on our own fishing industry?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am surprised and delighted to find myself agreeing with everything the noble Lord has just said.

Development Policy Awareness
6.49 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich rose to call attention to the case for greater public awareness of Britain's response to the longer-term needs of developing countries, and to the encouragement of development education in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as a nation, we cling to a world role yet we are still shamefully unaware of the extent of world poverty and hunger and under-educated about the long-term needs of the third world. We ought to know better. Like other European powers, we had a habit of occupying large areas of the world and we used to colour them pink on the map. This geography lesson came to an abrupt end in 1962, when I was a student. My generation was the last to be educated during colonial rule and the first to be taught that as a nation we are no better and no worse than anyone else. I am not saying that we are not excellent at some things—and I do not exclude cricket. We have a lot to pass on to other countries and our world influence, although much reduced, is still important. What I am saying is that we have moved on a generation and our children look at the world differently. As parents, we have a responsibility to ensure that they look at it fairly and not from a superior position.
What is development education? It is a form of education internationally recognised by governments. It is education which is honest about the world. In the words of the Irish President, it "challenges our complacency". We still allow ourselves to talk up others' failures abroad. Our political leaders often distract us from domestic difficulties towards some grand solution overseas. We allow pockets of racism and poverty to grow in our midst which engender their own brands of prejudice and distort our world picture. We forget sometimes that immigrants and asylum seekers are also our friends and allies, not foreigners but people like us, representatives and interpreters of the wider world to which we belong.
I will give one small illustration from Scotland. SEAD, Scottish Education and Action for Development, arranged for a visitor from Sri Lanka and another from South Africa to visit local churches, schools, urban

357
estates and crofters in the Highlands. It was an eye-opener for those communities to meet someone from countries with which we have much in common and which combine such a variety of cultural and religious influences. Visits like that are becoming more popular every year. They contrast sharply with the diet of bad news we receive from the developing world.
We first need to define what kind of overseas development we wish to portray. Here I give a personal opinion. Aid for sustainable and appropriate projects has a lot of support in this country. I do not believe our children want to learn any more about the aid we were providing in the 1960s, when millions of pounds were used to prop up political allies and prestige projects all over Africa and Asia. The ODA's latest expenditure review has many splendid statements of intent, but it disguises how much money is still injected into friendly nations through large-scale projects like the Pergau dam, in the name of jobs, trade and diplomacy. I am all for giving British companies opportunities, but they must not be the prime reason for giving aid. Instead, we must concentrate our education on what is good—and there is a lot of good. There is excellent long-term aid through ODA and its many bilateral and multilateral programmes.
How do we carry out development education? In practice it means three main areas of work: education which explains Britain's position in the world and our overseas aid and diplomacy, which one could call public relations; education in the formal sector, in schools and colleges within the national curriculum, but often reinforced by the home environment; and adult education, which includes the campaigning which NGOs now do very effectively.
The first of those areas is our official overseas aid programme. In my view, the public largely glimpse Britain's aid programme through brief news items mainly relating to emergencies and peacekeeping in places like Rwanda and Bosnia. But the ODA is highly regarded among OECD agencies as a development agency and deserves better, more balanced propaganda than it gets. I am sure that the Minister would welcome more coverage of the long-term programmes. It is just that press officers invariably point to the public interest which comes from emergencies.
Environment and sustainable development are right at the front of ODA's new mission statement. They have been united by the Rio conference and regularly appear together in high level studies, such as the one last year debated in this House. It is an area where I believe communicators are making the most headway by asking questions of fundamental importance to the public and to teachers and children. How much damage are we still doing to the third world by dumping our third-hand technology, selling more and more cars, exporting banned substances and propagating old models of development?
People would much rather hear about sustainable development than about what the royal butler saw or endless columns about the Scott Report. In contrast with the destructive impact of the state which our aid has often helped to create, our aid programmes could be
358
made more visible in putting the case for a sustainable global environment. Surely we would be able to expand our own aid programme if we explained to the public more precisely what it is.
Another popular subject is conservation and tourism. Should we still be gawping at so-called primitive societies or helping them to recover from the damage we have done to them? I can think of many good examples from CARE and the World Wide Fund for Nature of genuine partnership with local people in forestry, tourism and wildlife management. I know that ODA is involved in many of those schemes.
Occasionally ODA projects are mentioned in a science programme or a feature article and perhaps more inventive programming could be encouraged, using celebrities or an association with an NGO or a UN agency to attract a wider audience. Occasionally a skilled development journalist or film maker writes a good piece in the Financial Times about draught oxen or makes a gripping film about locust control. But it is hard for those rare gems of development education to find a mass audience.
In mainstream education there has been some good collaboration between government bodies, the NGOs and the formal sector. Schools broadcasting and children's television have done a lot. There has been an improvement in the quality of written educational materials.
But new resources are becoming scarce, and teachers, especially in maintained schools, increasingly have to raise their own funds. Schools would rather eat into their resources and training budgets than lose members of staff. Teachers rely heavily on the voluntary agencies to supply materials which draw on overseas project experience and are adapted to the national curriculum. The problem is that the curriculum, while a good discipline in itself, restricts the subject matter now allowed in school timetables. It limits the scope which more creative teachers have had in teaching world development and environment studies.
It was partly with that in mind that the development agencies in 1993 set up the Development Education Association, which now represents over 250 members and is also supported by ODA. The DEA's national curriculum monitoring project has guided policymakers and helped teachers at various key stages to steer a difficult path through the present curriculum. But the aid agencies themselves are being squeezed, with some funds going back from development education to mainstream overseas aid projects. The Department for Education and Employment has almost withdrawn from development education, though it supports the worthwhile work of the central bureau within the British Council.
ODA has a useful but limited programme which is now outdistanced by the European Union. This year, the EU has already provided £1.7 million for projects in Britain, which is three times the ODA's budget. That means that regional development education centres trying to help teachers in Somerset or Tower Hamlets are turning to Brussels to make up for the shortfall. The EU itself cannot meet all the demands made on it or

359
monitor all the projects. There are over 40 development education centres in the UK and they provide an invaluable support to teachers and community groups in promoting development issues.
Turning to youth and adult education, I believe that the NGOs, working closely with the media, have made huge strides in influencing public awareness. Whether it is Greenpeace or Amnesty, Oxfam or Christian Aid, we can all think of issues, from whales to the World Bank, which would never have come forward but for their persistence. Youth training has been a growing area of education, and the Development Education Association, with ODA backing, has produced an excellent report for youth groups which will lead to a training programme involving organisations such as the Scouts and Guides alongside local authorities.
Then there are the agencies involved in educational exchanges, which report a growing interest in exchanges and placements that provide young people with overseas experience. VSO now caters for a wider age group, but it received over 80,000 letters last year, mainly from unsatisfied young people. Save the Children receives 700 to 800 letters a month seeking work abroad. Unfortunately, funding and recruitment have rarely caught up with the demand. But, on the plus side, companies are doing more. In the recent British Council debate we heard of the importance of educational exchanges and training to overseas trade. And yet we will see yet another really drastic reduction of the council's staff this summer unless something is done very soon.
The influence which all these exchanges have on our perception of other cultures through the colleagues, families and friends of those involved is incalculable. It is an invisible diplomacy which touches the whole of society. I accept that there are negative influences too. But the overwhelming number of young people who go to developing countries return with a positive impression of the people and a much greater understanding of their problems.
Adult education by NGOs now includes techniques such as single-issue campaigning, lobbying in international assemblies, networking with overseas partners, racism awareness and political education, which have increasingly and successfully enriched our society and linked it—through themes such as drug trafficking, child prostitution and arms dealing—to others in the developing world.
Anyone who attended the South African elections or the Beijing Conference will know how many international NGOs now have a sophisticated relationship with the media and are not just looking for short-term publicity advantages. In fact some development projects involve considerable personal risks to journalists, as I have seen for myself in Natal. I would like in particular to congratulate BBC TV's development correspondents, George Alagiah and his successor Emily Buchanan, for achieving quite difficult features in Africa, Asia and Latin America, thanks in part to the help of the NGOs.
Two other important organisations are active in this field: the International Broadcasting Trust, which commissions its own excellent television films, and the
360
World Development Movement, which has had a considerable impact on public awareness of our aid programme Both have had the steady support of the main aid NGOs. Such campaigning may appear to be by definition anti-government, and hardly deserving of public money. But this is only a surface impression. In practice there is now a forest of contacts between government departments and campaigners, and government actually gains a lot from its association with NGOs, not only in public relations but in knowledge and contacts. Simultaneously the agencies that do engage with government and legislators learn, in most cases, how far they can push the boat out before they lose credibility with experts and their own supporters.
In conclusion, I must emphasise that I am not just pleading for more government understanding and funding. The Minister herself has been down the Damascus road to development education and I know she is committed to doing more. She will, I am sure, say something positive about her future intentions. But it is also up to journalists, Members of Parliament and the agencies to put a stronger case to the public; and I know they plan to do so. A national debate is needed to see what future framework would be most appropriate for development education and would involve both government and the agencies together in planning the way forward. There is a possible model in environmental education. Perhaps the ODA could embark on a join programme with the DFEE such as has already been achieved by it with the Department of the Environment.
Before anyone cries, "Where is the money coming from?" I must put the Government's programme in context. The larger NGOs—known as the British Overseas Aid Group—are setting aside about £3.6 million for schools and adult education in the current year. That includes external funding and the cost of their own education departments—not information. It is equivalent to 3 per cent. of their total unearmarked funds—in the case of the Church agencies it is more like 6 per cent. It compares with the Government's £644,000, announced on 21st February, for 1994–95, which is only about 0.01 per cent. of government expenditure per head. Welcome as that is, it simply does not compare with the development education programmes of other OECD countries.
I mentioned that industry is becoming interested in development education, and I know the Government are in favour of that. I believe the DTI, with ODA encouragement, could do more to bring developing countries into focus, as they have recently with their India material. Companies seeking new markets are more than willing to have an educational profile, especially those that have overseas aid connections. If all these sectors can make more effort, I believe government will see a way to increasing its fairly modest commitment. I beg to move for Papers.
6.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I apologise for entering the debate so soon, but I realise the hour is late and we shall all want to be going home.

361
Nevertheless, this is a very important subject and it ought not to be rushed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this debate.
I am glad to say that when I sought help from various bodies such as the Church Missionary Society, the United Society for Propagation of the Gospel, Christian Aid and CAFOD, I was given a whole sackful of brochures on development education, which I was unable to bring with me. There are games for children on the same principle as Monopoly, which help them understand the way in which the world is an interlocking network of economies and cultures which can learn from each other. This was greatly encouraging.
At Selly Oak, in Birmingham, there is a development education centre that is celebrating its 21st anniversary this year. It has a special movement called Teachers in Development Education (TIDE) and its own magazine, filled with informative articles which will enable teachers in schools to get across to the citizens of tomorrow an understanding of the whole global family. The only hope is that national curriculum pressure will not squeeze that sort of thing out.
Furthermore, development education is good value for money. In 1995, the One World Week organisation managed to mount 500 stimulating events in towns and villages on a budget of only £80,000. It is a contribution to world citizenship and understanding of our neighbours, an understanding of the way in which the world ticks. It is foolish indeed for us to allow a generation to grow up which does not know why refugee camps are formed; does not know why there is an immigration problem in many of the countries in the northern hemisphere; does not realise that, when poorer countries are under such a heavy debt burden, they have to over-graze and over-farm their land, thereby causing people to roam the face of the earth seeking new pasture, new land, a place in which to live and work and have their simple economy.
These things are going to happen in the 21st century. We need to have people who understand that—not just children, but women's groups, employment groups, people who are decision-makers and who influence our life. It is no good putting all our young people through management courses. Whenever I take a confirmation at a public school, about 95 per cent. of the children tell me that they are going to do management studies at university. What is the point of managing if we do not have a vision of the world in which we live, an overall vision which will enable us to see why it is worth managing anything? So I greatly appreciate a debate on this vitally important subject.
We have so much to learn from each other. Last Saturday I heard a splendidly informed presentation on the economy of Peru, a country with which my diocese of Worcester has a link. Four years ago I went to Peru and found there a very poor, feeble economy and terrible terrorism from the Shining Path. During the succeeding four years President Fujimori has done great things. He has brought up the economy and silenced the Shining Path. So what is lacking in Peru? Lacking is
362
a good interface between government and people. The economy is better and terrorism has been silenced, but there is no coherence in the community.
It seems to me that we in the northern hemisphere—not just in the United Kingdom—need to understand that. In all sophisticated countries there is a danger that we live beyond our means. Thereby we leave behind communities who themselves have no stake in the country and no participation in its life. In the end, they will be more expensive as a result of being an underclass. There are ways in which we can understand each other. The wisdom is not always on one side. We have either a common future in the world or no future at all.
As I said, it is essential that we, as citizens, should understand the implications of global interdependence. Perhaps I may return to that point. It has become very clear that we are living beyond our means globally. It is a very difficult situation for politicians to handle. No politician will go to the electorate with a programme which suggests that we must live on less. But the more we stoke up the economy, especially the economies of the sophisticated countries, the more we shall exhaust the globe and leave to our grandchildren an exhausted husk.
The great hope is that there may be some core funding from the Government. I understand that development agencies, such as Christian Aid, spend 10 per cent. of their income on development education. They cannot spend more because the money has been given to go to the poorest and they must see that that is done. I hope that we shall have some reassurance from the Minister that there will be some core funding. It does not have to be total funding, but it must be enough to enable the non-governmental organisations to continue with their work. I hope that people will see that development education is essential to our one world.
About five years ago, I was in Parliament Square for a great demonstration on the needs of what we then called third world countries. At the same time there was a march for jobs taking place in the north of England. We need to bring together such marches. We shall regret it, if we do not enable countries in the rest of the world to become our trading partners. When I was in Ashford, Kent, men of 40 or 45 who were skilled engineers were being laid off. At the same time, the rolling stock in, for example, Tanzania, was so old and decrepit that it was lucky if it reached the end of the journey. We need the markets of other countries if we are to develop our own economy. We live in an interlocking network of economies.
I end by uttering words that I have used before in this House: self-interest so often dictates that which justice demands.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Eames: My Lords, I too welcome the debate and thank the noble Earl for his introduction. Like the debate earlier this afternoon on the university situation, this debate raises issues which transcend party political interest and are for the very definite good of the nation.

363
The term "development education" is not necessarily on everyone's lips. Despite the explanation given by the noble Earl, there is a need to recognise that in the younger generation today there has been a vast change in outlook and there is a sense of responsibility which puts to shame my generation and many in this House when we think of our own lack of responsibility as young people. The substance of that particular attitude consists in such terms as the environment, world issues, justice and need.
But education in that sense is surely much broader than school programmes. Perhaps I may share with the House a definition which, in my experience of working in Northern Ireland, seems to me to illustrate the real substance of development education so far as this debate is concerned: to bring and apply moral responsibility of knowing and caring about the needs of the world to the agenda of everyday life in this nation.
What does that involve? I believe that there are three key issues. From the example set by the noble Baroness the Minister in her work on our behalf, I know that she needs no reminding of them. They are knowledge, support and attitudes. There is more to the world in world development than simply crisis management and the reaction to natural disasters across the world. There is more to world development than assuming that we know better than anyone else how to address human need. It is not always true, I am afraid, in the political sense, but the honest acknowledgement has to be made that certain needs across the world are caused by local mismanagement and local failure and that all the outside aid in the world will not necessarily change that situation. Lastly, there must be recognition of the excellent work being done by the ODA and the prime importance today of links between the ODA and the NGOs.
In 1979 the Government discontinued the development fund. In that instant the challenge was thrown down to the voluntary sector, including the Churches and voluntary organisations. I am glad to say that the challenge was accepted. An average of £4 million per annum has been generated from those sources. Without apology, I for one pay tribute this evening to the work of agencies such as Christian Aid and Save The Children Fund. They are but two of a magnitude of similar agencies.
In all honesty, however, I must also say that the Government have not done enough to promote the importance of global perspectives in education. While the ODA gives support to a number of NGOs involved in development education, that level of support, to our shame, is small compared with the majority of donor aid countries. That surely should be of particular concern for the Department for Education and Employment.
I presume to remind the House of the Minister's words, which she used in 1993. She said:
"Part of our jobs must be to communicate the reality of what happens in other countries around the world in the developing world. And that is where development education comes in".
It is in that context, in the moments that are left to me, that I want to concentrate on one aspect of development education; namely, communication. I refer in particular
364
to the role of the BBC World Service. One hundred and forty million regular listeners tune in to the BBC World Service. Since 1990 that audience has increased by 13 million. It has become the most trusted source of news and information among the international broadcasting networks. Like others in this House, I can relate occasions in developing countries at times of tension and war, which I have myself experienced, when it was a lifeline to those of us who felt cut off from our home country. I think only of the events in which I was involved some years ago in the hostage crisis in the Middle East, when it was not only a lifeline to those of us who tried to help; it was a lifeline to the hostages themselves.
Yet the cuts in 1996–97 amount to some £5.4 million. The cuts in 1997–98 are much more serious. The FCO had already planned a cut of £2 million in operating costs for 1997–98; it has now added a further £2.5 million cut to that, plus£9.5 million to the capital budget. Taking into account inflation and operating consequentials of PFI (Private Finance Initiative) that adds up to nearly £20 million.
I am particularly concerned to learn that there has been an extremely sharp decline in documentary TV programmes on international topics and, more particularly, on developing countries in recent years. I for one find that fact most alarming because surely television is the primary source of information on world affairs for more than 70 per cent. of the British people. Documentaries often add depth and background context to news coverage of international stories.
I may be a voice in the wilderness, but I make the plea that even now these cuts be re-examined, for I believe that in the spirit of the debate which the noble Earl has so ably introduced, such things as the BBC overseas service is a practical way of acknowledging the role of our nation in what I earlier described as bringing the moral responsibility of knowing and caring about the needs of the world to the agenda of everyday life.
In his introduction the noble Earl suggested that we need a national debate. We have heard calls like that before in this House and in another place. But I seriously suggest to the House this evening that this is a debate which will not go away and, as the right reverend Prelate who spoke before me reminded us, touches and concerns not only individual lives, but the whole image of our nation in a one-nation world. I beg to support the words of the noble Earl in his introduction.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I would also like to thank very much the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for bringing this subject to our attention this evening. It is perhaps sad that not more of the places in this House are occupied.
I do not share the noble Earl's sense of guilt about the work of our colonial services. I am just old enough to have seen the work of the colonial civil servants in Malawi. It was something of which I was extremely proud. In the few minutes available to me I wish to show the link between development education and sustainable

365
development, because I believe that this link is very important in underlining the importance of development education.
Some years ago I was chairman of an organisation for sending volunteers overseas. They were young people leaving university and they were sent under the British volunteer programme. I attended a number of the briefing and debriefing sessions. I was deeply moved by the humility which the experience induced in those young people. The year or two years they spent in a developing country taught them how much they had to learn about life as well as how much they had to give.
In the past the philosophy of aid was to export high-tech western solutions wholesale. There was an arrogant assumption that our own technology must be applicable and relevant across the world—no less arrogant perhaps than the assumption that Westminster democracy is capable of being transplanted without adaption. It was Fritz Schumacher, the author of Small is Beautiful, who first popularised the idea that the third world may need radically different solutions because the problems are different. That led to the concept of appropriate technology, which was developed by what was then known as the Intermediate Technology Development Group, which I believe now calls itself Intermediate Technology.
The mindset of appropriate technology, as many of your Lordships will know, is this. High-tech solutions are not always the best. High capital, low labour solutions are not always the best. We must look at the facts of the case in each case. Appropriate technology is about solving problems in ways which are appropriate to the availability and skills of people, to the availability of capital, to the sustainable supply of raw materials and energy and to the ability to absorb pollution or waste. It is that sustainable element which links the concept of appropriate technology with that of sustainable development.
What is interesting is that these same principles are equally applicable in the developed world as they are in the under developed world. They are equally applicable in the rich world and the poor world. As regards Africa, I was recently given an example of how the traditional skills of the potter and the local supplies of mud clay are being used to make clay pipes which are then used for land drainage. The technology of pipe-making and of land drainage are high-tech inputs, but they are making use of local skills and materials. In the same way local potters' skills and local clay are used for developing cooking stoves, which are so important in many countries where the supply of firewood, the only available fuel, is rapidly running out. A proper wood stove can reduce the consumption of firewood by about 70 per cent.
In England one gets a similar use of ingenuity and technology in a very simple way which has always struck me as very impressive; namely, in the development of the baby pushchair with eight wheels. If one has a pushchair with four wheels it cannot be collapsed. If one has a pushchair with eight
366
wheels—and wheels are very cheap and easy to produce nowadays—one can collapse it into something like an umbrella when it is not being used.
There is one other example. The Intermediate Technology Development Group is working in Nepal to produce small hydro-electric generating plants which can give electricity supplies for lighting at night and work machinery during the daytime. It is interesting that a friend of mine is using precisely the same technology in northern Europe and Canada to take advantage of millponds which were used for sawmilling and other purposes, and feeding the electricity that they generate back into the grid. Exactly the same technology is being used in both worlds.
Because appropriate development is a concept which is universally applicable to the solution of design problems, it is an important—nay, an essential—ingredient in the proper teaching of design and technology in schools. There is a way in which development education can be integrated into the curriculum without necessarily having a special curriculum slot. It can become a cross-curricular theme and will then be seen as even more relevant than if it were isolated into one period of the week on, say, a Friday evening. I hope that the Government will encourage the schools to link third-world development issues with an understanding of appropriate development as a concept equally applicable in the North and the South, in rich and poor countries alike. Of course, the needs, resources and ecological problems will be different in every case.
If we are to be effective in the future in supporting the developing world, that means also the developing marketplace, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, and it is essential that our children learn to think in terms of appropriate solutions and to avoid extravagant and unsustainable use of resources and unacceptable pollution both in the developing countries and at home.
7.31 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for tabling this Motion for debate, and I support everything that he said about the need to give a higher priority and more money to development education.
When I did geography in the fifties we learned about Heidi who lived on a little farm in the Swiss Alps and helped her parents to milk the cows and herd the animals. We also learned about Mohinder who lived in a little village in India. Now Heidi and Mohinder are quite likely to live either side of Janet and John. How much the world has changed—in some places and in some respects too much for comfort, while in others not enough.
We need to make sense of that process of change. We need to achieve what I believe to be the right approach, one that leads to a sense of unity in diversity with awareness and understanding. For that to become a reality, development education has to be a priority and must be strongly linked to issues such as the environment, decision-making, science and citizenship.

367
Development is complex and few professionals even appreciate its complexity because of the traditionally narrow focus of expertise. Economists need to be trained to understand more science and technology. Policy-makers need to have a better understanding of geography and the environment. Ecologists need a better understanding of mathematical and economic models. A broadly based development education is just as necessary for professionals as for children of all ages.
I am indebted to Jonathan Briggs, the IT adviser—"IT" here stands for "information technology", not "intermediate technology"—of the World Wide Fund for Nature's UK Education Department, for drawing my attention to their Aswan High Dam CD-ROM project. That is a teaching resource for development strategy. While compiling the package, he and colleagues spoke to many experts in, for example, policy, water management, agriculture and economics, of whom few had a broad picture of how their area of expertise impacted on other sectors and professional areas.
The project was based on work with the International Multimedia Consortium for Environment and Development. One key tool in enabling professionals in different areas to talk the same language is modelling. It can be a mathematical model, but it can also be something much simpler, which I shall describe later. Information technology offers both professionals and students the opportunity to look at issues in the round and see how different viewpoints interact.
However, we should not think only of what could become an ivory tower approach to development education. The very simplest ideas can have powerful and far-reaching benefits, and take root and develop their own momentum. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, an enormous amount has been done over more than a quarter of a century by the Intermediate Technology Development Group at Rugby. Intermediate Technology has delegated the creation of practical solutions using appropriate technology to many everyday problems of living in poorer countries to offices in other parts of the world and now concentrates on advocacy of development projects which dovetail into the existing level of technology in the area under discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, touched on an example of that, and I should like to add to what he said. I refer to the Arun Dam project in Nepal where the World Bank is thinking again about the wisdom of a large-scale project that bypasses local technology—indeed, bypasses local people because it would be uneconomic to supply communities in the vicinity of the dam. Such issues need to be made real to professionals and schoolchildren in the developed world so that decisions are made by taking all aspects of the situation into account. Today's schoolchildren are tomorrow's decision-makers. The Intermediate Technology Development Group also has an extensive and effective track record in development education but, as other noble Lords have said, it is hampered by a lack of funds. With a little more money, it could do a lot more work.
I shall now take on the role of development educator myself and give the House an overview of a contribution to world development that should be far better known
368
than it is at present, one that is having a hugely beneficial effect in many parts of the world. It also has lessons for us that apply to the whole of education, including development education. The point has been made that development is not just about the nuts and bolts of technology; far more fundamentally, it is about unleashing the potential of individuals. It was individuals who created our industrialisation in Britain and it is individuals who are going to make the difference in the third world.
There are two initiatives from Africa among many educational projects using this study method which deserve particular mention in this respect as they give individuals the educational tools that they need to be able to study, understand and apply any subject. I mentioned modelling earlier, and I should like to describe one aspect of this approach to education where modelling plays an important role.
The key datum is that when a person has a full, conceptual understanding of something, they are able to portray it in some form, whether by using odds and ends to represent the component parts of the idea or sketching it or using modelling clay to represent it. If a person is unable to do that, there is some aspect of it that they do not fully understand and a re-study of all or part of it is indicated. That completely eliminates vacuous learning by rote. The first, second and third worlds all need people who can apply what they have learned.
There are other components of this methodology, such as knowing the purpose of studying a particular subject or topic, and the identification and elimination of the three barriers to study, but time does not permit me a more detailed discussion of them.
Modelling is also important to enable people to share their world view with others, whether it is done on a sophisticated piece of software or whether, as in the case of the schoolchildren of Zimbabwe, it is done using locally available clay that is cheap and plentiful.
The entire teacher-training programme of Zimbabwe is undergoing a fundamental re-orientation. Having successfully achieved their goal of education in quantity by creating schools in the remotest part of the country, the Government there have turned their attention to improving quality, using the methodology that I have been describing. To that end, they have embarked on an ambitious, five-year programme to retrain all their existing teachers and to train all the new teachers in the new methods. In case some noble Lords are worried that "new methods" might mean the discredited disaster that began in the 1960s in the developed world, I should emphasise that the educational process that I am describing is precisely the best way to ensure that the basics, and more complex studies, are fully absorbed and available for use as I described earlier.
I am running out of time, so I can give only one example. I am privileged, as a Scientologist, to be kept informed of those and other achievements of my fellow Scientologists who now number some 8 million worldwide. The educational method which I have just mentioned is the Hubbard Study Technology, which is based on research by the author and humanitarian, L. Ron Hubbard, who also founded my religion. In fact,

369
as well as being a prolific author, his gift to world development encompasses education, training in business and administrative skills, and moral education. The uptake of those courses is running at a rate of expansion of about 40 per cent. per annum—and for one reason only: people find them to be effective and useful. Large-scale projects implementing the educational programme are also under way in Colombia and China, and there are many smaller projects in many other countries. It is also used for inner-city projects in the United Kingdom.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I saw the purpose of development education as being to achieve a sense of unity in diversity with awareness and understanding. One aspect that occurs to me is that intercultural education among the different cultures living together in the United Kingdom has a part to play in the process because development does not take place in a cultural vacuum. It is greatly affected by, and in turn affects, the culture in which it takes place. To understand that culture will make it easier to comprehend what is happening in the poorer countries of the world.
7.40 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandwich for introducing today's debate. As noble Lords will be aware, my noble friend speaks from an enormous amount of experience and expertise on this subject. My only regret is that as a Cross-Bench debate there are not more contributions from the other Benches to this extremely important matter.
The debate appears to address two distinct issues: development communication and development education. Both are vital to Britain's standing in the world or, more accurately, understanding at home and abroad of sustainable development in developing countries. What is it, why does it seem to be so elusive and what is Britain doing on its own, and collectively through the European Union and multilateral institutions, to promote it? In considering development communication, I welcome the policy of the ODA to "laser beam" on the poorest countries and the most vulnerable people in those countries (to use President Clinton's parlance). I also welcome the ODA's commitment to sustainable development and the emphasis in its bilateral and multilateral activities to support human rights, democracy and good governance.
There appears to be a clear shift away from a belief that a few hundred Potemkin projects dotted around the developing world will do much to stimulate long-term development. With this new emphasis, my call today is for more effective support and funding for communication. This call was eloquently elaborated upon by my noble friend Lord Eames. Communication is the warp and weft of sustainable development. How can greater awareness of problems and solutions be created without information? How can projects be replicated and effectively disseminated without reliable information, everything from villager talking to villager to satellite television broadcasts?
370
I declare an interest as president of Friends of Television Trust of the Environment, a charity established in Britain 10 years ago, which is committed to the production and distribution of films on all aspects of global sustainable development. One of the objectives of Her Majesty's Government, ably steered by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is to help promote democracy in developing countries. But what is the hallmark of any democratic society? Surely, it is the free flow of information. A survey conducted in 1993 by Inter Press news service in Rome found that less than 0.1 per cent. of development assistance went to this most vital of all sectors. The nub of the problem is that there are no readymade indicators or handy graphs to chart the increase in, say, rice production or housing units. Project appraisals require measurable results. Unfortunately, awareness building and public education can rarely deliver results in such concrete terms; yet, as noble Lords are aware, it is public opinion that leads. For example, would we have a protocol to ban CFCs if it were not for the international fuss that followed the British discovery of the hole in the ozone layer?
When it comes to modern communications, Britain is an acknowledged leader. We hear so much of the information revolution and the 300 or so satellites in geo-stationary orbit that have broken governments' stranglehold on information around the world. They beam down pictures to 1 billion or more television sets, or nearly one for every five people on the planet. But what do viewers get from this orbital tower of Babel? They get pop stars, soap operas and quiz shows. I shudder to think of the impact that this output has on developing countries where the single biggest consumer item is the colour television set.
TVE has met almost 35,000 orders for programmes on environmental and developmental issues in developing countries. Next month is the start of the world's first weekly news feed on sustainable development via BBC World with Sir David Attenborough. First and foremost, its mission is to help programme makers from developing nations express their views on development. I am happy to note that that activity has been generously supported by the ODA. But for every 10 orders that it receives, the trust can respond to only one. This unique service exists only through the support of ODA's counterparts in Holland, Denmark and Sweden.
It is vital that the public in Britain should be made more aware of what Her Majesty's Government, and especially the ODA, are doing to address the needs of developing countries. For example, I am sure that few members of the British public are aware of the recent agreement signed by the Minister and the Mpumalanga Premier in South Africa for Britain to spend R14 million over the next three years in retraining 1,600 primary school teachers in that province in mathematics, English, science and technology, ably assisted by British educational specialists.
Unfortunately, time precludes me from saying much about the second issue raised in this debate: development education in our country. The subject has been comprehensively and ably covered by other noble Lords who have spoken, in particular my noble friend

371
Lord Sandwich. Like other noble Lords, I commend the work of the Development Education Association in promoting the efforts of all those organisations engaged in bringing about better public understanding in the United Kingdom of global and development issues. Compared with many other countries in Europe, such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, sadly the British Government give minimal support to development education. A recent survey sponsored by the International Broadcast Trust revealed that United Kingdom television showed less and less about the world inhabited by three-quarters of humanity.
Crisis and disaster are the staple output of news broadcasts. With rare and honourable exceptions, such as Channel 4's Africa Express, the view one gets is of continents riven by corruption, natural disaster and political instability. The other more positive picture of a developing world that returns its investments, continents that need modest investments to unleash enterprise and more people better fed than at any time in history, rarely comes through on our television screens. Many NGOs in this country do sterling work to educate the public through formal and non-formal channels. There are only two minority television channels that are prepared to give serious coverage of the third world, and yet we know that 80 per cent. of the public in this country cite television as their first source of information. One of the tasks of Friends of Television Trust of the Environment is to develop a thematic development education video library for the United Kingdom. The trust has access to hundreds of films that have never been broadcast in this country which can be a major resource for the multipliers.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether she can give any indication about further investment and encouragement by Her Majesty's Government in the work of the NGOs and agencies that are committed to promoting development education in the United Kingdom—an investment to ensure that our citizens know what their role is in the global village, so long predicted and now a reality.
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sandwich on choosing this subject for debate today and on giving us notice yesterday in a little meeting we had in another part of the building that he would pursue it. I am not an expert on the subject, but I agree with him that there should be a national debate on it. It will be difficult to put it into motion, and the type of national debate may turn out to be more political than we sitting here might think.
In his excellent speech, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester asked a number of questions. They were political. They were about debt and levels of consumption. He said that we were living beyond our means. He said that was a difficult question for politicians to deal with. The national debate may be more political than we might think.
372
Those of us who have been in the House long enough may remember the late Lord Hatch of Lusby. This was one of his subjects. He had a particular agenda. He did not seem to engage the sympathy of the House on the subject, but I believe that the climate has changed.
I shall focus on the educational and advocacy work of the charity Population Concern, and the importance of putting what, in shorthand, I shall call "population" as an essential part of development education. Before I do so I should like to mention two other matters which have already been partly touched upon.
First, my noble friend Lord Sandwich asked an oral Question on this subject last week. I intended to ask the Minister an innocent question about the effectiveness of one of her department's main publications entitled British Overseas Development. I was interested to know the audience at which it is targeted. The subtitle of that fairly glossy publication, which usually has a schools section, is, "How British aid works in partnership with developing countries".
I now understand that the future direction of that magazine might be under review as part of a larger reassessment of communications. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if the Minister would give us her thoughts as to how her department might be intending to communicate cost-effectively to a wider public the non-emergency achievements of the ODA.
Secondly, perhaps I may mention an aspect of the work of the International Broadcasting Trust which is supported by the major and some smaller UK development charities. It provides a continuing base and organisation for high quality television programmes about development, environmental and human rights issues.
The vital role of television broadcasting has already been mentioned, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Eames and Lord St. John. According to the ITC, more than 70 per cent. of the British public—I believe Lord St. John said 80 per cent.—cites television as its main source of information on international issues.
This country has a reputation for excellent standards of documentaries, but in recent years there has been a marked decline in international coverage, especially of developing countries. According to research by the Third World and Environment Broadcasting Project, which is related and connected to the IBT, on the BBC, that decline in the five years to 1994 has been of the order of 30 or 40 per cent. (according to whether peak time broadcasts alone are measured).
Similar declines in coverage have taken place on ITV and, although not so sharply, on Channel 4. The IBT and documentary makers have obviously to be responsive to the needs and pressures that changing circumstances present. What is of concern is that a publicly accessible record of the extent of such programming, and its decline is not available from the broadcasters. That the BBC, or the BBC governors, for example, should be so aware, was advocated by the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Elis-Thomas, in the debate on the BBC Charter in this House on 9th January. I echo the importance of that request.

373
Geography has been mentioned during the debate. According to the BBC education department, 87 per cent. of all secondary school geography departments use mainstream TV programmes as teaching aids in the classroom.
I come now to my main subject—what I called earlier "population", by which I mean the wider concerns of population and reproductive health, in the implied context of sustainability. As the House may know, the Minister in particular and her department have a very good record in this area, but I believe that she would agree with me that it is especially important in this sphere to have the informed support of the public. That is so not just in the providing of funds but to raise the standard of the debates and arguments that break out periodically on this issue.
It is part of the remit of the charity Population Concern, which was originally part of the FPA but became independent in 1991, to provide information and education in the UK on this subject. Because of the longer term effects and results of what is done in this field, it sometimes seems a difficult issue to advocate; but it is increasingly and more widely seen as an essential part of the more fashionable sustainability at which we are all meant to be aiming.
In the UK, Population Concern has limited resources to provide some specialised educational material to schools. In addition, it holds successful schools conferences—usually twice a year—for large numbers of students in a particular town or city. With a dramatic speaker such as its president, Dr. David Bellamy, the hope is to put population growth into the wider green context of sustainability, including mention of the levels of consumption in this country.
I describe that partly to show on what a relatively small scale such educational endeavours take place. Similarly, on wider public awareness, again resources are understandably limited, and, as in other examples we have heard today, a greater reliance has to be placed upon the good sense of the media.
A limited amount of direct advertising is possible for an organisation such as Population Concern, and it so happens that this week it has the back page of The House magazine. That is appropriate this week as it is flash-banded "International women's week" which some of us learnt about for the first time last night in "Today in Parliament".
This debate is not the place to advocate the merits of reproductive health, but I hope that the Minister and her department will continue to encourage the education and advocacy roles of Population Concern. They are essential to a full understanding of the wider concept of global sustainability to which we are all committed in the long term.
Finally, as I have a minute, I hope the House will allow me to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the particular and rare honour that she has been given in this field in being asked to deliver the Rafael Salas Memorial Lecture at the UNFPA, I believe at the end of the month. Mr. Salas was a former director of the UNFPA. This is an annual lecture which is given
374
at the UN in New York. She will be following in the illustrious footsteps of people such as Mrs. Brundtland, Robert McNamara and Prince Philip. It is a well-deserved honour for the work she has done in this field, and we wish her well.
8 p.m.
Baroness Willoughby de Eresby: My Lords, in a country which not so long ago was a trading empire, the British Government spend surprisingly little on development education. When I left school I felt that I was a citizen of the world. I felt special ties and responsibilities to countries of the Commonwealth. We shared the experience of the war. Those who are now completing their education do not have the same sense of shared experience. The links of goodwill and friendship which we still have around the world will weaken unless young people when leaving school have a global awareness of interdependence and a sense of responsibility as world citizens. I therefore welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lord Sandwich in bringing forward this debate on development education. I hope that tonight is the beginning of a debate which will long continue.
For more than a quarter of a century I have worked on and off for overseas development projects at community level, mainly with the Save the Children Fund. At this late hour I wish to make only two points. There is a huge amount of material within the NGOs' work overseas waiting to be put in a format that can be used. It was very frustrating for those who worked full-time (unlike myself), who gave their lives to working in development overseas and who had the information and were asked for it by the universities in the countries in which they worked and by international agencies; but it was not within our remit to spend funds on developing academic material.
The material exists and is waiting to be used. Relatively small amounts of funding would release the knowledge that has been accumulated by the NGOs from their overseas work into the national curriculum and environmental education. Within secondary education there are cross-curricular themes on economic understanding. The domestic context in which that is taught could easily be expanded into a global one. Recently the Department for Education and Employment co-operated with the Department for the Environment to fund cross-curricular environmental studies. The pattern exists and the Department for Education and Employment could explore, in co-operation with the ODA, the possibility of putting a small amount of funding towards that.
One of the main trends in the work of the NGOs overseas with their partner countries has been the increasing emphasis on in-service training. That ranges from kindergarten teachers with a few years of primary education behind them, to health workers with even less, through middle management and technicians, to the specialists courses developed within the universities. In-service specialist training is perhaps the most cost-effective form of development aid which can be given. However, the initial trainers need to be trained within this country.

375
There is a wide role for co-operation and co-operative funding between the Department for Education and Employment and the ODA to look at this subject through courses run within institutions of higher and further education. I hope that the debate that has begun will reach towards that. It is an area to which in the future we may see more aid being channelled. The importance of in-service training overseas and training in the countries within which we work cannot be too greatly emphasised.
In supporting the Motion of my noble friend Lord Sandwich in calling for Papers on the role of the Government in development education in the United Kingdom, I wish to say how much the World Service means to countries overseas. As we live in a country in which we sometimes feel the press is almost too free and untrammelled, it is sometimes difficult to realise what it is like to live in a country in which the only way of knowing what is happening there is to tune in to the World Service Overseas.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating the debate. During the time that he has been a Member of your Lordships' House he has shown that he has a great deal of optimism as regards development, which is most refreshing to see. However, he showed optimism about the ability of the English cricket team in the World Cup which I am afraid I do not share.
The world is becoming a much smaller place and I find it amazing that one can travel to any country in Africa in less than 12 hours. Considering that the world is such a small place, it is also interesting to discover that there is little real knowledge about the situation on the ground in many countries in Africa. I must admit that in my own schooling I had no education in development—at least none that I remember—and many people can say that they had a lack of teaching. My knowledge about development comes from living, working and travelling in Africa for two years. When I was there in 1991 I worked out that moving between Nairobi and South Africa were about 40 travellers from many different countries. There were so few that one could almost count them. It was ridiculous. The problem is that among the general public few people have knowledge about what is going on in those countries. Of course, I do not include those working for the various organisations. I do not include the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, because he always brings to our debates a wide knowledge of Africa.
One of the problems about there being so few people who know about the area is that often many of the solutions to situations in Africa do not meet the needs. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised that issue. Although the situation is changing, I remember talking to subsistence farmers who had been advised to use fertiliser which they could neither obtain nor afford because it was beyond their means.
We must look at local solutions. Recently I heard a piece of good news about a clockwork radio which has been developed in Africa. It was pioneered in this
376
country. I know that it sounds absolutely ridiculous but batteries are almost impossible to obtain in many parts of Africa and are extremely expensive. Therefore, a clockwork radio which can be produced in developing countries is an amazingly useful device. I am not sure whether it can pick up the World Service. The Minister seems to believe that it can. Therefore, I hope that no cuts will be made to the World Service which may reduce the ability of people to listen to it, as I believe the World Service is an extremely useful tool for the dissemination of information about Britain.
The point of the debate is to look at the way in which people in this country gain information about the developing world. I should point out that I was surprised to discover that every child now has to learn about development from primary level to the age of 14. We welcome that. It is a significant step forward. Development education is now a compulsory part of the national curriculum.
Perhaps I may raise a few suggestions to improve that form of education, which I ask the Minister to think about. I believe that more should be done in the area of teacher training so that teachers are given more information and do more groundwork on which to base their education. Funding needs to be earmarked by the DFEE to support teacher training in the specific area of development education. That is particularly so in the case of primary school teachers who are not specialists in that field and in many cases often have no real knowledge of development issues.
I realise that some NGOs have organised excellent in-service training programmes. At this point, I must declare an interest as I am vice-chairman of World Aware. But NGOs have very limited resources and if the schemes are not run by the DFEE, NGOs themselves will have only a limited impact. Therefore, I ask the Minister what steps are being taken within the department to ensure the provision of relevant teaching material and, indeed, what funding has been provided to produce that.
I was surprised to find also that development education is not referred to specifically in the national curriculum. It is not mentioned within the youth work core curriculum. It is unfortunate that it does not have the same status and recognition as environmental education. That situation would be quite difficult to remedy, since development education is buried within one area and one concept; namely, geography. Will the Minister give an indication as to how development could be developed further into a subject on its own?
Noble Lords have mentioned the role of the media is disseminating information. We do not have a very responsible media. Very few good stories are publicised and one rarely sees the name of the ODA other than in connection with disaster relief. There are many areas in which the good news about development could be spread. That is happening slowly. Much of the work being done at present in South Africa is being aired on the television and is being brought forward. However, we should ensure that information is given to children so that they have

377
positive images of the area. If that is not done, they will be left with the image of a third world which is suffering desperately.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has presented the case for development education gently but thoroughly and persuasively. Something that has come out of the speech made by the noble Earl, and four other speakers, including the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Eames, is that despite our long historical connection with the world beyond Europe, the Government are far from generous in their support for development education, particularly compared with a number of other countries some of which have never had a colonial past.
The noble Baroness would perhaps be in a stronger position in the annual spending round if the nationwide constituency for development assistance was larger and better informed. But people and particularly children are now more globally aware than they used to be because of travel and also because of the more international population that we have in our midst.
As the majority of noble Lords have pointed out, images on television whet the appetite to know more about other places and cultures. But too often the fairly rare programmes which there are on overseas issues are centred more on environmental concerns where people are the enemy or on programmes on animal or plant life rather than human life. I do not run down the incredibly skilled programmes that are made about wildlife in all countries of the world. Indeed, I am addicted to them. But where people feature, they are often the victims of conflict or disaster, natural or man-made. There are not enough success stories or programmes which show how good development can prevent or mitigate future disasters.
On previous occasions the noble Baroness has remarked on how 80 per cent. or more of media coverage concentrates on the 20 per cent. or less of the ODA's work which is concerned with emergency relief. A few years ago, in answer to a Harris poll, 82 per cent. of adults said that they should know what is happening in developing countries but only 45 per cent. of them felt that their knowledge was adequate.
Editors and programme directors seem to think that development is not newsworthy, despite the existence of many gifted journalists who sometimes manage to squeeze first-class news items past editors. That is sometimes only as feature articles and occasionally as real news. We could do very much better in that area. If the Government were more pro-active towards development education, editors and directors of programmes would respond. That is certainly an area which Labour will explore in due course. If properly handled, it should not require very much extra government money.
In the field of television, an exception is the Open University, which has set a very fine example through courses here and outreach to other countries; for example, South Africa, Zimbabwe, eastern Europe and
378
the former Soviet Union. Government assistance for development education is not generous. I believe that I have done my sums slightly differently from the noble Earl. I find that Government spending represents £640,000, which is just over 1.1p per head of the population. A number of other countries do far better. Sweden, which is top of the list, spends £1.22 per head of its population. The Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Ireland all do well with more than 40 pence per head.
The noble Earl quoted the President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, saying,
"Development education challenges complacency".
In the same speech she continued:
"a tolerant and emphatic Ireland demands such a challenge for its vibrant and dynamic realisation".
However, development education in the UK depends, as we have heard, on NGOs which contribute more than £5 million. That is eight times as much as the Government, though some of the money that the NGOs receive comes from the ODA, and the Open University receives a government grant. However, the future of the Open University's funding is now in doubt; and many NGOs are worried about whether their funding will be sustained.
As other noble Lords have said, development education should start, as it often starts, in schools, where lifelong attitudes can be formed. But that is not the end of the matter. There are hundreds of examples of good practice through local development education centres and local authorities up and down the country. Most of those are funded locally or with NGO assistance. Their programmes have been imaginative: building links with overseas communities, staging cultural events, and exchange programmes. The local initiatives which they have shown deserve greater central support, if not in cash terms, at least with more central government blessing and encouragement.
Perhaps I may say a few words about schools. Global perspectives in education can be slotted into almost every subject within today's national curriculum. The curriculum leaves much to the ingenuity and inventiveness of individual schools and teachers. The Development Education Association's book of guidelines gives suggestions for teachers on how almost every subject can be given a global aspect. It may be easy to understand how geography, history or science can have a development aspect, but even mathematics can be taught with a global view. It suggests using as a database Go bananas, a book published by Oxfam which traces the journey of a banana from the Caribbean to the UK, with photographs and a map. It suggests other cross-curricular applications and activities.
Teachers have to be convinced of the need to teach from the global point of view. Development education needs to be part of teacher training, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. While there are some good pioneering programmes, especially at Goldsmiths College, progress is still patchy. It would be interesting to know what the Department for Education and Employment is doing about that, if anything.

379
Much teaching about development issues in schools has until now been provided for or contributed to by NGOs, especially Oxfam, Christian Aid and the Council for Education in World Citizenship, to name a few. It would be interesting to know—if the figure can be separated—how much the Department for Education spends on development education. Can the noble Baroness give us any figures on that?
I was sad to hear that the government funding for the Council for Education in World Citizenship is being phased out. Is that really true? The organisation has been around for as long as I can remember, doing very good work in increasing international understanding.
This has been a useful debate of which we on these Benches will take note. We shall study the many well informed and careful speeches. I have not been able to acknowledge everyone who has spoken. However, if and when there is a change of government, we hope to restore development education to its rightful place and set up a development education council to co-ordinate national policy, which will co-operate with the Development Education Association. I see that my 10 minutes are up. I have more to say, but I shall leave the matter there.
8.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I am pleased that there is such a strong interest both in our development assistance programme and in its communication to our people at home and overseas.
Just as important, there are many noble Lords who are anxious that aid and development issues are understood much more widely than at present. I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said that we need a clearer vision of the world. That is one thing that certainly I or my colleagues in the department are seeking to give: a clearer, realistic vision of the world. That is why I have always participated in the One World Week and the excellent organisation that that gives us.
First, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, upon his work on development education and upon securing this debate. As colleagues will realise, it follows very closely on his oral Question last week and indeed a Question for Written Answer the week before that. The noble Earl is quickly building a reputation as a development education expert in this House.
I hope that we shall all mark and inwardly digest the words of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in his excellent maiden speech last November. They really were most apposite. He said:
"Development education is not secondary to our support for other countries; it is a part of it".—[Official Report, 16/11/95; col. 39.]
"One hundred per cent. right", is the only comment that I can make on that. We are living in an increasingly interdependent world. It is important that people are aware of major economic and social issues affecting developing countries. These issues are much too often ignored by the British media but they affect us all. Instability and poverty in any country undermine peace and prosperity in many others in both the North and the
380
South. The environment, whether it he air, water, forestry, is shared. No country is immune from the effects of environmental degradation. Perhaps we have learnt a good deal since the hole in the ozone layer was found. Indeed, I believe that we have worked well since Rio in seeking to bring developing countries to an understanding of what can be done to help the environment in the future. Certainly, ODA is working very actively in that field.
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Willoughby de Eresby, who commented upon the lack of the right publicity, as did a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rea. It is true that I attain around 90 per cent. of publicity for 12 per cent. of my budget; and that I really regret. However, ODA has been making a special effort, and we shall increase that still further, to make sure that the good news development stories—of which there are so many across the world—are put in a way which may persuade editors and those who decide the final version of newspapers and programmes to include the good news for a change, because there is a great deal of positive action going on.
We have an information programme, to which I attach great importance. I wish briefly to outline the information strategy. It is in two parts: activities which publicise the work of ODA and British development overseas; and activities which raise public awareness of opportunities for aid and development generally. Inevitably the two overlap. One cannot publicise our development work overseas without raising in the UK awareness of life in those developing countries. Our development education programmes also help to make people aware of why an organisation like the ODA must exist.
I shall deal with ODA's publicity first. This is achieved in a number of ways: liaising with the press; issuing publications such as our annual review; producing a bi-monthly newspaper, British Overseas Development—I shall return to that in just a moment—attending exhibitions, including our roadshow bus that tours the country; having our own pages on the Internet, and also through my speeches and television and radio interviews. We have tried to get as much coverage as we can reasonably achieve for the developments that we are so busy working upon. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was absolutely right to say that we must have more coverage of long-term development.
A number of the operations which we carry out are really development education. The school section of the British Overseas Development newspaper consists largely of stories and features that cover development issues in ways that appeal to schoolchildren. However, we are looking at a revamp of British Overseas Development to make it even more useful, and not only to the youngest children. Our roadshow bus has a number of general exhibits on it to attract children and to excite their imagination. There are the weevils munching their way through a jar of maize to illustrate the damage that pests cause to crops. The bus also has a fuel efficient stove and a solar powered water pump to show there are other ways of generating power which

381
do not involve cutting down trees. What we are seeking to do with these exhibits is to put over in a simple way important points which will be remembered.
Our development education budget of almost £650,000 is not as large as I would like, but it is valuably spent on grants to NGOs with sound projects which promote factual information about development. Principally we provide the core grant to Worldaware—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has worked with that organisation in the past, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is a vice chairman of it. I hope they know of its excellent contribution in this field although I think, from what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said tonight, he obviously has not learnt everything that Worldaware has put out.
We also support the Development Education Association, which was set up in 1993 to co-ordinate the work of all those involved in development education. We are currently helping to fund four projects which give a good snapshot of the work of that association: linking young people and global youth work; promoting awareness of development education in further education; building up greater access to information and resources; and working with ethnic minority groups in the United Kingdom. We are also supporting Education Partners Overseas, which has built up many links between schools in this country and the developing world. I met Tanzanian schoolchildren here in your Lordships' House just last year to help these links have a reality for those Tanzanians who came here. We were all sad to hear of the death last month of the first director of Education Partners Overseas, but we hope that many others will continue to work in Jean Burroughs' memory.
One of our newest ventures is the support for OneWorld Online. This is an organisation which puts development material on the Internet. It has just been voted Internet's site of the year by the Earth Times. It is now getting more than three-quarters of a million "hits" a month. For those who are interested in the subject and have access to computers, it is obviously a valuable way of putting out information. There are also two other new projects with great possibilities. The first is a proposal by the One World Broadcasting Group and the International Broadcasting Trust for a major magazine series on the developing world to be shown on Channel 4. A number of your Lordships have spoken of that. The other project just agreed is an initial grant—as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, mentioned—to the Television Trust for the Environment. This is for research into a major project to commemorate the millennium with a television series on the developing world. We look forward to co-operating fully on that.
This is but a snapshot of our work on development education and awareness. I wish to comment on some of the remarks made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, spoke of knowing and caring about the needs of the world. I fully agree with him. One of the things we should remember, and I hope tap into, is the actual strengths that exist in the developing countries themselves, because their experience teaches us and teaches the volunteer, and, I hope, may in turn better
382
inform the British public. The noble Lord is right to say that there are situations where one needs to help correct local mismanagement and prevent future failures. But if we work in partnership—as the ODA always tries to do—in these countries, we receive just as much back as we give in our teaching. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his recognition of how the ODA works.
I wish to say a few words about our links with the NGOs. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, was worried about whether their money will be sustained in the future. Every year since I have been in the department—all seven years—the grants to the NGOs from the ODA have increased. That will happen yet again for the financial year 1996–97. I have already informed the NGOs of that. Our ODA policy is to fund national organisations which have good projects, and in this particular case those who specialise in development education. There are a number of them: Worldaware, the Development Education Association, and Education Partners Overseas I have mentioned. We do not fund directly the development education work of the traditional NGOs but that is only because we do not wish to duplicate the work that the NGOs are doing, and many of them produce material of their own which is quite excellent. There is no reason for us to copy it. However, much of the work we do concerns development education. Although there are some first-class leaders in the field of development education among NGOs, we are looking to see what more we may do.
There have been a number of comments about the national curriculum during the debate tonight. I wish to make it quite clear that the study of developing countries is an integral part of the national curriculum. I do not go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, because schools have asked that we should have a moratorium on changes in the national curriculum at the present time, and that will be the case. It is a mandatory part of the syllabus of every child up to the age of 14 to be required to compare countries at different stages of development; in other words, one developed and one developing country. There is a similar theme for those taking geography at GCSE level. Junior schoolchildren study a locality, usually a small village or town in a developing country. Worldaware has provided course material for some of those studies.
There are links between Ofsted and Worldaware to consider the ways in which development education is taught in schools. An Ofsted member has a place on the Worldaware council. The recent Ofsted study noted that none of its inspectors' reports found any difficulties as regards teaching about development. That indeed is good news, but let us have more of that sort of good news. I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that I seem to remember as a youngster learning a great deal about hydraulics and metal stress through examples from the developing world. That was many, many years ago.
Noble Lords: Not that long ago!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, oh yes, it was a long while ago.

383
I was asked about teacher training and development education by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. The DFEE is supporting teacher training in development education. It makes a grant—that has amounted to over £90 million since 1989<—to support school effectiveness under the national curriculum. It is up to the schools to decide whether they want to take that for teacher training, for books, equipment or management. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Willoughby de Ereshy, will be glad to hear that. There are courses in the UK for in-service teachers and my noble friend Lord Henley, who is listening to this debate, will seek to give further information by letter on anything that I cannot cover tonight. However, there is a great deal of information available and I can inform the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we are working with the DFEE to consider what more we can do with it to provide more opportunities in this field.
There is nothing wrong with the European Union spending on development education. We should never forget that the United Kingdom contributes over 16 per cent. of the European Union budget, and this is a very good example of multilateral and bilateral spending complementing one another. There is also a good deal of work going on in the Open University and the Open University's work in development education has been particularly good in the use of four textbooks they have prepared on development and the new edition of the development atlas. There is a great deal more information about that available which I can let your Lordships have if you would wish.
We have talked this evening about the ODA's communications philosophy. We have recently carried out a communications survey. This has come up with a number of recommendations. We have already established a high level strategy group which will guide the Department on communications and therefore we will have, we hope, more of the good news which we collect all around the world getting out to those who need to be informed. We are already getting our staff to give us more information in the Information Department about what we are doing. We are formulating a more effective publication strategy because this is something with which I have not been totally satisfied.
I mentioned that British Overseas Development is being revamped. It has been a success and I am glad to say that the circulation has risen by over 60 per cent. in the last year. Of course BOD has been circulated free and goes to schools, businesses, engineers, journalists, many members of your Lordships' House and another place, and many interested members of the public, but we want to make sure that it is absolutely right for the future.
One of the things the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, talked about was an improvement in communications, and that improvement has to be not only in this country but worldwide. That is why it was ODA who invested in the development of the free play wind-up radio, and I believe that that was £200,000 extremely well spent. The radio is being produced in a factory in Cape Town, mainly by disabled people, and it is beginning already to have the most remarkable
384
effect. We have bought the first 3,000 wind-up radios and are distributing them through NGOs and to others who can make good use of them. We hope that this will be a proper commercial project, because it deserves to be and it can be.
There were many other comments. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, spoke about the BBC World Service. I am second to nobody in my admiration for the World Service. It is a great national asset and the most successful international broadcasting service of any country. I wish that the BBC at home took more of the programmes that are actually produced by the World Service because they are of such high quality. However, we have to balance resources for the World Service with many others, including the Development Programme and the British Council. Each has a major role to play and we shall continue to ensure that they can make their unique contributions as effectively as possible.
There were a number of comments about large projects at the beginning of the debate tonight. May I say that, whereas there used to be large development projects, a great deal has changed and I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we have much more simple technology which we use in many of our projects. If there were time I would describe the micro-hydro of Nepal to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was referring, but of course we support the Intermediate Technology Development Group and have done for many years. It is that sort of development technology which can work so well. In this case a little money does go a long way.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, spoke about the need for a national debate, not a party political one. I agree with him very much in this, and one of the welcome things is that the climate of opinion about development education has changed since the late Lord Hatch of Lusby first started his campaigning. It is a much more positive and much more co-operative campaigning that is going on. What is most important is that we should ensure that we pick up all those instances where something is said about development, examine them, and put them right. It therefore often falls to me to try to correct some of the myths that arise and I have to say that there are an increasing number of people on the ground in Africa who really do know what is going on and I do not think we should be misled by what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. When he rereads his speech he will see what I mean.
May I say of the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, that I was grateful to him for his comments on ODA's good record and also for his underlining of the need for informed support. I well remember a school conference run by Population Concern in Harrogate way back in 1990. I hope they will go on doing their very valuable education work about family planning and sustainable development. Such work is absolutely vital. I thank the noble Viscount for his kind words about the Rafael Salas Memorial Lecture. I shall of course be talking partly about the whole question of development.
We are changing for the better; we are learning from the past and we are involving business in backing the development education that we are doing. We spend

385
over £2.2 billion of the public's money. We believe the public have a right to know how we spend it. That is why we are increasing our information effort and I am greatly encouraged by the interest taken in today's debate. I can assure your Lordships that we will continue to work to raise people's awareness of the reality of life in developing countries and will use every possible means at our disposal to do so.
8.46 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to introduce this debate and to hear so many supportive statements from noble Lords and finally by the Minister herself for a subject which I know she has well under control. I was very moved particularly by Lady Willoughby de Eresby's reference to the loss of contact around the world; and to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I have nothing disparaging to say about colonial administrators, but I wish they had known about the appropriate technology in those days as well. I also wish there were more colonial administrators in this debate because the line of Benches before me is full of people who have extraordinary experience of development education. My Lords, where are they? I am sad that there is so little understanding of the nature of this debate on the Conservative Benches, and I hope that will be part of the Minister's development education campaign, perhaps through Central Office.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his place. Having watched him facing a phalanx of university chancellors and professors single handed on the Benches opposite I have nothing but admiration for him and I wish he were able to answer this debate because I know it particularly concerns him and it has not been quite fair that the task has fallen between two Ministers. However, I have seen the Ministers having conversations and I am ever hopeful that we shall see a joint approach with DFEE and ODA together. I am not certain that I have had enough encouragement from the Minister in the direction of the curriculum. It is true to say that teachers do not want to be interfered with and the curriculum has been established for a number of years, but we are now having to think forward about how we shall approach the curriculum in, let us say, three years. It may be less. Who knows what is going to happen next year after the general election? There may be a shake-up and we now need to think what is the joint approach that could be made. I urge the Minister to join with voluntary organisations.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Eames, for giving us a reminder of the moral responsibility and I know that he, perhaps alone in this debate, has experience of bringing people together in the most remarkable way. This is a talent which he has established and which I hope we shall follow in thinking about the value of other cultures together and their influence.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, for raising important questions, and to the right reverend Prelate for reminding us of the Church's involvement in his diocese.
386
I thank all those who have joined in the debate, and I am most grateful for the Minister's positive response. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
8.49 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is the second attempt that I have made to introduce a Bill designed to outlaw discrimination in employment on grounds of sexual orientation. The last time was on 14th July last year (reported at col. 2004 of Hansard), but it was too late in the parliamentary Session for it to make much progress beyond Second Reading. Unfortunately, for personal reasons, I was unable then to introduce the Bill earlier. However, that Second Reading debate was useful in giving me some idea of what the response was likely to be. Indeed, as a result, Stonewall, the organisation which has briefed me (and I am a member of the Stonewall parliamentary group), has made certain alterations to the text which I hope will make it more acceptable. I shall deal with those a little later.
The intention of the Bill is to make it illegal to discriminate in employment against a person because he or she is homosexual or bisexual. The United Kingdom does not have legislation in place at present designed specifically to tackle discrimination against lesbians and gay men. Under existing employment legislation there is nothing illegal about rejecting a job applicant on grounds of his or her sexuality. That has serious implications for lesbians and gay men since it clearly gives some employers the freedom to exercise prejudice. Unfair treatment, once in employment, is not itself illegal. If he or she reveals, or someone else reveals, that employee as lesbian or gay, the employer can treat them unfairly, for example by refusing promotion. Again, there is no redress.
Harassment can and does occur at work. In the case of racial or sexual harassment the employer may be held vicariously liable for the actions of the staff who do the harassing. No such duty exists in regard to harassment of a gay man or lesbian.
Lesbians and gay men dismissed because of their sexual orientation have no redress unless they have been with the employer continuously for two years. Only then can they claim for unfair dismissal. Even then there is no guarantee of succeeding, because it has been held by the Employment Arbitration Tribunal that employers may dismiss homosexual people on the grounds of potential client prejudice, even where that prejudice has not been proven to exist.
Is such discrimination so widespread that it justifies introducing legislation to deal with it? Are we making too much fuss about something which is really quite negligible? I do not believe so. Stonewall has published a report based on a survey of 2,000 homosexuals entitled Less Equal than Others. Forty-eight per cent. had

387
suffered harassment at work, 16 per cent. claimed to have been discriminated against at work because of their sexuality, and another 21 per cent. suspected that they had been discriminated against on similar grounds. A study by Social Community Planning Research indicated a similar pattern of discrimination.
When I referred to such surveys in my speech in July last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who replied for the Government, indicated that the sample upon which the research was based was too small to give a clear indication of the need for legislation, although she acknowledged (at col. 2019 of Hansard):
"that there are some cases where the treatment received by some individuals left much to be desired in terms of good personnel practice".
However, there is a great deal of evidence available apart from that by Stonewall (which might perhaps be felt to be unduly partisan) and that of SCPR. The National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux (NACAB) has produced a report indicating that discrimination is in fact quite widespread. CAB clients who are homosexual often experience difficulty in getting employment. Once in employment harassment and various forms of discrimination are common experiences. One aspect of that harassment is that it often takes the form of threats of disclosure about their sexuality. The Equal Opportunities Commission also reports that it has had a number of inquiries about alleged discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. A number of the cases reported by NACAB refer to individuals dismissed when the employer finds out that they are homosexual. As that normally happens within two years of the employment commencing there is no redress whatsoever.
NACAB makes the point that under existing legislation the options for lesbians and gay men are very limited. It is quite true that if the employee has been working for the employer for more than two years he or she can claim dismissal under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. It may also be possible to argue that some forms of discriminatory treatment, such as persistent harassment, constitute constructive dismissal. But that, of course, involves the employee losing the job. Even so, there are difficulties, as I have indicated, in the way of proving unfair dismissal in the light of some EAT decisions. There is also the further disincentive that exists for lesbians and gay men when it comes to taking legal action, namely the fear of publicity, which with the present prurient interest of the press in all things sexual, could have a devastating effect on the individual taking a case. That is because of the general cultural climate within which we all live and which is often responsible for the harassment suffered by quite innocent and vulnerable people.
The NACAB report quotes an instance of a client who experienced continued and systematic abuse and other harassment from colleagues because he was gay. He was subjected to extreme verbal abuse and several instances of intimidation which threatened his personal safety. He was so intimidated that he felt he could not discuss his situation with his supervisor in case that simply made the situation worse.
388
There are many other cases to which reference is made in the reports I have mentioned. I do not think that it can be denied that discrimination does take place, that there is no protection against it, and that vulnerable people are being made unhappy because of it and denied rights which are available to other minorities.
As I indicated when I opened the debate, I have attempted to take note of some of the objections made to the Bill presented to your Lordships in July of last year. We were grateful for the indications of support received at that time from all sides of the House. In particular, I recall the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, whom I am sorry not to see in his place this evening. He said at col. 2007 that the Board for Social Responsibility of the General Synod of the Church of England had said clearly that homophobia was a pervasive evil in society. The speech he made then was, in general, sympathetic to what I was trying to achieve in the Bill.
However, the right reverend Prelate was concerned about the definition of sexual orientation in that Bill, which did not attempt to define what was meant by it. He expressed concern that it might also apply to those whose orientation led them to seek and engage in sexual activity with children. I said then that it was certainly not our intention to give encouragement to paedophilia. It will therefore be seen that in this draft of the Bill we have sought to deal with that by defining in the Bill itself what is meant by "sexual orientation". I am told that that works quite well in similar legislation in New Zealand, and clearly it does not include paedophilia which, of course, we all deplore.
It may well be argued, as the Government have, that although discrimination against homosexuals—gay men and lesbians—in employment is to be deplored, legislation is not the way to tackle it. It is, the argument goes, a matter of persuasion, of changing the culture, so that gradually people find such discriminatory behaviour unacceptable. I wish that that were so. Unfortunately, it is not. Experience indicates that legislation is required as part of the drive against unacceptable discrimination of all kinds. Hence we have had legislation on gender discrimination—the Equal Pay Act. How often we were told before 1975 that legislation was not necessary, but what a difference it has made to the position of women in society. The same applies to discrimination on grounds of race or disability.
In each case the existence of legislation has not only changed patterns in the working environment, it has enormously helped to change public perceptions as well. It helps to bring about a change in the cultural climate so that attitudes which 30 or 40 years ago would have been quite commonplace are now regarded by almost everyone as unacceptable. The law can affect behaviour. I hope that legislation along the lines of my Bill will have the same effect in regard to those currently experiencing pain and trauma as a result of discrimination because they are gay men or lesbians.
This is a simple Bill. It is a moderate Bill. Stonewall Parliamentary Group, which campaigns for non-discrimination against homosexuals, gay men and lesbians—I use those terms because they are widely

389
understood and they are used to define themselves—contains members of all parties, but it is very much a mainstream organisation. I do not support compulsory "outing" of the kind that usually attracts press comment. I think that is a matter for individual choice. But if people want to live open rather than secretive lives, it should be possible for them to do so without fear of dismissal from their jobs or harassment at work.
Last year I drew attention to the fact that I was introducing the Bill just over 100 years after Oscar Wilde's conviction in 1885. An article by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, QC, appearing in The Times at that time, commented that the mob who taunted Wilde when he stood in handcuffs and in prison uniform on Clapham Station—including those who spat on him—had long since been forgotten, but Wilde continued to adorn the London stage and rests in Poets' Corner.
Unfortunately, the prejudice and ignorance which crushed one of our finest writers still exists. Because it does, legislation is needed and I ask for support for my Bill. Last time I introduced the Bill, the Government's spokesperson in the shape of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made the following comment:
"The Government's position is clear. We oppose unjustified discrimination against any person on grounds of their sex, race, colour, ethnic origin or for any other reason, irrespective of where that discrimination occurs … Everyone is entitled to equal treatment and, at work, to be assessed on merit against objective criteria, not on the basis of prejudice and stereotyping …unjustified discrimination is morally unacceptable and economically inefficient".—[Official Report, 14/7/95; col. 2017.]
I could not have put it any more clearly than that. It is the basis for my Bill and I urge that it be supported. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
9.2 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish the Bill a fair wind. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has made the basic case so well and clearly that I need not repeat it. She has reminded us that anti-discrimination legislation has a long history. It would be unwise to begin a history of anti-discrimination legislation any later than Catholic emancipation in 1829. That is a good example of how much good such legislation can do.
In the course of that time the arguments have tended to become quite familiar. They divide into the generic and the specific. Tonight I take one of each. The generic I take from the argument used on Catholic emancipation. It comes from Viscount Palmerston, later to be perhaps the most politically incorrect Prime Minister we have ever had. He said that he supported the measure on the ground that it was not expedient to exclude so many able persons from the public service. That is a strong argument because it is so simple. There is certainly no lack of need for talent in all fields of our national life. The example of Oscar Wilde serves to remind us that it is true that among people known to have been homosexual there is a large concentration of people of considerable talent. To exclude them from the
390
public service or to allow them to be excluded from industry, commerce or any other field where an intolerant employer might try to do so is a loss to the whole country as well as to them.
However, that argument applies not only to people of distinction. I, too, have read the NACAB report to which the noble Baroness referred, and a very powerful report it is. Over and over again people who were pushed out of jobs because of their sexual orientation end up on benefit. I am aware—perhaps more than the Minister realises—of the need to keep the benefit bill under control. We have much better things on which to spend social security money than subsidising people who ought never to have been forced out of good jobs in the first place. So the saving of public money is one of the grounds on which I support the Bill. Incidentally, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, strongly agrees with this: we must again sometime have a good look at the laws on unfair dismissal.
The other point I wish to take up and on which the noble Baroness touched is the changing of public attitudes. The argument about whether the law can change public attitudes is endless. We all want to see a reduction in the disfiguring homophobia of which some examples have recently been quoted in the press from the Ministry of Defence survey. When I say "disfiguring", I speak literally. I have one friend who was walking innocently about the street in the evening when he was set upon by a large number of men whom he had never met before. When he recovered consciousness he had a fractured cheek bone. So when I say "disfiguring", I mean exactly that.
When we discuss how far we can change attitudes, we need to consider quite how ingrained those attitudes are. Naturally, as a historian, I look to see how much I find those attitudes in other periods. In the 17th century, regrettably, I find as much hostility between men and women as in any other century. But when I look for signs of homophobia I find remarkably little of it. In the reign of King James I one would have expected, with a homosexual on the throne and a coterie of fellow homosexuals around him, that one would find a good deal of it. One finds some resentment of homosexuals promoted at court, but it seems to me to be more a sense of unfair competition than anything else. It is the kind of feeling that a young woman rapidly promoted in the City might expect to encounter. It does not seem to me to be anything more intense than that.
I do not find any homosexual assaults. There is nothing like that in assize records. One does not find charges of homosexuality in seditious works cases. One does not get it coming into depositions about tavern brawls. If I look for cases of homosexual blackmail in the 17th century, I do not believe I can find any. The only one I am in doubt about is one where the other partner in the homosexual union was the King, where clearly confidentiality is unusually important.
I think I am entitled to say that that suggests that homophobia in the 17th century was a great deal less deep-seated than it is now. Lucius Falkland—I do not allude to the present Viscount, but to his ancestor, the second Viscount, of the same name—used to write to

391
his friend, Edward Hyde, and regularly began his letters, "Sweetheart". I am not sure what construction to put on that word by itself. It may well be that the obvious construction is not the correct one. What I am certain of is that in a homophobic world two ambitious young men trying to make their way in the world would not have begun their letters to each other with that word.
That suggests that homophobia is not entirely a deep, instinctive prejudice, that a very large part of it is culturally determined and that it flourishes in a climate of official encouragement or semi-official encouragement. That is why I have more faith than I might otherwise have had that official discouragement of the sort this Bill would offer might do a great deal to diminish it. I am happy to support the Bill.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, at this late hour the House will no doubt be pleased to know that I shall be brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to her for again bringing this measure before us, and at a point in the parliamentary year where we can hope to see some progress made on it.
British industry and commerce operate in a very competitive world environment. To succeed in that competitive environment needs the best people for the job. Our employers need to employ the right people. We have quite rightly recognised in previous legislation that discrimination against people because of their sex or race is counter-productive. It reduces the productiveness of the individuals involved and also the productiveness of those companies that practise it. It is only right that we should also legislate to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
I hope the Government will lend their support, or at least allow the Bill a fair wind. To prevent employers penalising themselves and our national effort in this competitive world is surely something that should be dear to the Government's heart.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before I come to the Bill, I must say that I was taken aback by the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with his classical education, used the word "homophobia" not once but several times. I am sure that upon reflection he will concede that the word "homophobia"—if it means anything at all, which is doubtful—can only mean "an aversion to one's own kind"; and I do not think that is what he had in mind.
I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, is motivated by the most benevolent sentiments in introducing this Bill—which is why I am all the more sorry that I have to knock a few holes in it. To avoid misunderstanding, I had better set out my own philosophy, so to speak, on the matter.
Long before it became fashionable—indeed, when it was distinctly unfashionable and considered positively shocking—I opposed the continued criminalisation of private behaviour between consenting adults, and spoke and voted accordingly. More than that, I consider that the existing criminal law is still too illiberal in some
392
respects. For example, it was quite wrong to send consenting males to prison for hammering nails into one another, utterly nauseating in a literal sense though the thought of that is; or, for example, to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for bestiality. Moreover, I believe that the legal treatment of people in this country who have had successful sex change operations is still unnecessarily harsh. Why should they not be able to alter their records? However, that said, I believe it is quite wrong to go to the other extreme and force people by law to welcome with open arms behaviour that they find repugnant.
Partial support for this widely held point of view comes from a surprising quarter. Three or four years ago, a very well known and respected political commentator, a witty and intelligent man, a former Conservative MP who, since retiring from Parliament, has made no secret of his homosexuality, told me and the small group of people I was with that, whereas he had previously been wholly libertarian on sexual matters, as one might expect, he had latterly swung round to believing that quite a few forms of sexual behaviour were so repugnant to the man and woman in the street that they should not be condoned, let alone encouraged, even—and this is rather a surprising point—if they were carried out in private. He went on to quote John Donne about no man being an island entire of himself, and so forth.
Surely, so much depends on whether this Bill covers only involuntary characteristics—notably in this case homosexual orientation—thereby putting it on a par with sex, race, national origin and so on; or whether it extends to cover voluntary behaviour—namely, homosexual activity—thereby putting it on a par with religion, political belief, philosophy, hairstyle, dress, lifestyle generally, and so on. Discrimination against none of that is illegal on the UK mainland at present.
If the Bill is confined to the former—that is to say, the homosexual orientation—I suppose that it is relatively harmless, although one cannot help wondering why the Labour Party evidently thinks that discrimination against homosexuals is more heinous than discrimination against people over the age of 50 or even 40, which is a much more widespread problem; or indeed discrimination on the grounds of physical appearance. It has been established in survey after survey that goodlooking women and to a less extent goodlooking men have a much greater chance of obtaining employment and being promoted once they have obtained employment than their plainer brethren. Yet such discrimination remains legal unless the person it affects happens to belong to a minority ethnic group.
If, on the other hand, the Bill extends to homosexual behaviour, as to some extent it must do because there are bound to be grey areas, why is only that form of voluntary behaviour to be protected by law, unlike, for instance, the practice of religion or political opinion, and so forth? After all, the Church of England—I regret that no right reverend Prelate is in the Chamber to give an opinion on this matter—makes a clear distinction between homosexual orientation and what I believe it calls homosexual genital behaviour. The first is deemed to be acceptable, which is understandable; the second is

393
not acceptable. Indeed, it is considered to be a sin. Other Christian Churches as well as Judaism and Islam take much the same line, at least officially.
Probably most people nowadays are largely agnostic—one has to be realistic about the matter—and do not consider it a sin. Nevertheless, they find it distasteful when it is flaunted in front of their noses, whether it be at first hand or even second hand. If people with unusual sexual tastes behave in a low key, discreet manner—as they used to do 20 or 25 years ago—there should be no problem. But if people boast of their orgies in San Francisco-style bathhouses or possibly are convicted for indecent behaviour in public lavatories, they should not be surprised if other people prefer not to employ them or to work alongside them. If those other people do not mind, all well and good; but if they do mind, and I suspect that most people do, their freedom of choice and non-association should not be overridden.
Apart from the question of whether the word "orientation" includes behaviour, some of the drafting is rather curious. I suggest, first, that the word "lesbian" is a tautology; "homosexual" embraces lesbian. The fact that the general public may be etymologically confused is no excuse for Parliament to follow suit. Secondly, can there really be such a thing as "bisexual orientation"? Surely, the whole point about bisexuals, whether they be the cynical sensualists depicted in Simon Raven's novels or people in prison or stationed on some remote outpost, is that on the whole they prefer one sex, but if that sex is not available, they will happily have sexual relations with the other, faute de mieux; in other words, there is no hard and fast orientation.
Clause 6 refers to equal pay. I suppose there is no great harm in that but I wonder whether there has ever been a recorded instance of a homosexual receiving less pay than a heterosexual for doing precisely the same job. It is not a terribly important point but it would be interesting to know.
In view of Section 38 of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, are advertisements included? Will it be a criminal offence to imply in an advertisement that one would prefer on the whole the heterosexual applicant? It seems probable under the Bill as it stands.
We all know about the outrageous case in the north of England which involved somebody being awarded !29,000 for being called by his workmates an "Irish pratt" on a couple of occasions. Will someone, for example, called a "lesbian pratt" be eligible for similar, preposterously high damages?
Does the Bill extend to those working in private households—for example, au pair girls or housekeepers, and indeed gardeners and chauffeurs living in cottages in the grounds, if there are children of the household about? I suggest that there would be enormous resistance to this Bill if that were proved to be the case.
Finally, would it be the Labour Party's intention when it comes to power to build upon and extend this Bill so that it applied, for example, to private lettings, as I believe the sex discrimination Bill as a whole does? In other words, will people posted for a year or two to
394
Nigeria, the Gulf or New York be forced against their will to let their houses to homosexual couples, trios or quartets? Once again, I suggest that if that were so it would meet with enormous resistance. But that is not on the cards tonight.
To sum up, very few people nowadays, thankfully, want to go back to the bad old days when adults could be fined or imprisoned because of sexual activity carried on in private and with their consent. I also believe—and in this I join with noble Lords who have already spoken—that anyone, whatever their sexual proclivity, who behaves with discretion and dignity ought not to be penalised when seeking employment. I suggest that probably they are not very often penalised. The ones who do find themselves at a disadvantage are those who flaunt their orientation openly. It is wrong to put in the dock employers or partners in professional firms who want to exercise their choice either against people who behave in what they consider to be an outrageous fashion or in favour, for example, of a married man or woman.
Perhaps I may point out that unless the words "sexual orientation" are to be interpreted very narrowly in this Bill in order to exclude sexual behaviour, it will be inconsistent with all the previous anti-discrimination legislation to date in that for the first time it will embrace optional behaviour as well as non-optional physical realities.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am rather tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monson, through the rather murky areas which he has been treading, but I believe that would be wrong because most of his remarks were not directed actually to this Bill which deals with employment.
I intend only to detain your Lordships for a very few minutes. In fact, I have very little to add to the remarks that I made in the debate on 14th July last on Second Reading of my noble friend's first version of this Bill. The crux of the problem to my mind is whether legislation is necessary or whether the protection offered by the present legislation is sufficient.
I believe that the Stonewall survey and other evidence which has been cited by my noble friend—for example, from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—suggests that current legislation is not sufficient. There is a need to move further forward in the continuing campaign to make life tolerable for those who have the misfortune to have a different sexual orientation from the majority. I am talking of probably about 5 to 10 per cent. of the population of this country.
I am perfectly aware that there are many other countries where the position of gay and lesbian people is far worse than it is in the United Kingdom. Homosexual acts between men are deemed illegal, whether in private or in public, in at least 19 countries. In Iran the penal code allows for prison sentences, whipping, the chopping off of hands and feet, stoning and the sentence of death. We have come a long way from there.

395
Chris Smith MP, in a leaflet promoting the campaign called "War on Prejudice", which has been set up to help end the situation in the countries that I have described, says,
"I believe we are winning the battle for lesbian and gay human rights in the West. It has been a long and difficult struggle and we still have a long way to go, but we have made fundamental advances".
I repeat, that we still have a long way to go. My noble friend outlined the reasons why we still have a long way to go, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Other countries have passed similar legislation to the Bill now before us and for the same reasons. Those countries include New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. Why should not Britain follow those eminently civilised countries and enact this extremely simple and fair piece of legislation? I support the Bill and hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I apologise for my unscripted and brief intervention. I intervene because the last time the noble Baroness introduced a Bill on this, I noticed on reading the debate that no mention had been made of the services. I have a relevant little tale to tell. Fifty-two years ago—that is quite a long time ago, but not back in the 17th century, I advise the noble Earl—I had the honour to command a platoon on active service. Two men in my platoon were obviously in love. I was, I suppose, the last person to notice, but it was drawn to my attention and I took no action—partly, be it noted, because everyone in my platoon was quite happy about the relationship, but also because we were just about to go into action. Both of those men behaved in a conspicuously brave manner in a particularly nasty night attack. But early in the morning when we were all cleaning our weapons, two other soldiers, whom I particularly trusted, committed self-inflicted wounds, one in the foot and the other in the trigger finger.
Perhaps I may ask the admirals, generals and air marshals which two of those four men presented a graver risk to good order and discipline. I am sure that the top brass would agree with me that the two who committed self-inflicted wounds were the ones who presented the gravest risk to good order and discipline. I am sure that the top brass would agree with my action of bundling them back to base as soon as possible before the infection could spread and there was a bad loss of morale. I am sure that the top brass must agree with me on that, and I wonder whether this little tale could be drawn to the attention of the top brass by the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate. I should be extremely grateful if he would do so.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, on her initiative in introducing this Bill, which is well designed to combat an ancient and outmoded form of unfair discrimination against employees and potential employees because they are gay or lesbian in their
396
sexual orientation. I pay tribute to the moderate and effective way in which the noble Baroness presented the powerful case for the Bill.
The Bill does not seek to encourage any form of sexual activity or sexual preference whether for the same sex or the other sex; nor does the Bill concern sexual conduct as distinct from sexual orientation. The aim of the Bill, like the aims of the Sexual Discrimination, Race Relations, and Fair Employment Acts, is to achieve justice for a significant number of men and women who suffer hardship and detriment by being treated unfairly in their access to employment benefits. It seeks to use the civil law, so far as practicable, to ensure that an individual is treated on the basis of personal merit and is not subjected to adverse discriminatory treatment unfairly in relation to employment, except where a particular sexual orientation is a genuine occupational qualification for the job.
Contrary to what has been suggested, and I believe misunderstood, by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the Bill does not forbid treating someone adversely because of his or her sexual conduct rather than because of sexual orientation, whether real or supposed. Nor does the Bill make unlawful many issues of sexuality or sexual freedom which do not involve discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
The basic principle on which the Bill is based is well recognised: an individual is entitled to the equal protection of the law and to be treated on the basis of his or her individual merit without unfair discrimination. That fundamental principle is universally recognised in international human rights law by which this country is bound. It is also part of the great heritage of our common law. We have enshrined that fundamental principle of equality in the statute book in relation to gender discrimination, race discrimination and, in fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland, religious and political discrimination. That is a form of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has described as optional behaviour, since one can choose one's religious belief or one's political opinion, but in Northern Ireland to treat someone worse as a result is unlawful.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and other noble Lords that we should do the same for unfair and invidious sexual orientation discrimination. The only possible legal protection under existing British law is the remedy for unfair dismissal under the employment protection legislation. But the prospects of success under this law are very poor. As the noble Baroness has indicated, most industrial tribunals, led by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, have readily upheld the fairness of dismissal of gay or lesbian employees as having been for a "substantial reason". In the absence of statutory protection, a gay or lesbian applicant or employee has, either furtively or deceptively, to conceal his or her sexual orientation, and to live in fear that it will be revealed, or rely upon a voluntary equal opportunities policy. I am happy to say that that policy is in force in many local authorities, trade unions and the Bar Council, but not with many other public sector and private employers.

397
Your Lordships will know that many employers and employees have traditionally been hostile, sometimes very hostile, to gay and lesbian employees. I am sorry to say that one of the worst is the employer referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who gave a moving and instructive anecdote from his experience. I refer to the Armed Forces, whose policy until 1992 prohibited their recruitment and required that at least they should be administratively discharged, if not court-martialled, imprisoned and dismissed with disgrace.
In July 1991 the Prime Minister announced that neither homosexual orientation nor private homosexual activity should any longer preclude appointment even to sensitive posts in the home civil service and diplomatic service. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made similar announcements in relation to judicial office. These are very welcome reforms. But the Government have emphasised that homosexual activity remains incompatible with military service and that those who engage in it must expect to be discharged. To the Government's credit, the automatic ban in the senior civil service has been lifted, but unfortunately the automatic and complete ban in the Armed Forces has been steadfastly maintained.
The Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, pointed out in recent judicial review proceedings that under the Ministry of Defence's ban,
"proof of homosexual activity is not needed.
A reliable admission of homosexual orientation is enough. Where homosexual orientation or activity is clear, the service authorities give themselves no choice but to discharge the member involved without regard to the member's service record or character or the consequences of discharge to the member personally".
No matter that the lives and livelihoods of the victims of a rigid and unjust policy are grossly disrupted; nor that they are loyal and efficient, with exemplary service records; nor that they have committed no homosexual acts and made no homosexual advances on the mess deck or in the barrack room. Once their sexual orientation is avowed or established, they must be banned.
I am firmly opposed to using legislation to enforce private morality, but discrimination against gay people is not just a matter of private morality. It is divisive and unfair in a manner which quite transcends personal tastes and prejudices. Sexual orientation discrimination opens covert gay and lesbian employees to blackmail, wastes the talents of very able men and women and creates much unnecessary distress. So far as concerns the Armed Forces, that case will surely go the European Court of Human Rights.
I agree with the advice apparently given to the Government by their legal advisers that the European Court will probably rule against that discriminatory policy, once more coming to the rescue of what are or should be British constitutional rights, by finding that the present policy is in breach of the fundamental right to respect for personal privacy without discrimination. The ministry will then have to abandon its present policy to comply with the European rule of law. I find
398
it regrettable that the ministry will not make any change without being commanded to do so by the European Court.
I shall not take up the time of the House by referring to the bleak and dispiriting assessment published this week by the ministry. It describes a situation in the Armed Forces which is dispiriting for anyone who seeks to combat prejudice. The publicity surrounding the publication of a squalid report, and the statements made in support of it, contain no regret at the prevalence of such hostile attitudes. They suggest no positive measures to combat those prejudices in the Armed Forces. That is a regrettable feature, because surely this is an area in which firm and courageous leadership is called for.
Employment in the Armed Forces is not covered by the Bill as it stands, which deals with ordinary employment. The unjust situation in the Armed Forces and the Government's apparent approval of that unjust situation or of the ban are a vivid example of the need for effective measures to combat this form of discrimination.
What can legislation hope to accomplish in dealing with such a complex social problem, whether in ordinary employment or elsewhere? The answer was well expressed by the late Lord Bonham-Carter, my noble and much missed friend, writing a generation ago in the first report of the Race Relations Board. He said:
"A law is an unequivocal declaration of public policy. A law gives support to those who do not wish to discriminate, but who feel compelled to do so by social pressure. A law gives protection and redress to minority groups. A law thus provides for the peaceful and orderly adjustment of grievances and the relief of tensions".
And, finally:
"A law reduces prejudice by discouraging the behaviour in which prejudice finds expression".
The way in which a society treats unpopular minorities is a litmus test of the extent of its civilisation. Of course the law can affect behaviour. The time is surely over-ripe to legislate, using the civil law to combat unfair sexual orientation discrimination, as Parliament has done already in relation to discrimination on grounds of sex, marriage, race, religious belief or political opinion.
The unelected Upper House, your Lordships' House, has, I believe, a fine record as a watchdog, promoting cultural liberty and protecting minorities against the tyranny of prejudiced and ill-informed majorities. It was this House which a quarter of a century ago gave a spur to the campaign for the legislation against sex discrimination. I very much hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading tonight as a further step in the long march towards genuine equality of treatment and respect for private life.
9.40 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we on this side of the House thank the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill for a second time and we hope that it will make better progress. We do not say that the Bill is incapable of improvement by amendment. If that is the Government's view let them say so. My view is that in an ideal world

399
the subject of the Bill would be part of a general review of key standards at work. They range wide across what should be the individual rights of workers against employers.
Perhaps I may say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the central issue behind such a review would be to try to create a situation in which people are employed, promoted, deployed and possibly dismissed on grounds which are related to their individual conduct and capacity in the job and not to a whole range of irrelevant considerations such as sex, race or sexual orientation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that that ought to apply to age too? Why has not the Labour Party given age discrimination greater priority?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it may well be that it will. I am putting forward my position and in a sense it is also that of the party. I believe that at this stage we require a review of our discrimination laws. What we want to see, and what is reasonable to insist upon, is that the appointment, promotion progression and dismissal of people is related to the things they do, the way in which they perform and whether there is work for them to do. It should not depend on a whole range of totally irrelevant considerations, of which this is one.
That may not be the way in which the matter is dealt with. It may be that the Government will accept this Bill. Perhaps they will not accept the Bill. But as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, cases in the pipeline may go before the European Court of Justice because the Government will not first give up. They will then find that everything is against European laws and regulations and the Government will have to accept the Bill in any event. They will have to accept the provisions not just within the compass of this Bill but also in the case of the armed services.
I wish to go through what I take to be the objections to the Bill as it is drafted. During the Second Reading of the previous Bill, those objections were put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. She appeared to have five arguments and I hope that we shall not hear those arguments from the Minister tonight. I hope that he has some new ones.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, cited the quotations from the Second Reading debate. The first argument was that although the Government are against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, they do not believe in legislation. They do not believe in legislation because they feel that there are insufficient cases or that there is an insufficient incidence of this problem. I should have thought that my noble friend Lady Turner has dealt with that in the examples she has given.
It is remarkable that the evidence shows that people do not agree with the Government that there is a kind of dichotomy between trying to deal with sexual orientation by education and setting an example and doing it by law. People would like the matter dealt with in both ways. As was the case in relation to sex and race discrimination—and we hope in relation to disability discrimination—they believe that the existence of a law,
400
as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, actually makes people more likely to accept encouragement and leadership because the law is saying what society believes to be right.
Therefore, it is not a question, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that you either have education and promotion by example or you have law, and if you have law, you move against encouragement and setting an example. On the contrary, the law assists in that regard. That is what we say and we want to know what the Government say.
Secondly—and this has been dealt with in the debate but I should like to say a few words about it—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seemed to say that not only do we not need law and that it is inappropriate to have law but we have law already; that we have, for example, the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act which deals with the problem. This debate has shown that it does not deal with the problem: first, because of the two-year rule; and secondly, because there have been many cases where tribunals have not accepted sexual orientation as a ground for unfair dismissal. Secondly the noble Baroness said that we have sex discrimination legislation because we have the Sex Discrimination Act which does not ban homosexuals as a group from coming before the tribunals. Of course it does not but it does not, give them protection. Therefore, that is not an argument.
Thirdly, the most bizarre argument was put forward which I hope we shall not hear this evening. The noble Baroness said:
"Perhaps it would also be helpful to draw your Lordships' attention to the recently enacted Section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which makes it a criminal offence to cause intentional harassment. That was specifically introduced to penalise those who cause others alarm or distress through using threatening, abusive or insulting words, behaviour or displays, in particular when the behaviour is persistent in nature. We see no reason in principle why anyone who suffers intentional harassment in any of those ways cannot bring themselves within the protection of Section 154".—[Official Report, 14/7/95; col. 2017.]
The Government know very well that that is a criminal Act and that prosecutions must be brought by the police. That Act is all about public order and is nothing to do with the kind of harassment which happens inside dwellings.
Section 154 does not apply to behaviour in dwellings. Section 154(2) of the Act states:
"An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used… or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling".
It is an outdoor, criminal Act which has nothing whatever to do with harassment at work for sexual orientation. I hope that we shall not hear that argument from the Minister this evening.
Previously, the Government said that what we are suggesting would be a bridge too far; that it would be a form of coercion in society; and that that protection of a particular lifestyle would lead to many other lifestyles bringing their own position forward and asking for legislation. It was said:

401
"The noble Baroness also invites the House to accept the proposition that specific legislation is necessary to protect the interests of this group who follow a particular sexual orientation and lifestyle. Were one to accept this principle, then one sends a signal to every group, however small and however narrow or partisan their cause, that they, too, could become candidates for specific legal protection".—[Official Report, 14/7/95; col. 2019.]
I repeat:
"every group, however small and however narrow or partisan their cause".
That presumably is what the Government actually believe sexual orientation is all about: that they are the protestations of a small, narrow or partisan group. That is nonsense. It is a perfectly natural feeling, a natural reaction held by millions of our citizens. The Government do not tell us what these small, partisan and narrow groups are. If they were small, narrow and partisan, I do not see why they should be dismissed for that.
We are saying that people should be promoted, dismissed and appointed on grounds of their personal capacity even if they are small, narrow or partisan.
We do not believe that any of those arguments stand. I come, therefore, to the argument of the Government: the final (what I call) the little England objection. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, referring to my noble friend Lady Turner:
"The noble Baroness's contention is that the UK is out of step with standards applied elsewhere".—[Official Report, 14/7/95; col. 2017.]
We say that,
"As a result the United Kingdom is less civilised in its approach than our EU partners and the approach advocated by the European Commission".
We do not quite say that,
"If I understand correctly, the argument is that standardisation of treatment between countries of different social backgrounds and traditions is a sensible policy objective".
Of course, we do not say that. What we say is that there are a number of countries—they were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in his speech—where such a policy seems to work reasonably enough. The Government do not tell us that in those countries it does not work or it has counter-productive effects. Perhaps the Government should look at those countries and see whether they can learn from them. The noble Baroness said:
"The Government do not find that argument convincing. Just because people drive on the right on the Continent does not mean that United Kingdom drivers should do so".—[Official Report; 14/7/95; col. 2020.]
No one suggests that the issue has anything to do with that.
We say that this is a reasonable proposal that the Government may have to come to sooner or later—and if it is later it will cost much more than if it is sooner. The central principle behind this is that the engagement, promotion and dismissal of people should be related to their capacity, conduct and availability of work. That is why we support the Second Reading of the Bill.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was fascinated, as always, by what my noble kinsman Lord Russell said about what happened in the 17th century and habits then. We could no doubt talk about the 16th, 15th or 14th centuries, or for that matter any other century that we wish to. However, for once in this House we are talking about the 20th century and, I suspect, the 21st century. I do not intend to follow my noble kinsman on this occasion. Nor—I do not suppose that it will surprise the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—do I intend to follow his opening remarks into a general debate on employment law. He tells us that Labour will address these matters in due course. Labour will address ageism. No doubt it will address sizeism. No doubt it will address beardism to protect his noble friend Lord Monkswell. I do not believe that that is the right way forward.
Last year my noble friend Lady Miller responded on behalf of the Government to points put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in her original Bill. Perhaps we might call it Mark I. We are covering more or less the same ground today, although I appreciate that the Bill is marginally different and there have been a number of drafting changes to it. Nevertheless, we have gone over the same ground.
What I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, despite having heard his wonderful oratory, is that our position has not changed in the eight months since then. We oppose unjustified discrimination against any person on grounds of their sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, ethnic origin or for that matter beards or any other reason, irrespective of where that discrimination occurs, be it at work or elsewhere. It is offensive to decent people everywhere and it is to be condemned. The Government's objective is to promote a fair and safe working environment by making it clear that unjustified discrimination is morally unacceptable and economically inefficient. We shall continue to urge employers to adopt employment practices which treat everyone equally by assessing people on merit against objective criteria and not on the basis of prejudice or stereotyping.
It is commonly assumed that homosexuals do not have any employment rights. I have to say that this is simply not the case. It may be helpful to repeat the words of my noble friend Lady Miller when she responded to the debate last year. She said that the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 offers a comprehensive set of individual employment rights, regardless of sexual orientation"—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, had to say—including the right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right to a redundancy payment. Any employee who feels that their rights under this Act have been infringed can, subject to the two-year qualifying period—which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, mentioned as applying to all others—take their case to an industrial tribunal. Compensation up to the usual maximum of £11,000 is

403
available for those unfairly dismissed. That, I believe, is substantial protection. In addition, I would make the point—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I wonder whether he would agree, however, that what I said is correct; namely, that industrial tribunals habitually find that dismissal on grounds of sexual orientation constitutes a substantial reason for rendering the dismissal not unfair and therefore, although he is right in saying that there are theoretical rights available for gay and lesbian employees, those rights in practice are illusory.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would put it to the noble Lord that he is a much more eminent lawyer than myself. He will understand that it is open to an industrial tribunal in the appropriate circumstances to say whether or not such and such a dismissal is fair. If, for example, an employee had been at a workplace for two years and the employer said, "I am sacking you because I know what your sexual proclivities are—out you go", I think in those circumstances (obviously the noble Lord and I cannot speculate on what the tribunal might decide) it would be open to that tribunal to say that that was unfair because it would be so obviously unreasonable. I do not know of any individual cases, but I think the noble Lord would find that would be the case. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, can the Minister cite one single case where a tribunal has decided that way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would obviously be able to address that question if the noble Lord could find a case where such a blatant piece of discrimination had happened, and where the individual employee had had the protection of two years' employment and so on. Obviously in that case that would be a matter I would be prepared to look at. I was explaining what I thought was a point of law. I think it is something that a tribunal could address under the existing legislation as I understand it.
I hope I may go on. In addition, as I was about to say, I would make the point that it is often forgotten that the Sex Discrimination Act does not single out homosexuals as a group who are prohibited from bringing complaints. Complaints of sex discrimination can be made by any individual. The noble Baroness, in promoting this Bill, obviously maintains that legislation is the best way forward, in particular by extending the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act. To reinforce this she relies, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on the evidence of Stonewall, the Less Equal than Others paper, and the Social and Community Planning Research which, if one believes it, suggests that discrimination against homosexuals is endemic. We question whether that is a reliable conclusion. One could just as easily conclude that the findings highlight the diversity of opinion about homosexuals and homosexuality.
Despite what has been said to me about NACAB—I think my noble kinsman will know what I think about some of the evidence put forward of an anecdotal nature
404
from NACAB in the past—no new evidence has been presented to support the contention of the noble Baroness that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is so widespread as to justify major primary legislation.
We then move on to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord McCarthy. They pointed to the experience of other countries where homosexuals have protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. They argued that the United Kingdom is out of step with standards applied elsewhere and that as a result we are less civilised in our approach than, for example, our EU partners and New Zealand, which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned. To use the very words used by my noble friend Lady Miller last year, I understand that the argument is that standardisation of treatment between countries of different social backgrounds and traditions is a sensible policy objective. I have to say to the noble Lord that I think that is absolute nonsense. Obviously we should respect one another's traditions.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should be most grateful if the Minister could indicate one place where any of us indicated that standardisation per se was an objective.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that my noble kinsman listened to me. I referred to what my noble friend Lady Miller said last year. That was quoted to me by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I do not agree with the argument that was put forward last year. I do not believe that standardisation is a necessary policy to pursue.
We believe that we should respect one another's traditions, but we do not believe that there is any necessity slavishly to follow what other countries do. If they wish to give homosexuals protection against employment discrimination that is a matter for them. Her Majesty's Government believe that, subject only to our various international obligations, the United Kingdom should decide for itself whether to legislate in this area. In this area there is no obligation under EC law. Even when M. Jacques Delors was President of the Commission he said that the Community have no powers to intervene in respect of possible discrimination against sexual minorities.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I agree that he is quite correct in saying that there is no European Community obligation in this area. That is because sex discrimination does not cover sexual orientation discrimination. However, does the Minister agree that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by which we are bound, contains in Article 2 and Article 26 a clear and unequivocal obligation upon the United Kingdom to introduce the necessary measures to ensure equality and equal protection before the law without any form of discrimination, and that there is a strong argument that we are in breach of that obligation, quite apart from the European human rights convention?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the first point I should like to pick up is that I was addressing the question of

405
whether the EC and the European Court of Justice had any position. I said the European Court of Justice, if the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, would listen to me, which I do not think he is capable of doing. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, accepts that I am right on that point. The European Court of Justice would not have a place here.
As to the noble Lord's other point, it is arguable what would be the outcome if the matter went to the European Court of Human Rights. Certainly, Her Majesty's Government believe that our case is a sound one, and it is one that we would be prepared to defend robustly in such a court should the matter go so far.
I shall not take any other interventions. I shall move on to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, about homosexuality in the Armed Forces. That is a point that was raised by other noble Lords. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He and I are fellow Cumbrians. I first arrived in this House when the noble Lord was Clerk of the Parliaments. I also respect his knowledge of these matters from his wartime experience. I speak as one who had the honour to serve in the Ministry of Defence and has the greatest respect for those who serve in the Armed Forces, the Chiefs of Staff and all in the Ministry who advised us as Ministers. However, the position in relation to the Armed Forces is very different from that in the Civil Service, the diplomatic corps or, dare I say it, anywhere else. It remains our view that homosexuality is incompatible with the special conditions of service life. The conditions of military life, both on operations and in the service environment, are quite different from those in civilian life. To meet the demands of military operations service personnel must work together as a close-knit and effective team. They may be required to live in close physical proximity, often in single sex shared accommodation where personal privacy is extremely limited and to work under conditions of considerable stress. I believe that the need, therefore, for absolute trust and confidence between all ranks is essential.
The policy which was questioned in the courts only last year has been found lawful by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It is not the result of a moral judgment but rather of a practical assessment of the effect of homosexuality on military life. I have to say that we will continue robustly to defend that policy.
The Government seriously question whether legislation as suggested by the noble Baroness is always the most effective way to overcome entrenched prejudice. Again I have no qualms about quoting what my noble friend Lady Miller said last year. Protecting the interests of one particular group through legislation would lead,
"every group, however small, and however narrow or partisan their cause [to conclude] that they, too [were entitled to] specific legal protection".—[Official Report, 147/95; col. 2019.]
I do not believe that that is practical or sensible. Legislation amounts to a form of coercion to conform. It would add yet another Act to an already over-regulated society. I also believe that it would not be publicly acceptable, given the strong emotions that homosexuality can generate. Strong and compelling
406
evidence from those making the case is necessary to demonstrate that a substantial problem exists. We believe that that evidence is lacking. The Government prefer instead to overcome prejudice by persuasion, by explaining that all of us have a duty and a responsibility to examine our consciences and to ensure that in our everyday dealings with one another we act fairly and put aside the race, sex, disability or sexual orientation of our fellow citizens. All of us individually share a responsibility to treat others as we would wish to be treated and to speak out against discrimination, wherever and whenever it appears.
I believe that this evening we have done justice to the debate on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. It has been interesting and informative. Not unexpectedly, the views expressed are much in line with those expressed in what noble Lords had to say last July. However, again I have to say that our position is quite clear. We deplore unjustified discrimination. We will continue to send out the message that it is morally unacceptable, uneconomic and inefficient. Homosexuals will be treated differently only when each individual overcomes his or her prejudice and treats others with due respect. Specific legislation to outlaw such discrimination is not the best way to make a change, nor, given prevailing public opinion, would it command the degree of public support necessary to be acceptable.
I will not, in the usual manner, oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but Her Majesty's Government cannot give their support to it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I asked him specifically whether he would kindly refer my anecdote to the top brass in Whitehall.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I apologise. Obviously I shall pass it on to my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and they will ensure that it is passed on to the appropriate authorities there. I give my noble friend (if I may call him so) my assurance of that.
10.9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the interesting debate this evening. I am glad to say that in the main the speeches made in the debate have mostly been supportive of the Bill. I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed their considerable expertise to the debate. Not unsurprisingly, I suppose, my views remain as they were when I first introduced the Bill this evening. I am grateful to the Minister for once again reiterating the Government's view that they are against discrimination and they believe that it should be opposed by all people of goodwill. Apparently they believe, as they did last time round, that persuasion is enough to accomplish what we all want.
I do not believe that. As I said earlier when I introduced the Bill, it is my belief that the law can change behaviour. We have had to have legislation in the past to do away with discrimination on other grounds: of disability, gender and race. There is no reason why we should not add another piece of

407
legislation to that which we have already, designed to prevent discrimination against vulnerable people. And of course we are talking about people who are extremely vulnerable.
As to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I agree with my noble friend Lord Rea that most of what he said did not really affect this Bill. It is essentially an employment Bill. It is about discrimination in employment against people because of sexual orientation. We have made that absolutely clear. All those who spoke in support of the Bill acknowledged that.
And that is the situation in regard to the Armed Forces. My own position on the Armed Forces is quite clear: I am opposed to discrimination and I am opposed to the Government's recent pronouncements in that regard. But that matter is being dealt with through the European Court of Human Rights. There is every possibility, or so I am informed, that the issue may be raised in the other place as a result of an amendment to the Armed Forces Bill. So there will no doubt be an opportunity to discuss it.
I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in regard to the Armed Forces. During the war, quite obviously there must have been people of homosexual orientation in the services, as a result of
408
conscription. Quite clearly there were homosexuals who were extremely brave. Certainly I remember my late husband, who was himself a war hero, telling me that one of the pilots in his squadron had been homosexual—an extraordinarily brave man, who was shot down and killed. My husband had every respect for him and for the fact that though he was homosexual and different from the others, nevertheless everybody worked together because they were conscious of the common danger. I really do find the Government's attitude in these matters quite unacceptable.
However, as I said earlier, this is an employment Bill. It is concerned with public and private employment. The issue of the Armed Forces will no doubt be with us again, either as a result of moves being made in another place or as a result of a reference to the European Court of Human Rights.
I have very little further to say, except that I wish to pursue this Bill. Again I thank those who participated in this interesting and extremely supportive debate. I simply ask the House to give my Bill a Second Reading. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Wednesday, 6th March 1996.
The Committee met in the Moses Room at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Marauding deer]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 33:
"Page 3, line 33, after ("authorisation") insert (", and after making all reasonable efforts to consult the landowner and occupier of the land in question or their agents or servants,")
The noble Lady said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 52, 54 to 56, 60 to 63, 67, 68, 72 and 74. When the Select Committee met in Edinburgh I asked the chairman of the Red Deer Commission why only the occupier was to be notified or authorised and not the owner. He replied that one of the big problems was that owners lived in the south of England. They were on their deer forests for only three weeks of the year and were very hard to reach in an emergency. Their factors often lived a long way from the scene of action.
That is very often the case, but by no means always. I can think of many large deer forests where the factor lives and works on the estate. Everyone knows who he is and his telephone number. I can even think of some where the owner lives on the estate. However, there is someone who is always on the estate except when he is away on his annual holiday, and that is the stalker. He is probably the best qualified person to do any shooting required, with the minimum of suffering to the beasts involved, especially if it is at night.
The amendments are not designed to prevent the commission acting unless it has the consent of the owner. They are merely designed to ensure that some attempt is made to consult the owner, factor or stalker about the problem and to give them the chance to do the job themselves. Probably only a telephone call followed by a fax would be necessary. There can be few, if any, stalkers nowadays who do not have a telephone and most factors have faxes as well. Scarcely any delay need be involved, except of course at the weekend. I do not believe that the deer commission works at weekends any more than anyone else.
In the case of Clause 4 I think and hope that the amendment is unnecessary because the clause only replaces subsection (1) of Section 6 of the 1959 Act. Subsections (2) to (8) still stand and I believe that subsections (2) and (3) cover the point. Clause 7 is a completely different matter. It is a new clause and has no mitigating subsections of the 1959 Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: If the Minister is considering taking Amendment No. 33 on board, I am very worried about the wording and the use of the word "servants". It gave me an apoplectic moment when I first saw the word. However, when I looked through the 1959 Act, I found that I was due another apoplectic moment on discovering that even the Red Deer Commission has servants. It reminds me of the trial of Lady Chatterley's Lover where the QC said that it was not a suitable book for anyone, let alone his servant, to read. Even in 1962 that terminology was past its sell-by date. We have enough problems getting incoming landowners to recognise and accept the conventions of landowning in Scotland without continuing to use the word "servant". Surely "staff" would be the most appropriate broad term. It has two merits: it is better for the image of landowning in Scotland, and it has a less detrimental effect on the recruitment of estate staff. Few of them can enjoy living with the charade of subservience. Will the noble Earl assure us that when the Act comes up for consolidation such terminology will be altered?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have to tell my noble kinsman that the word was only put in because it mirrors the wording in the 1959 Act. Whether it will be possible to put in something that the noble Earl will find slightly less offensive, I do not know; I am not very good at legal terminology. Although it slightly worried me at the time we put it in, I do not think that prospective stalkers read the Act before considering whether to apply for a job.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: May I reply to my noble kinsman - if that is the correct terminology? While enjoying my second apoplectic moment, I noted that the 1959 Act was full of references to staff as "servants", so I began to understand why the amendment was written in the way that it was.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Whatever terminology is eventually chosen for these amendments, I support them. I would have thought it crazy for any future commission to try to carry out some of the activities that are envisaged by these clauses without consulting the stalker. I can think of no better way of infuriating the stalker and many of his friends locally than for this kind of activity to be envisaged without involving him fully. Once again, I would not want to be part of the raiding party if the local stalker had not been fully advised. Therefore, I support the amendments.
Lord Glenarthur: I, too, wish briefly to support the amendments. The important words are "reasonable efforts". I quite understand that it will not be possible in every case, but those concerned should certainly make their very best efforts to consult. I very much endorse the amendments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am a little doubtful about this, quite apart from the wording which is a nice touch. I should have thought that "agent" was enough to discuss. It is all very well to put in a word like "servants" that goes right down the scale, but elsewhere in the Bill there is considerable provision for consultation with the owner. We are talking about an

CWH 57
emergency situation as such, and obviously the commission would try to get hold of the factor, but how far down the scale should one go? Obviously the stalker knows, but it is not his responsibility. If one cannot get hold of the factor or agent—call him what you will—one should proceed. The term is too wide, and if we stick it in all over the Bill it will give a wrong impression.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I would like to support my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie. It is not very difficult to imagine how awkward it could be if the commission were to go to an employee and say something different from that which has been said to the factor. It is the factor's job, surely, to acquaint the employees with what is intended and discuss it with them if the agent is there? The important thing is to know how my noble friend the Minister intends to answer the point and whether he will make it quite plain, if he does not like the amendment, how this consultation will be done, because obviously the consultation is absolutely critical.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): Let me right away prevent the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, from having apoplexy. We are looking at the use of the term "servants" which sterns from the 1959 Act and therefore there was good precedent for using that term in the amendment. But as part of the consolidation process we will be seeking to modernise such terms which need modernising, and it may well be that that will be one of the words which will be modernised.
I will speak to the whole group of amendments because that is how the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, introduced Amendment No. 33, and I hope that I can bring substantial reassurance to all noble Lords who have spoken. As regards Amendment No. 33, the remainder of Section 6 of the 1959 Act, which of course will continue to be valid, will I hope bring comfort. Under Section 6(2), for instance:
""where the Commission are satisfied that the deer causing damage as aforesaid come from particular land"
the commission shall in the first instance approach any person having the right to kill deer on that land and request that they take action against the deer. In practice the first point of contact therefore will be the owner of the land from which the deer are coming.
Under subsection (3), only if that person is:
"unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of the request"
can the commission then issue an authorisation under Section 6, and where circumstances allow under the provisions as they stand at present, therefore, an opportunity will be afforded to the neighbouring land holders to take action themselves. This is an important safeguard, and it guarantees that the owners and other neighbours who have a right to take or kill deer are notified in advance of a marauding deer power being enacted.
CWH 58
In addition, subsection (6) sets out that the commission has a duty:
"to give the owner of any land which is to be mentioned in an authorisation under this section such notice of their intention to issue that authorisation as may be practicable"
This is in addition to the other safeguards that I have already mentioned.
Subsection (5) also places the commission under a duty to give warning as soon as practicable to any person likely to be on the land in question, to prevent danger.
My final point as regards Amendment No. 33 is that government Amendment No. 30 will ensure that the commission will only be embarking on this route, first, if it is a genuine emergency, and, secondly, if there are no other powers available to the commission with which to meet that emergency. In other words, it is not only action that is taken in an emergency, it is also a last resort option, and those other powers, as we have discussed in Committee, include the promotion of control agreements, the granting of authorisations and the making of control schemes.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 52 and 60. As a matter of courtesy, one would of course expect the owner of land, or his agents, to be notified of the fact that night shooting of deer, or the moving of deer by vehicles, was about to be authorised. However, I am not sure that that should fall to the commission to administer. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that it may be that even the deer commission shuts down at weekends. I am given to understand that some members of the deer commission work a seven-day week. They do much of their visiting of deer management groups at weekends, so they are a hard-pressed organisation in terms of the workload they seek to achieve. What would probably be better is that the person who is given the authorisation is the person in charge of making sure that the owner is alerted. Therefore, my worry about the amendments as they stand is the danger of a disproportionate workload falling onto the commission. However, as I have said, I hope that there are other ways of approaching that and I will come on to that in a second.
I would also point out that, in any case, if the commission was granting authorisation for night shooting, they would have to take the balancing duty—in other words, the interests of the owner of that land—into account in granting that permission. Also, it is worth drawing noble Lords' attention to the two critical circumstances which must be met before an authorisation for night shooting can be granted. The first is that the shooting is necessary to prevent serious damage. In other words, it is necessary to do it at night-time; it cannot be done during the day-time to prevent that serious damage. Secondly, that there is no other method of control which might reasonably be adopted that would be adequate in the circumstances.
It may be of interest if I just point out that the new Section 33B, introduced by paragraph 28 of Schedule 1, obliges the occupier to supply the owner with information on the number of deer shot by virtue of Section 33(3) or the new Section 33A(2) or

CWH 59
As I said, I believe it is the normal courtesy that the occupier of land should notify the owner of such authorisations in the same way that he is encouraged to notify the owner of any beasts taken.
In agreeing to extend the power of authorisation to cover all night shooting, it was made clear that the requirement to seek authorisation would not impose an unnecessary burden on those with a legitimate case to shoot deer at night. At the same time, I understand the points made by Members of the Committee, and I shall therefore look again at the procedures adopted by the commission to see if they can stress to those receiving authorisations that those with the right to kill deer on that land—that is, the owners—should be informed of action taken under those authorisations. I hope that with that reassurance the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw Amendments Nos. 52 and 60.
In this grouping, and I believe therefore the focus of the Committee, were Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68, 72 and 74, and unless the Committee have another view, I will speak to them right now.
Under proposed Section 33A, the commission will be able to issue authorisations to the occupier, or any person nominated in writing by the occupier, to carry out night shooting or to use vehicles to drive deer, or to shoot out of season to protect from serious damage unenclosed woodland or the natural heritage, or in the interests of public safety. The amendments propose that the commission should also be able to authorise the owner or his agents or servants.
I would point out one fact that has survived since the 1959 Act. If the owner or his agents have the permission of the occupier, it is then possible for them to carry out the work as the occupier's nominee. However, on night shooting there is clearly a question of safety that we seek to address. We continue to consider it appropriate that shooting should be in the control of the occupier. I hope that the reassurance I gave on earlier amendments that the owner should be notified in some way may be of comfort. We are worried that if there are different authorisations for night shooting on the same ground safety is compromised. Also, damage to the occupier's interests must be addressed which again dictates that he must be in control of the measures to make sure that they have the desired effect in terms of protecting his interests.
The provision for the moving of deer by vehicles is a more general provision. In some circumstances it is likely that owners would want, and indeed would be in a position, to undertake this kind of work. The owner, of course, can do it with the occupier's consent, but the purpose of the amendment is one that we wish to examine. Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 63 are ones I should like to consider.
I should also like to consider Amendments Nos. 67 and 68. They deal with shooting out of season in unenclosed woodlands which again raises questions of safety and the legitimate interests of an owner. I make the same comment about the natural heritage.
CWH 60
Given the reassurances on Section 6 of the 1959 Act and the provisions that will run through, and what I have said about the amendments I want to consider, I hope that noble Lords will feel content.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: There is one other point my noble friend may wish to consider when he comes to clarify the matter. Section 6(2) of the 1959 Act states:
"Where the Commission are satisfied that the deer which appear to be causing damage as aforesaid come from particular land, and that any person having the right to kill deer thereon will forthwith undertake the killing of the deer first-mentioned".
In other words, the 1959 Act seems to say that permission will be given to people to kill deer thereon, which is where they came from underlining the marauding nature of the deer in question.
The Bill we are asked to sanction says that they may,
"follow and kill on any land mentioned in the authorisation"
in other words, where they may still be, and therefore they might not be marauding deer at all. I only mention this because it underlines the necessity to know what we mean by the word "marauding", which at the moment we do not.
The Earl of Lindsay: The repeated definition that we are able to give of "marauding" is that it refers to those deer which are not being controlled effectively, and which are not normally resident where they are causing the damage. My noble friend knows that we are interested in a legally watertight definition of marauding deer, if that is possible, and it is something we will continue to look at. I also remind my noble friend that Section 6(6) of the 1959 Act ensures that anyone whose land is noted in an authorisation will be contacted. The last point is that my Amendments Nos. 23 and 34—Amendment No. 23 having already been accepted—seek to bring some clarification to the area that my noble friend has mentioned. I shall, if necessary, photocopy the relevant part of Hansard for him later on today, rather than perhaps go through the same explanation a second time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is not a question of common sense but a question of marauding. I know we need a definition of some sort but deer come and eat my turnips—and my turnips are good turnips—and you can bet your boots that those deer will come back for more. Therefore, if you have to pursue them onto other land in order to kill them, moving them will not do any good; they will come back. I should have thought that a certain amount of common sense with the broad definition would work. The commission will be composed of sensible people, whichever Secretary of State appoints them, and we can make do much of the definition.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: We all hope that the commission will be composed of sensible people but at the moment, as the Bill is drafted, we have no guarantee of that matter. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that the definition of marauding should be very simple. The dictionary simply describes it as wandering or raiding in search of plunder. In the case mentioned by the noble Lord, that plunder consists of

CWH 61
his turnips, which I am sure are excellent and which I am sure the deer will return to eat. The point I am making is that in the original Act those deer had to be followed and killed where they came from. It did not necessarily permit them to be shot when they were actually enjoying the noble Lord's turnips. In the Bill that we are considering, they could be shot in the act, if you like, of eating the noble Lord's turnips.
I merely point out that difference between the two pieces of legislation and use it to underline the necessity of reaching a commonsense understanding of the meaning of the word "maraud" when the powers of Clause 4 come into action and the powers of Clause 5 do not have time to operate. We have no difficulty with Clause 5 but we still have considerable difficulty with exactly what circumstances could trigger the powers of Clause 4 as drafted.
The Earl of Lindsay: I would just add one more point at this stage; otherwise Clause 4 will detain us for days. If the deer can be shot where they are marauding, then a marauding deer power cannot be authorised, because in fact there is another option available, which prevents those deer needing to be followed and managed somewhere else. The vital parts of a Section 6 authorisation, as it would be amended, are that there must be serious damage, it must be an emergency and no other option can be available to the commission with which to try and manage those deer. I stress that if those deer can be managed on the site where they are actually marauding, then there is no need to trigger a Section 6 power.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I shall, of course, be withdrawing the amendment, because I cannot do anything else here. However, I shall read very carefully what the noble Earl has said. I am very glad that he will be looking at some of the later amendments. I should like to make three points. The owners or their representatives should be notified before the killing or the driving is done, not afterwards when it has been done. Also I think it should not be left just to good manners and good practice. It should be on the face of the Bill.
If the deer commission works at weekends, then it is all the more important that the stalker should be included among the people with whom it can get in touch, because the stalker almost certainly will be available at the weekend, whereas the factor and the owner may not be. Two telephone calls, in my opinion, will not add a great deal to the workload of the commission.
Finally, I am not at all sure that occupiers are always the most suitable persons to do the job. They may not be good shots and they may not possess a rifle, whereas the stalker is almost certainly a very good shot and has the estate rifle at his disposal. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
TheEarl of Lindsay TheEarl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("any land") and insert ("such land as may be").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 34 when moving Amendment No. 23.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(9) Where the Commission have authorised the killing of any deer under this section they shall have power to dispose by sale or otherwise of the carcase of any deer so killed.".").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 91 which are my own amendments.
The government amendments would clarify the circumstances under which the commission would have the power to dispose of carcasses. Section 13 of the 1959 Act gave the commission the power to dispose of the carcasses of all deer killed "under their authority". Under the proposed new Section 33A, the range of circumstances under which the commission will authorise action against deer is wider than at present and it is not intended that the commission should have the power to dispose of carcasses in such wide circumstances. It is proposed to restrict the commission's powers to dispose of carcasses to those situations where it has been involved in the taking or killing of deer either directly or through contractors.
The practice of the commission is to exercise the right to dispose of carcasses only when it needs to recover the expenses of its own stalkers or contractors authorised by the commission to do the job. The circumstances are reasonably rare when this has to be activated. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Amendment No. 92 is grouped with these amendments, and goes in precisely the opposite direction. It seems to me that with the doubt surrounding the way Clause 4 can be used we could have a situation where large numbers of deer could be driven by helicopters into corrals and massacred by the deer commission or its agents.
At the moment, as I understand it, my noble friend the Minister is resisting the idea that the owner, his agent or his servants would even be informed of this exercise. It therefore seems to me completely inequitable that the commission should be able to add insult to that injury by sending the bill for the exercise to the hapless owner, who may not even have known that the action was going to take place. I refer to the use to which Clause 4 could technically be put as we stand here today.
The dimension of these expenses, with the use of helicopters, goes up enormously. It is not impossible for the commission to decide, as I understand it—we may come to it later today—that quite a large area of ground and open hill should be cleared of deer. It might decide that it takes three helicopters two days to do the job,

CWH 63
each helicopter costing about £;l500 an hour. They might make a mess of it the first day; the deer might decide they did not want to be driven into that corral; they might go back to where they came from, marauding or otherwise damaging the natural heritage, whatever that may eventually turn out to be. To send the bill for many thousands of pounds to the owner for this exercise seems to me to fly further in the face of natural justice than I would have thought tolerable, even by the authors of this Bill. I therefore propose Amendment No. 92, which would make it clear that any expenses incurred by the commission in the performance of its duties should be the debt of the commission.
I would also add that normally when the deer are killed they belong to the person on whose land they fall. At that point they do become a legal possession of the hapless owner. I therefore propose Amendment No. 92 and would be very interested to hear from my noble friend whether he has thought of the expenses that could be involved in this act of legalised confiscation and piracy.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I think the noble Lord Pearson of Rannoch ought to go in for writing novels of a very exciting character, because the thought that there will be helicopters rounding up the deer and driving them into corrals and then slaughtering them with sub-machine guns is the sort of picture he is painting. I understand these amendments, but perhaps the Minister will put me right. It foxed me a little that in some cases an amendment was down to sell the deer and in other cases it was down that you could not sell the deer. I assume that if, after consultation with the owner and his agent, his stalker and his butler, he still refuses to do anything about it and the commission has to spend money in culling out the deer, then the commission will be quite legitimately entitled to sell the deer and retrieve some of the expense, but if he co-operates and kills the deer then he can keep the deer. It seems to me a perfectly simple solution. I should be glad if the Minister could tell me whether I am right in this.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. It is important in all circumstances to understand two things, so far as I can tell from the Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that extravagant language is never very helpful, the fact is that the possibility of driving deer in the way that my noble friend has described is very real. We are dealing with a Bill which will open up all kinds of doors unless the precise terms are properly described, and that is what my noble friend is seeking to do, and to ensure that that point is well understood.
I do not think it is fair to challenge my noble friend in quite the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has done. Having said that, if I understood my noble friend Lord Lindsay correctly, he is saying, as regards these amendments relating to the sale of deer, that, under Section 6 of the substantive Act—and I may have misunderstood him—it may be necessary to sell the carcasses in order to recoup the cost of dealing with the deer in the way that is necessary, but that under various other sections of the existing Act, that authority
CWH 64
would no longer stand. In short, I believe he is saying that he is tightening up the existing Act to some extent. Am I right?
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for returning some sanity to the discussion, because my noble friend Lord Pearson really had departed well beyond what I have said to date, and indeed what is said either in the Bill or the Act. The point of my amendments was to exclude some of the additional areas in which the commission could authorise action—for instance the new authorisations under new Section 33A—from the commission's right to recoup costs through the disposal of carcasses.
The only people the commission could authorise to use a helicopter or other vehicle to move deer for management reasons would be the occupier or his nominee; i.e. not the commission itself. In fact, the only area where we are talking about the commission needing to recoup costs where it, itself, has perhaps employed its own stalkers or contractors would be, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has just said, either in Section 6 or Section 7 schemes. The general principle of the commission being able to recoup costs in those circumstances has been established since 1959, but the controversy that they may have caused has been remarkably insubstantial and insignificant. We just want to ensure that the practice of carcass disposal by the commission is retained in the form envisaged under the 1959 Act and is not suddenly broadened in the proposals before us in the new Section 33A. That is the purpose of the government amendments, but it should also bring considerable reassurance to my noble friend Lord Pearson.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful for that explanation if my noble friend is saying that, under the provisions of Clause 4 as it will stand, helicopters cannot be used to drive deer. That had not been my understanding to date. It may be that in jogging backwards and forwards between the various Acts I have misunderstood the powers which it is proposed to grant to the commission or anyone appointed by the commission. As I see it, under the authorisation of certain Acts, it may be that that applies only to night shooting and nothing else—I do not know. If I have misunderstood the drafting of the Bill, then of course I apologise to the Committee. The simplest way to do that would be to ask my noble friend the Minister to assure me that Clause 4 of the Bill, as it will emerge, can in no way be used to authorise the use of helicopters to drive deer into corrals.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the picture I have given to the Committee is not entirely fanciful. It has actually happened in New Zealand where 3 million deer were shot in two years by the use of helicopters. I admit that, in New Zealand, they were actually shot from the helicopters. They were driven up the hill so that they stood exhausted on the top. In that way 10 times the Scottish wild deer population was obliterated in New Zealand in two years. I see no reason to imagine that what I have depicted to the Committee will be the

CWH 65
subject of a future best seller. What I have depicted is perfectly possible and my understanding is that that is what the Bill authorises. If it does not, I withdraw the amendment with relief. Otherwise, I am simply making that point that the ability to charge the hapless owner for the destruction of his property is going too far.
The Earl of Lindsay: The owner would be asked to allow his carcasses to be sold by the commission only after the commission had employed its own stalkers or contractors to carry out the work where that owner or occupier had in the first place failed to carry out the action that had been required.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend in order to pursue the point of Clause 4. Could that happen under Clause 4, because under Clause 4 we may not even have found the owner? In view of my noble friend's reply to the previous amendments this afternoon, we may not be about to find the owner or the stalker. It therefore seems a little unfair for this to happen and then for him to be charged for the expenses which could arise with the use of helicopters which are a new facet of this Bill. Helicopters were not available for this kind of operation before, and it seems perfectly reasonable to point out that the expenses would be very much larger.
The Earl of Lindsay: I think it best if I offer my noble friend a meeting because his understanding both of what I have already said today about the rights of owners and the extent to which they will be contacted, and his understanding in particular of Clause 4 which deals with the marauding powers, is so wide of some of the other assertions he has been making and the references to New Zealand and so forth that, rather than waste the Committee's time, it would be better if we sat round a table and sorted this out.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to my noble friend for any offer of a meeting. I hope he will be able to convince me at that meeting that I misunderstood the Bill as drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) This section may not be used by the Commission in any attempt to enhance the natural heritage'"').
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 47. Once again it is an attempt to understand how the new powers which are proposed in this Bill, particularly those in Clause 4, will be used. Those who support the amendment say that these powers should not be used to enhance or improve the natural heritage. We understand that they may be used to prevent further damage, but not to repair habitat which some may judge has been damaged in the past. Under Clause 4, as drafted, there is not a clear understanding of how the natural heritage interest will
CWH 66
be affected. Indeed, the definition of "woodland" in Clause 4 seems extremely wide. We do not know where we stand with this intention.
I should remind the Committee that Scottish Natural Heritage, in a recent position paper entitled, Red Deer and the Natural Heritage, said in broad terms, and I quote:
"The restoration of the native woodland eco-system is at the very heart of our vision for the uplands."
What these amendments are designed to do (obviously they are probing amendments at this stage) is to get my noble friend to be very precise as to what extent these amendments can be used to improve the natural heritage. I understand that he said they can only be used when there is serious damage or even damage, but as I said at our last Committee proceedings, damage and serious damage are matters which are in the eye of the beholder. Bearing in mind that the value of a deer forest can be very considerable to the owner—and no doubt my noble friend will put me straight when we have our meeting—as far as I can see, Clause 4 could be used to reduce that value very considerably. We need to be clearer, certainly clearer than I am at the moment, as to how these new powers will be used. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I also feel that the term "natural heritage" is rather wide and needs definition. I have been given some notes on this which I had not expected to receive at this point, but I am concerned about the term "natural heritage". I suspect at this stage that the question of "natural" may be interpreted to mean grouse moors which are arguably anything but natural heritage. Most grouse moors are the product of the clearances of the old Caledonian Forest. In fact, some of the early Scottish history books refer to the ruthless clearing of the old Caledonian Forest in the last century for the production of sheep and for grouse shooting. I would certainly oppose the disruption of deer merely to enhance the dubious moral activity of shooting birds for sport. I wonder therefore what is meant by "natural heritage". Does one start in 1850 or now?. Can the Minister help with this?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I have not hit a grouse for a very long time! However, I do know that to put a phrase like this into a Bill is political madness.
"This section may not be used by the Commission in any attempt to enhance the natural heritage".
That is surely a very foolish thing to put into any Bill. The natural heritage is a question of definition. It may be defined as grouse moors, which is against the present thinking. But if the people of this country feel that the hills of Scotland should go back to an area of natural regeneration and into a different form from what they are today, the owners of the land have no right to stop them. It is perfectly reasonable to say that if the Bill can be useful in restoring or enhancing the natural heritage in any form, it should be done. But to include a clause saying that it shall not be used to enhance the natural heritage is, in my humble view, political foolishness.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend was, I believe, trying to tease out from my noble friend Lord Lindsay exactly what are the parameters of the various clauses

CWH 67
referred to, particularly those connected with Amendment No. 36, in order to establish just how wide the powers are to override all the other interests involved. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will know that a substantial part of the economy of Scotland where deer are to be found concerns stalking and such other things, and they could be seriously damaged by any attempt to override that interest by dealing purely with the natural heritage. It is, therefore, as unreasonable as all that. On the contrary; it would be helpful to the Committee to have an early indication from my noble friend the Minister of just how wide these powers are likely to be and how they are likely to be used in practice.
The Earl of Lindsay: I have made it abundantly clear—indeed, the draftsman makes it abundantly clear—that the Clause 4 powers amending Section 6 of the 1959 Act and the amendments to the Section 7 control orders in Clause 5 can be employed only to protect the natural heritage against serious damage. They cannot be employed to protect the natural heritage against damage that is less than serious; they cannot be employed for any form of enhancement. There are other avenues and opportunities available for the enhancement of the natural heritage and it may be that a control agreement, as part of its agenda, can have some sort of enhancement as one of its objectives. Most owners and occupiers of a deer range, in seeking to enhance the natural heritage or where others are seeking to persuade them that they should do so, may well be looking to the Forestry Commission or to SNH for the sort of programme to follow, but the application of the powers outlined in Clause 4, marauding deer powers, or in Clause 5, control schemes, are only able to be used where they will prevent serious damage. I made that abundantly clear, and the Bill makes that abundantly clear. If in a flash of inspiration any of the advisors working with me on the Bill can find a legally safe way of making it even clearer to noble Lords, I myself will bring the amendment forward, but I am not wracked with worry if a legally watertight definition of the word "enhancement", which does not prevent protection against serious damage, can be found, vis-à-vis the clarity which we have got into the Bill in confining those powers to the prevention of serious damage.
The concept of natural heritage is a broad one, especially in a country like Scotland which has such an extraordinarily diverse topography, and therefore for the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to seek to exclude grouse moors or to have some moral uncertainties about deer and how they are managed traditionally, I find somewhat strange. The well-managed grouse moors provide an essential part of Scotland's natural heritage, and the red grouse itself is one of Scotland's unique contributions to global biodiversity. The contribution that grouse moor management can make to Scotland's landscapes and to its habitats is crucial.
I also would be somewhat cautious about mocking or undermining the sporting methods used in traditional deer management, in that they provide vital income to many remote areas. If you are supporting an extra family in the area, from the sporting income which is available, you are also supporting the garage where the family buys its car, the school where the children go to school,
CWH 68
the shop where the family buys milk and so forth. Therefore, I think that that dimension of deer management should be encouraged.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Pearson that the definitions of natural heritage extend from woodland to the habitat within woodland, and indeed to the habitat that we find outside woodland. At the same time, I hope he will take some comfort from the fact that long-term damage cannot be tackled through Clause 4 powers. For instance, you cannot say that you have an emergency situation where no other options are available to you and you are preventing the serious damage which has occurred unexpectedly, when deer have been in that area and behaving in that way for many years. Therefore, we are looking in terms of emergency protection of the natural heritage against serious damage, for instance, in circumstances where deer come unexpectedly on to ground where they are not usually resident and where the natural heritage of that ground, which is notable, is suddenly subject to serious damage. Then, if there are no other powers available to the commission—and there are considerable other powers available to the commission—and one is at the last resort option, only then can the Section 6 marauding powers be activated as amended by Clause 4 of the Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and especially for the somewhat unexpected support of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I should just say that the forests—that is, the trees—have been on the retreat probably since the Bronze Age and certainly since Roman times. They were in fact destroyed not by grouse moor owners but by the requirements of the charcoal burners and the Navy over many centuries. Then, of course, 150 years ago, we had the infamous Highland clearances which brought sheep, not deer, to the Highlands and it was the sheep that then paved the way for what became the grouse moors and then the deer forests.
If the Committee will forgive that historical comparison, I agree with the noble Lord that a more precise definition of "natural heritage" would be very convenient.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asks, if the people of this country decide that they want the whole place to be covered in trees and returned to the Roman period or whatever period it may be, who are the landowners to stand in their way? I would have to reply—I believe my noble friend the Minister indicated this—that if that is the way the country wants to go, then it should be by negotiated management through Clause 5 of the Bill, unless the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is recommending straight confiscation without appeal from the landowners in question on the value of their deer forests, and I cannot believe that he is advocating that. However, it is the powers within Clause 4 which worry me particularly in that regard.
I was most grateful to hear what my noble friend Lord Lindsay said towards the end of his remarks. When he began his comments he said that it must be absolutely clear that the Clause 4 powers can only he used to

CWH 69
prevent serious damage and to protect against serious damage. My point to him on that is that the people who wish to see the natural forest (as they call it) regenerate without deer fencing by drastically reducing the numbers of deer and therefore destroying the value of the deer forests, say that that is taking place at the moment. They say that the deer forests, and possibly the grouse moors, are themselves the victims of serious damage already. It is that situation which these amendments are designed to stand up against. I was therefore encouraged to hear my noble friend say that long-term damage cannot be tackled under Clause 4; that where deer have been behaving in that way for many years, Clause 4 cannot apply. The time when deer suddenly come on to that ground is the time when the provisions of Clause 4 come into action.
I am encouraged to hear my noble friend say that. However, as we read it, that is not on the face of the Bill in front of us today. We have no definition of "maraud" and we have a very wide definition of "woodland" which, as far as I can see, would include large areas of deer forest and grouse moor where small trees, shrubs, rowan and birch two or three inches high are in among the heather. They are grazed principally by sheep, which unfortunately are not the object of this Bill, but also by deer. Within the definition of this Bill, as it stands, that would be woodland. Even if we do not get as far as the difficulties and ambiguity of the meaning of the words "natural heritage", we still have the problem with "woodland".
As I say—I do not want to take more of the Committee's time—the people who wish to have vast reductions in the numbers of deer without deer fencing already say that serious damage is occurring. Therefore, if we can find some way of putting into the Bill what my noble friend the Minister has said as to the fact that the powers of Clause 4 cannot be used against the existing situation and that it would then be for Clause 5 management agreements, negotiation and some form of compensation perhaps for the wretched landowner, who would not therefore have his property confiscated, I feel we would have done something very useful.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I must defend myself against the charge that I was advocating wholesale confiscation. I was merely saying it is a very foolish clause to put in the Bill and, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is way ahead. The next thing he will be saying is that I am advocating that the tumbrels should roll in the highlands and that the landlords should be executed! I like the highland landlords a lot and we are looking for a sensible way to enhance the natural heritage in all sorts of ways. Grouse occasionally can be very profitable and can maintain a lot of people. Therefore, I resent or reject the charge that I want wholesale confiscation.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I exonerate the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, of any charge I may have misunderstood him to make. I also apologise for the
CWH 70
wording of the amendment, which I appreciate is not perfect, but it was simply designed to encourage the debate which we have now had and I look forward to my noble friend the Minister's reply.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am sure I am going over the same ground over and over again, but I will happily do so. The one new point which I have not articulated properly before is that the trees that are there simply because they are there, be they browsed at knee-height or not, will not qualify as woodland unless they are trees that have been deliberately grown; that is, there is an active method and deliberate management of those trees. If one is pursuing a regeneration project, unenclosed within a normal deer range, that cannot be the target of Clause 4 powers. One could not claim that the deer had arrived there unexpectedly. One could not claim that there were no other options available to the commission in pursuit of the prevention of serious damage. After all, the Clause 5 amendments to the Section 7 powers—the control agreements and the control schemes—are designed to deal with the longer-term problems. Clause 4 is designed to deal with the emergencies where there are no other options available and one needs a last resort, an ultimate lifeboat, as it were, to rescue a situation from serious damage.
I hope that the assurances that I have given both specifically as regards this clause, and also in the general conversation that we have had about other parts of Clause 4, will bring some comfort to my noble friend. I refer principally to the continued assurance which I give to the Committee, and will give to the House at later stages, that enhancement cannot be the excuse for either Clause 4 powers or indeed the control schemes under Clause 5.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am enormously grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said, and it does give one much comfort. I am, however, still left with the fervent desire to see what my noble friend has put into the Bill more precisely than it is at the moment and perhaps we can consider that between now and the next stage. For instance, my noble friend said that the deer arrive unexpectedly, that they cause surprise by their arrival. There must be a way in which we could have on the face of the Bill something nearer the assurances which my noble friend the Minister gave than are to be found there at the moment. With that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION OF DEER FROM THEIR NATURAL HABITAT
(" . Where there is exclusion of deer from their natural habitat due to enclosure of land previously unenclosed, the owner or occupier of that land shall take action to reduce the deer population accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to add a new clause. The Minister may already have said much that I will be suggesting. The wording comes from the crofters' commission and reads:
"Where there is exclusion of deer from their natural habitat due to enclosure of land previously unenclosed, the owner or occupier of that land shall take action to reduce the deer population accordingly".
The purpose of the amendment is to tackle the problem of excluding deer from newly-enclosed land rather than simply creating a problem elsewhere and perhaps increasing unnaturally the deer population in another part of the area. In the Highlands and Islands I understand that the natural regeneration of woodlands and other types of forestry is proving increasingly attractive, and under one of those schemes it is necessary to enclose previously unenclosed land to the possible exclusion of deer from land they were already using. When deer are so excluded they will move to other areas with the potential of increasing the local deer population and perhaps damaging beyond repair the old natural territory that the land had adopted over the past half century. Agricultural land and so forth could also be badly affected.
It would, in the opinion of some of those trying to enclose the land, be profitable to cull the deer that fall within a new enclosure of land, thus avoiding the problem of them migrating to other areas and perhaps starving because of over-population in those areas. That seems to me to be a logical way out of what could be a problem if certain types of forestry are to be used for the creation of crofting areas. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to this matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. This is an eminently sensible matter which we should be considering, and in particular it will be an interesting planning consideration. Certainly if land is to be enclosed for forestry that has to go through a planning process. I therefore draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that members of the planning committee should consider the issue of the deer when they consider the issue of the enclosure of land for forestry. For some it will mean the destruction of what they regard as a nuisance and for others it will mean the execution of Bambi.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I support the amendment, or at least the spirit of it. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may be aware that the most likely way in which his amendment would apply at the moment is with the new native pinewood schemes, which are proving quite a success. A number of landowners are using them to regenerate the ancient Caledonian Forest within fenced areas. They can be quite large. In fact, if one does not do a native pinewood scheme of upwards of 300 acres it probably is not beneficial to the estate in financial terms. One is beginning to see several schemes of 500 acres and more. Certainly, the deer have to be fenced out completely and so, too, sheep. Hares can still be a problem, but that is perhaps another matter.
I think the noble Lord will find that when permission is given for these schemes by the Forestry Commission it leans very heavily on the advice of Scottish Natural
CWH 72
Heritage which would be unlikely to give consent unless suitable culling was to take place. I do not know whether the amendment is ideal in putting the onus on to the owner but if possible that should certainly happen. No schemes should be allowed in areas which are heavily used by deer without reducing the numbers of deer which are thus squeezed out to do damage elsewhere.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am very glad to hear the noble Lord supporting the amendment. If a great area of land is closed off and the deer move, the crofters find that the grazing for their sheep is reduced. I know that some people do not like sheep, but to the crofter they are very important. Therefore, it is a sensible amendment. I hope that the Minister has an answer in the Bill already and that he will take a sympathetic view. Sheep are a source of income for people in the Highlands. If you take away the grazing, you give those people less income.
The Earl of Lindsay: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that I am sympathetic to all amendments and especially this one. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, explained clearly the intention and the objective of the amendment. As we understand it, it would ensure that where deer are excluded from a piece of land—possibly hill land, possibly not—and their winter range is correspondingly reduced, action is taken to reduce the numbers to match the available habitat. Such exclusions could be the result of woodland grant schemes or, more rarely, of agricultural improvement.
In all these cases, whether through the Forestry Commission, SNH, or for some other reason, the Red Deer Commission advises the appropriate authority on the steps that should be taken by the land manager and that advice is passed to the land manager. I understand that, in general, the advice is followed. However, I understand that there could be circumstances where the advice is not followed and where public funding has been used to support an investment in forestry or in a natural heritage project. The consequences for the deer because of the advice not being followed may therefore be regrettable. One thinks immediately of welfare.
I want to consider the amendment as the noble Lord has drafted it. We want to think very carefully about the fact that we could already have around 600,000 deer in Scotland and that figure is rising. They range from roe deer in the southern and eastern half of Scotland to the sika and red deer. We have a huge amount of forestry. There are quite a few marginal adjustments to the deer range, be it roe or red. Therefore, we shall want to look at the amendment with great care.
Parts of that consideration will be looking at what powers are already available to the commission which might, with some adjustment, be suitable to achieve exactly what the amendment seeks to achieve. I acknowledge the point raised by the noble Lord and we shall look very carefully at it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Earl sits down, one message he might care to look at is that most of these schemes attract grant which is not paid all

CWH 73
in one lump. It might be possible to tie, perhaps not the first payment of the grant, but subsequent payments of grant, to the completion of the reduction in deer which would have been stipulated at the start of the scheme. I am of course talking more about the Highland range and red deer and not, as my noble friend the Minister mentioned, roe deer. This is a thoroughly sensible amendment in spirit.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful. I have very little experience in getting grants. I have not been able to find a way of getting a grant on anything‡ I am grateful for the support I have already received and also for the sympathetic reply of the Minister. We shall obviously look at it carefully and come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Control agreements and control schemes]:
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("farm animals") and insert ("livestock").
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("those animals") and insert ("any such livestock").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 when moving Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("or exterminated").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 46. I have brought them forward in response to suggestions made at Second Reading and during the evidence taken at sessions in Edinburgh. Amendment No. 4 removes the words "or exterminated" from Section 7 of the 1959 Act, which stipulates the measures the commission can promote to control deer in particular areas. I know that was a concern of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. It is accepted that the term "extermination" is archaic and has unfortunate connotations in implying large scale killing of deer.
It is, however, necessary to include the option of total exclusion of deer from a particular area, which may not be allowed if we merely remove the words "or exterminated" without allowing specifically for exclusion. Exclusion may be effected by shooting but it could also be effected by driving deer out of the area or by live capture. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I welcome the Government's agreement to remove the expressions "exterminate" and "extermination" from the face of the Bill. I believe that we are also debating Amendment No. 42, in which case I would have to ask my noble friend whether he has any idea of the size of area that could have all its deer excluded. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will accuse me again of taking
CWH 74
a flight of fancy, but there are those engaged in the Scottish uplands debate who believe that all the deer east of the A.9 should be removed. That is about the largest area over which I have heard that they should be exterminated.
I am not sure whether there is any indication given in the Bill, or whether my noble friend can give us any assurance, that one is talking about pinpointing problem areas such as new plantations. Once again, I am only dealing with the words on the face of the Bill and on the face of the amendment. At the moment it seems that they could apply to an area east of the A.9, but I am sure that they are not meant to do so.
The Earl of Lindsay:I do not think I can possibly predict the sorts of circumstances that might trigger this consideration by the commission. I have already said what a diverse place Scotland is. We must remember that we are talking about red deer, roe, fallow and sika. One hopes that we will not have too many muntjac in Scotland, but from the way they are invading the southern part of the UK their numbers may well be on the way up as well.
There could be circumstances in the context of control agreements and control schemes where there is a need to try to exclude deer from a small area or less than a small area. The ability with which one could hope to exclude deer, say, east of the A.9 or remove all sika from Scotland is such as to be improbable; it is unlikely that one could ever achieve such an objective, so there will be obvious limitations on the extent to which the commission can suggest total exclusion, given that it is too large an area. It would pose an impossible problem to achieve that. But the discretion of the commission would be driven by the circumstances in which this is applied.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I agree that it might be difficult, indeed impossible, to exclude all deer, say, east of the A.9. I agree that that is an almost absurd project. Nevertheless, I think that we should apply our minds to clarifying the areas in question a little more precisely. I am quite happy to leave it now, but it seems to me that very large areas could be concerned. A whole deer management group in the area between the A.82 and Loch Laggan and Loch Ericht could be chosen, and it would be perfectly possible to exterminate all the deer in that area, given the powers that exist in the Bill.
The Earl of Lindsay: May I point out to my noble friend that this is within the context of Clause 5: we are dealing with control agreements and control schemes. Control agreements are driven by voluntary participation. Although a control scheme has never been used or put in place since 1959, in the event that one might be there are significant safeguards for owners and occupiers. Indeed, a public inquiry can be insisted upon if an owner is unhappy with the terms of the control scheme. To hope to prescribe the sort

CWH 75
of area over which exclusion might be sought is difficult but there are very good safeguards for owners and occupiers throughout.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: That does give some comfort. I will now read carefully in Hansard what my noble friend said and do not propose to pursue the matter further at the moment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 4, line 20, leave out from ("number") to ("; and,") in line 21.
Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) Where it appears to the Commission that the circumstances obtaining in a particular area require the complete exclusion of all deer, or of all deer of any species, from that area, they may form the view that any deer within that area should be taken, removed or killed.").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45:
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("farm animals") and insert ("livestock").
Page 5, line 16, leave out ("that").
Page 4, line 45, leave out ("animals") and insert ("deer").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 when speaking to Amendment No. 21. They are clarifying amendments and part of the consolidation process. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, line 31, leave out from ("the") to ("above") in line 32 and insert ("purposes of subsection (1) or (1A)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 46 when moving Amendment No. 40. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
DEER KILLED UNDER AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION
(". For section 13 of the principal Act (power of Commission to dispose of carcases) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Deer killed under authority of Commission.
13. Without prejudice to sections 6, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act, the Commission shall have no power to dispose of the carcases of deer killed under their authority.".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 48 when moving Amendment No. 35 on the disposal of carcasses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Close seasons]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 42, leave out from ("State") to end of line 46 and insert ("—

(a) shall, in relation to the female of every species of deer; and

(b) may, in relation to the male of any species of deer,

by order fix a period in each year during which no person shall take or wilfully kill or injure any deer of the sex and species named in the order; and different periods may be so fixed in relation to different species and in relation to the male and female of any species.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 49 is designed to make the setting of close seasons for adult female deer compulsory, but to leave the question of whether close seasons are set for adult male deer a matter for the Secretary of State's discretion, subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope the amendment meets some of the concerns expressed specifically during the evidence-taking session in Edinburgh.
The wording of the clause in the introduction print of the Bill (which is designed to extend the existing system of setting close seasons by order for all species except red deer, to include red deer as well) followed the empowering provision in Section 21(2) of the 1959 Act.
Much of this amendment is driven by welfare considerations. It is important to have close seasons for adult female deer in any event and it is especially important when they have dependent calves which either may not be seen or may not be visible to the stalker should stalking be allowed during that part of their lifecycle. I have therefore concluded that it would be sensible to ensure that there are always close seasons in place for female deer.
As far as male deer are concerned, we have no intention at present of changing the existing system of setting close seasons for .all species of deer. For the present we envisage that any problems relating to overpopulation can be handled through the new control agreement powers in Clause 5 which can allow exemptions from the close seasons for specific purposes in specific areas of Scotland.
Amendment No. 83 is designed to take account of hybrids, especially for the purposes of close seasons. The term "species" will include any hybrid of different species of deer. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: May I just say how grateful I am, as I am sure are the other members of the Committee, to my noble friend for accepting so much of the thrust of what was said in Edinburgh in this regard. This will give comfort to a lot of people on all sides of the deer debate. Would it be appropriate if I were also to remind my noble friend of the suggestion made in the committee in Edinburgh, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that perhaps it might be simpler if the deer commission fixed the new seasons, as he put it, "subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State"? I seem to remember that the deer commission itself would not have any difficulty with that, and it might obviate the need for orders and further parliamentary consideration and matters of that kind. I

CWH 77
certainly welcome the amendment and merely leave the thought with my noble friend, that perhaps he may wish to come back to it before the next stage.
The Earl of Lindsay: The one distinct factor on which I would respond to my noble friend is that close seasons affect the criminal law across Scotland, and therefore consideration perhaps beyond the deer commission itself would be vital. But the more obvious factor is that the Red Deer Commission is the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State on deer matters, and it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would seek to set a close season against the advice of the same deer commission.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: What I think the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, had in mind was that if the deer commission decided on close seasons then there would not have to be a parliamentary order and it would save parliamentary time.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am advised that it is the implications for the criminal law that necessitate the parliamentary procedure here.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ACTS
(".—(1) Section 33(3) of the principal Act shall be amended as follows—

(a) after "grounds", the first time it appears, "or" shall be omitted;

(b) after "permanent grass" there shall be inserted "or common grazing"; and

(c) after "unenclosed land" there shall be inserted "outwith of crofting tenure)".".)

The noble Lord said: This amendment really must be taken in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 which I will move when the time comes. This amendment provides the opportunity for the occupier to take action against marauding deer on common grazing, but the Act apparently allows an occupier to take action against marauding deer on enclosed land. This is insufficient in the crofting counties, as deer can simply jump the fence on to the common grazing to avoid action. Thus it is very difficult for the crofter to take effective action to protect his or her land, and given the small-scale nature of crofting damaged by marauding deer, it would have a very dramatic and impoverishing effect.
However the individual crofting tenant has no remit to take independent action on the common grazing. It is the grazing committee of the council that is responsible for the management of the common grazing. This amendment expands the type of land over which crofters or grazing committees can take action to control marauding deer, and thus protect their inbye land more effectively. Yet it does not allow crofting tenants or grazing committees to take any action over land that is not under the crofting tenure, thus protecting the open
CWH 78
expanses of deer forests in the Highlands and Islands. Furthermore, by allowing pre-emptive action in the common grazing it will be possible to overcome many of the difficulties surrounding public safety. In crofting townships, the scale of agricultural operations is small and concentrated around the townships. Thus it is clear that a danger to public safety can arise on such enclosed land, particularly if the shooting is done at night. By allowing pre-emptive action by grazing committees in the common grazing, which is normally distant from the township, the dangers to public safety are much diminished or actually removed. Thus it is felt that if such a provision is put in place on common grazing, it would largely eliminate the need for the introduction of Clause 7 with respect to the crofting counties requiring authorisation for night shooting. To avoid needing to take action to control marauding deer on the common grazing, it is essential to expand the definition of "occupier" to include the grazing committee or a grazing constable. I hope that the Minister will be able to give sympathetic consideration to this proposal and if necessary come back with wording that is more suitable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for explaining Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. Indeed the issues he raises are issues which we have thought very carefully about, as did the Red Deer Commission, in the consultation process prior to the Bill. We hope that in the balance we sought behind the Bill we took due account of these considerations. I understand that the amendments would introduce the concept of common grazing as a type of agriculture on which occupiers, or others, will be able to shoot out of season to prevent serious damage to crops, pasture or foodstuffs without the need for commission authorisation.
Perhaps it is appropriate for me to take this opportunity to explain what the Bill presently proposes. Our governing principle is that occupiers of agricultural land must be able to take steps to protect their agricultural investment. To that end, the Bill proposes that the set of descriptions of the type of land over which occupiers or others can take or kill out of season—that is deer—without requiring authorisation from the commission be amended. At present the expression:
"Land laid down in permanent grass (other than moorland or unenclosed land)"
allows farmers and crofters to take action on the inbye land of their farms or crofts. Our proposed revision extends this right to allow farmers and crofters to take action to protect any land in which they have made a significant investment towards the productivity of the holding. I am content that the Bill as drafted allows sufficient protection for the investment of farmers and crofters to be safeguarded where serious damage is occurring and that as a consequence this group of amendments is not appropriate.
In addition, if the land over which, for instance, a crofting community are concerned about deer damage occurring falls outside the new definition which we are proposing, I would remind the noble Lord that the Section 7 powers, as being amended by our Clause 5,

CWH 79
could well be a useful avenue to managing those deer numbers. In addition, if there is a deer management group locally, it is another source of a possible solution to an over-population of deer in a particular locality. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the Minister define more precisely the position of improved land? For example, if some common grazing improved the land through a natural process of cattle and other methods about which the Minister knows, and the deer come into the proper inbye land, can "hot pursuit" continue on to the common grazing to ensure that the deer are killed? If deer have been marauding in the inbye land in the permanent grass, eating the turnips—as I said before—and from there proceed on to the common grazing, which may be unimproved, can the deer be killed there?
The Earl of Lindsay: If I may start at the beginning, the definition of "improved land" requires a significant investment to have been made. A significant application of lime and fertiliser or significant efforts to regenerate through re-seeding would qualify that land as improved land. The ability to use the marauding deer power if they are on the inbye land—we are now back to the common grazing—would be subject to the entire framework of Clause 4. So there would be safeguards afforded to those who have a right to kill where the deer have come from. The person with a right to kill on the common grazing would be the first person to be asked by the commission to take action against deer that were marauding. I reiterate the formula, which must be becoming well known to noble Lords, that the marauding powers still would be unavailable if the damage was less than serious and if there were other options available for managing the deer. In most cases there are other options available for managing such deer. I hope that I have answered the points raised.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister again for his long explanation. He will appreciate that it was largely an interpretation. It is not the interpretation I received from some people who wrote to me less than two weeks ago. Although the Minister's interpretation is probably correct, I shall perhaps come back to the issue on Report when I have more information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Authorisation by Commission of certain acts.]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 6, line 32, at beginning insert ("Notwithstanding anything in any agreement between an occupier of agricultural land or of woodland and the owner thereof, but").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 51, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 53, 59 and 66. The amendments all arise from the consolidation process and are necessary to clarify that action authorised by the commission should take precedence over any agreement between the owner and an occupier of land. It was the clear intention of the 1959 Act that
CWH 80
action declared lawful by Section 33(3) and (4) should take precedence. By analogy the same principle should apply to action authorised by the commission.
Such action can only be taken in the case of serious damage and that does not constitute a legal right to take deer in all circumstances. It has been a working assumption of those in the field that the commission's existing authorisation powers take precedence over private agreements. The commission will still be subject to the balancing duty to take account as relevant of owners' interests in exercising its authorisation functions and should not exercise those powers in an unreasonable manner. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 53 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 54.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 6, line 33, leave out from ("authorise") to second ("or") in line 34 and insert ("such an occupier").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 53 when moving Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 56 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 6, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) there is a danger to public safety; or").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to ascertain the Minister's views on what constitutes "serious damage".
Clause 7 refers to the circumstances under which the commission can authorise the shooting or the taking of deer outwith the limits normally prescribed by legislation. In that regard, the purpose of crofting in the context of deer control in areas such as the Western Isles should not be forgotten. Although the problem of deer in such areas is often localised, where it does occur there can be considerable damage to a croft and gardens. That should be borne in mind when the definition of "serious damage" is being considered in relation to marauding deer and the authorising of the necessary action by the commission.
The scale of damage to crofts in such cases may not necessarily indicate the severe implications to such a fragile economy. What might be small-scale damage in an agricultural sense may be serious in a crofting sense where units are very much smaller. The Minister may help me and perhaps the Committee if he will go into some detail and explain what constitutes "serious damage". I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for explaining Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. My understanding of Amendment No. 57 is that it seeks to introduce a danger to public safety as an additional reason for authorising night shooting as a last

CWH 81
measure. The problem that we have with that is the danger to public safety that night shooting presents anyway and therefore it is something about which we are not enthusiastic. We fear that in trying to sort out one public safety problem, we are simply creating a second public safety problem.
In response to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 57, we have thought long and hard about the circumstances where this might be needed and we are not convinced that there is a sufficient case for what would be a power that in itself would be something of a danger.
I completely agree with the assertions made in support of Amendment No. 58 in that the word "serious" is not something which can be applied glibly across different circumstances. The noble Lord described how the damage caused by deer could have a larger impact on a small area of inbye land compared to the same number of deer on a large agricultural unit in a different part of Scotland.
We deliberately are not seeking to prescribe too closely how serious damage is defined in such circumstances precisely because of the need to take into account the details of any particular case. We should be relying on the commission to judge the seriousness of damage in any particular event.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for his reply. I can understand the problem of making decisions on what is serious, but it cannot be very reassuring to crofters to know that the commission may make a decision. Will there be any right of appeal if the crofter feels that he has been badly dealt with? It is a matter of opinion and it is always difficult to put opinion into an Act of Parliament with people perhaps trying to guess. The commissioner may have spent the whole week looking at serious damage in other areas and he then comes to see a small garden or a small croft that may have been very badly damaged, but relative to what he has seen, the damage is very little. It is always difficult to put on the face of a Bill an open word like "serious", and I wonder whether there is any way out of it. Perhaps the Minister would like to think about it and return to the matter.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: I have thought about it. I think that in the case where the commission can be shown to have come to a decision unreasonably, it will be subject to judicial review and that, of course, can be activated very quickly.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the commission, through its composition, arrives at more than just an opinion. We always hope that it will arrive at a considered and respectable opinion. Indeed, the last 39 years of the deer commission's opinions have gone down very well, broadly speaking, in Scotland and it is remarkable what it has managed to achieve through its liaison with local interest, local initiatives and local deer management groups in the decision making process. Anyone who disagrees with an opinion of the deer commission is able to continue a dialogue with that commission explaining why he disagrees. The whole
CWH 82
culture of the deer commission has been one of openness and dialogue and getting on with people at ground level.
Also, recently we have been instituting deer liaison officers so that there is access to the deer commission process beyond simply the headquarters. We would always hope that people with a deer problem, who are not initially satisfied with the deer commission's opinion, would feel able to continue discussions up to the point where they feel they should ask for a judicial review.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The task is perfectly simple in that there are agricultural valuators who know the form. If they were called in and said the damage was serious, the commission would then listen.
The Earl of Lindsay: The valuators of Scotland will be delighted to hear that suggestion, and to know that there is yet more business coming their way. The track record to date is encouraging. We would expect the common sense and the credibility that has built up now to be a continuing hallmark of their action. It is rare that the deer commission has been accused of being unsympathetic to particular circumstances. It has also deployed its considerable influence in being able to promote both more formal and less formal solutions. We look forward to that continuing.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I have been growing increasingly uneasy during this debate, because it refers back to earlier points which I made about the difficulty of deciding, first, what damage is, and, secondly, what serious damage is. The difference between serious damage and damage must be in the eye of the beholder. I am not a lawyer and I am not sure that reference to judicial review would help the matter. The person undertaking the judicial review might find himself in the same difficulty. I do not know whether it is a concept which the noble Earl the Minister might like to think of over the next few days before we come to Report stage.
I am reminded of the difficulty we had over the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill when what had been the Nature Conservancy for Scotland had been deciding that an area of Scotland should be a site of special scientific interest on scientific grounds; and that was that—it became a site of special scientific interest, often to the detriment of the owner or the occupier of the land in question. It seems to me that we could be moving into similar waters with this Bill when we consider the difficulties of Clause 4 and the definition of natural heritage, to which we shall return.
I wonder whether we might consider some very simple and cheap mechanism, as was eventually agreed for Scottish Natural Heritage and which has proved such a success in that a small scientific advisory committee was set up under Scottish Natural Heritage which took a second guess as to whether a particular site was worthy of special interest protection or not. If there is disagreement between the occupier or the owner, from which ever direction they come, as to whether the damage is serious of not I wonder whether there should not be some second guessing mechanism which might make everyone behave more sensibly.

CWH 83
When we introduced the amendments to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill we were accused of being wicked landlords and attempting to foul up the functions of SNH in future. But in fact I gather there have only been two appeals to the advisory committee in the past five years, both of which have been adjudicated in favour of SNH. I am beginning to think that our difficulty is with Clause 4 and that the definitions with which we are struggling may be such that some very small form of second-guessing mechanism might be to the advantage of all sides.
The Earl of Lindsay: The definitions were not creating too many problems for the Committee, but my noble friend and I hope to meet to discuss some of the finer details in Clause 4. The extraordinary diversity of habitat throughout Scotland and the extraordinary diversity of deer throughout Scotland, mean that any statutory definition of the word "serious" would serve no-one. I have roe deer at home and not red deer, but I would be very worried if I thought that there was some glib formula set down on this matter.
The interpretation of the word "serious" in specific circumstances merely being in the eye of the beholder I regard as being as inaccurate as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggesting that it would be merely an opinion of the commission. The eye of the beholder in this case would be between nine and 12 commissioners appointed because of their knowledge and expertise in certain disciplines which are relevant to deer management, and there will be a balance of interests among those deer commissioners. The deer commission itself will also be seeking advice from the professionals whom they regard as being appropriate to a decision they have to make. It could be SNH; it could be my own agricultural department; it could be the Forestry Commission. Therefore they will have access to advice.
If the word "serious" is seen by an owner or occupier to have been misinterpreted under, for instance, a Clause 5 control scheme, he simply has to object. There has never been a control scheme in 36 years, but if there were to be one to which someone objected the Secretary of State would have to hold a public inquiry to clarify the nature of the objection. In Clause 4, once again, the safeguards which surround that process—the fact that it must be an emergency and there must be circumstances in which there are no other options, procedures or paths available to the commission to prevent serious damage—build in constraints preventing that party's interests from being abused.
I will gladly talk to my noble friend about the word "serious", but I would encourage him to read in Hansard what I have just said as to why we feel it is such a safe use of the word.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It has been a worthwhile debate, as indicated by the fact that the Minister had to speak so long in giving justification for the wording. I was slightly surprised, and perhaps not a little horrified, that he said we can always go to court. I would not advise any crofter to take anybody to court; it could do terrible damage before he could repay his court fees and seriously affect his circumstances.
CWH 84
I am grateful to the noble Lord who referred to the natural heritage Bill, and perhaps the Minister will have a look at all this and realise that this is a subject that could arise quite soon, or it may be a long time off. While I have every confidence in the commission, we may not get another Act for another 20 or 30 years and this could be a lot of water under the bridge. So I hope the Minister will look at it and perhaps tell us whether there is another way or a reference in another Act that will allow us to solve this problem. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 6, line 44, at beginning insert ("Notwithstanding anything in any agreement between an occupier of land and the owner thereof, but").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 6, line 47, after second ("to") insert ("move, or").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple little amendment, which is proposed at the bottom of page 6 of the Bill, subsection (3) of the proposed new Section 33A, where authorisation has been given to an occupier, or possibly also to an occupier, the owner or his agents, where deer are to be driven by vehicles in order to take or kill them for the purposes of deer management. It is made absolutely clear that the purposes of deer management are in no way sporting, so once again we are dealing with probable destruction. The purpose of the amendment is simply to suggest that it might be helpful to have in there the word "move", so that one could use any vehicle to drive deer in order to move, take or kill them for the purposes of deer management, rather than simply to leave the undertaker the option only of taking or killing them. The amendment has in mind the situation where possibly an area of ground has been fenced for regeneration, for a native pinewood scheme or something of that kind. When the deer thus driven out have also been removed from the area locally and more deer break in, it would seem sensible to have the option of moving them out, rather than to be stuck with the necessity of having to take or kill them. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I would simply say I cannot find anything sinister in this amendment, try as I do.
The Earl of Lindsay: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, whose eagle eye usually spots anything sinister, if it is there. I am grateful to my noble friend

CWH 85
Lord Pearson of Rannoch for moving three amendments—Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 84; or is he just seeking to speak to Amendment No. 64?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am not going to move Amendment No. 65. I am only moving Amendment No. 64, unless we have a different grouping list.
The Earl of Lindsay: My noble friend dealt with Amendment No. 84 on Monday and we were unclear as to why Amendment No. 65 was there. Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 64. It is very important to keep in mind, when considering the question of deer and vehicles, that deer at present can be moved using vehicles. It is quite legal. I hope that answers one of the principal points raised by my noble friend. If you are not moving deer in order to cull them, then it is legal to use vehicles to move those deer. Therefore such lawful movement would not need authorisation.
It is only an offence, as I said, to use vehicles to move deer if the operation is carried out on unenclosed land with the intention to take, kill or injure them.
It is our intention to allow the use of vehicles for essential management reasons, but it would require authorisation by the commission and, in addition, any such operation will be subject to the code of practice which the commission is preparing in consultation with deer management and welfare interests.
My noble friend made a very good point, and we thoroughly agree with him, that the main aim of driving deer could well be simply to move them from one part of their range—it may well be a newly—established part of their range which is particularly vulnerable-onto a more normal part of their range. That could be done legally at present on unenclosed land if the objective is only to move them. With specific authorisation, it will then be possible to pursue management practices such as culling.
My noble friend used the word "destruction", i.e. moving them simply to destroy them. The fact is that management may involve some management of their numbers, but one may be talking about a normal culling percentage which can be between 10 and 12 per cent. or 15 per cent. Therefore I suggest that words like "destruction", when one is talking about that kind of standard deer management, is somewhat misleading.
I hope that I have reassured my noble friend by saying that moving deer for no other purpose than moving deer is already legal.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am reassured on that and I am grateful for my noble friend's explanation on Amendment No. 64. Since, however, he went on to say that my use of the expression "destruction" was excessive, I may wish to move Amendment No. 65.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw Amendment No. 64 first?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Yes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 6, line 48, leave out from ("management") to end of line 2 on page 7.
The noble Lord said: I have suggested that the words
"for the purposes of this section 'deer management' does not include driving deer in the course of any sporting activity"
should be removed from the Bill for the very reason that they indicate the destruction to which I have just referred. In the course of any normal sporting activity, the kinds of level of cull to which my noble friend has referred, 10 or 12 per cent. or even higher, are normal. Therefore, I tabled this amendment precisely so that my noble friend the Minister could say what the purposes of this section were if they were not sporting activity. I had assumed that they were the substantial reduction of deer numbers. In those circumstances, the word "destruction" is not necessarily too emotive a word. I would be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
The Earl of Lindsay: As my noble friend well knows, deer numbers in Scotland are 600,000 or so, rising fast, and the deer range is reducing. Deer management is needed, and it may be that where emergency circumstances justify it, moving deer with the use of vehicles for management purposes could be justified. It would be subject to the various codes of practice.
The effect of Amendment No. 65 would be to allow the movement of deer with the use of vehicles simply for sporting purposes. The Government do not believe that vehicles should be used to move deer for sporting purposes. That would be the effect of Amendment No. 65 and that is why we oppose it.
Viscount Astor: I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister a question. I realise that we have had a debate on the fact that "vehicle" includes helicopters and hovercraft, but my experience is that the one thing you cannot use to move deer in is a vehicle—they take absolutely no notice at all. Is it not more valid to say that we are talking about moving them by some form of aerial means< My noble friend refers to "vehicle" but I have yet to see a vehicle which can successfully move deer. We must not become distracted by this, otherwise it may become misleading. Can my noble friend confirm that he is talking about using things which fly around in the air?
The Earl of Lindsay: I am talking about vehicles as defined in the Deer Act 1991, as has been understood in much other legislation. In many circumstances, it can be sensible to move deer by using vehicles. Noble Lords should not simply think about the red deer range—about large hostile terrains—as one might be thinking about other types of deer in other parts of Scotland where helicopters and other airborne vehicles are totally inappropriate. The point made by my noble friend does not therefore stand up. I am literally talking about all parts of a normal definition.

CWH 87
I hope my noble friend Lord pearson of Rannoch accepts that we do not want to see deer moved by vehicles for sporting purposes, response to Amendment No. 65.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to my noble friend. I am aware that some of our far eastern land owners in Scotland do use helicopters at present for driving deer for what they describe as sporting purposes. I am told it is very efficient and beastly.
I would take issue with what my noble friend said about deer numbers rising fast in Scotland. That may be true of roe deer—I am not an expert on roe deer—but my understanding is that the recent collaboration between the Association of Deer Management Groups and the Red Deer Commission has stabilised the deer population in recent years. There is every sign that the red deer population is declining. If I have misunderstood that, I apologise, but that is what I have been told by the Red Deer Commission.
I do not well know, as my noble friend suggests, that this is a problem which requires the deer to be treated in a way which, as far as I can see according to this clause, can only be described as destructive. I am sure we have had sufficient discussion on it and, if it is my amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 7, line 7, after ("Act") insert (", notwithstanding anything in any agreement between an occupier of land and the owner thereof").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 67, to 69 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 7, line 17, after ("woodland") insert ("or agricultural land").
The noble Lord said: This, I hope, is another fairly simple amendment in that, on page 7 of the Bill in Clause 7, the words "agricultural land" are not included. The paragraph reads:
"to prevent serious damage to any unenclosed woodland which forms part of that land, or serious damage, whether direct or indirect, to the natural heritage generally".
I wondered why "agricultural land" was not included within that particular clause. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I hope that I can help my noble friend Lord Pearson with Amendment No. 70. I made clear when I spoke to Amendment No. 50 that Section 33(3) of the 1959 Act already sets out the types of agricultural land where out-of-season action can be taken without the need for authorisation from the commission. I would therefore hope that Amendment No. 70 is not necessary.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I thank my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos 71 and 72 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No.73 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 73 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No.74.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("occupier or person nominated by him") and insert ("person concerned").
The noble Earl said: This amendment clarifies other amendments which are required for consolidation purposes. The present version of proposed new Section 33A, subsection (7) does not, as drafted, take account of the fact that the commission may authorise a person to take or kill deer out of season for scientific purposes. This minor amendment is by way of correction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
CARCASS TAGGING
(" . After section 25F of the principal Act, there shall he inserted the following section—
"Carcass tagging.
25G.— (l) For the purpose of monitoring the quality and source of venison sold in Scotland the Secretary of State may by regulation introduce a scheme to make provision for the identification of all deer carcasses sold within Scotland ("the scheme").
(2) The scheme shall require any venison sold to bear a tag in a form approved and issued by the Commission and bearing an individual mark or number for each carcass, identifying the producer, the year of issue and the carcass number.
(3) It shall be a requirement of the scheme that any person requiring to sell a venison carcass shall obtain in advance from the Commission the relevant tags and shall affix them to any carcass sold in such manner as may be specified.
(4) At the expiry of the year to which any unused tag relates, the producer or dealer to whom it was issued shall return the same to the Commission.
(5) It shall be an offence for any person to sell, offer or expose for sale or to receive or to have in his possession, transport or cause to be transported for the purpose of sale on any premises any venison not bearing a tag in such form as may be specified by the scheme.
(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (5) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment proposes to introduce a compulsory system of carcass tagging into the sale of venison. I should apologise to the Committee that in subsection (1) of the amendment the Marshalled List reads,
"For the purpose of nominating the quality and source of venison sold in Scotland".
The amendment should read,
"For the purpose of monitoring the quality and source of venison sold in Scotland".
I apologise to the Committee for the mistake which was only picked up this morning. I acknowledge that the suggestion in the amendment emerged relatively

CWH 89
recently. It arises from the Red Deer Commission's working group on carcass tagging which was set up in 1995 and which reported to the commission in December last year. It is unfortunate, therefore, that at this late juncture there has not been much opportunity for consultation with all interested parties or indeed for a cost compliance assessment.
Nevertheless, the proposed introduction of a compulsory carcass tagging system has the support of the Red Deer Commission, the Scottish Landowners' Federation and Scottish Enterprise. I am not aware of opposition from any interested parties and the response from the principal game dealers in particular has been favourable. Furthermore, the proposal for compulsory tagging received overwhelming support from the members of the Association of Deer Management Groups at its annual general meeting on 22 February.
Carcass tagging is also an integral part of the recommendations contained in the venison marketing feasibility study undertaken on behalf of the association by SAOS Limited in 1995. The recommendations include the establishment of a Scotland-wide venison marketing group, and the Association of Deer Management Groups has the backing of its member groups to pursue this.
I wish to outline the case for carcass tagging in more detail. A stable venison market is of great importance in underpinning the employment of professional stalkers and maintaining an adequate level of deer management throughout Scotland. This employment also has implications for rural communities and for management of the natural habitat.
Important developments have taken place in the Scottish venison industry over the last four years. In particular, the proportion of venison sold in the United Kingdom has increased from less than 10 per cent to around 30 per cent of total production since 1992 and that proportion continues to increase annually. That is important. It reduces our dependence on traditional European markets, which are notoriously susceptible to currency fluctuations, and competition from other world sources, particularly New Zealand and eastern Europe.
Under the 1995 game meat regulation there is rigorous control of food hygiene standards in respect of all venison intended for export. However, this is not the case for venison for United Kingdom consumption. Yet our customers, in particular the retail multiples with whom we are making a good deal of progress, are increasingly demanding that game meat products should meet the standards of traceability required of other meat products notwithstanding the unusual circumstances in which they are produced.
The venison industry is characterised at producer level by a fragmented approach which reflects the relatively small size of the average producer business and its remoteness from the market and also a lack of co-ordination with neighbours.
As to our customers, the game dealers and processors, the larger companies have responded to the needs of the consumer by introducing partial tagging systems of their own. However, at this point in the supply chain there is
CWH 90
again a lack of co-ordination which can only be addressed by a central system. The measures recommended in the Association of Deer Management Group's consultancy study are all intended to rationalise and co-ordinate the industry and to shorten the supply chain. The introduction of a universal system of traceability is a vital element.
I suppose that it could be claimed that our desire for the introduction of a carcass tagging system is slightly at odds with the deregulation philosophy of the Government. Also, if the case for tagging is based only on its importance for the industry, the industry could introduce it on a voluntary basis. However, the Red Deer Commission working group has concluded that a voluntary system would not be workable.
Agricultural occupiers and foresters are entitled to shoot deer to protect their interests either under authorisations from the Red Deer Commission in terms of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 or under agricultural holdings legislation where an authorisation is required. Those who fall into this category and shoot deer only on an irregular opportunistic basis do not have a primary interest in venison production and have little incentive to bow to the improving industry standards at which the ADM Groups is aiming.
Thus a significant quantity of venison is produced in Scotland which, in terms of the 1995 game meat regulations, can be legally disposed of in the United Kingdom without veterinary inspection, and without conforming to any accepted standards of handling or lardering. This significant proportion of total Scottish production has consistently been the source of the substandard product which undermines the efforts of the industry to improve the consumer image of venison.
A further aspect of the unregulated element of the venison trade is that lack of traceability creates a situation where no deer management group or indeed the Red Deer Commission can accurately assess the total cull that has been taken from the deer herd. Thus, the establishment of agreed culling strategies by deer management groups is undermined by uncertainty. The fact is that we just do not know how many we are shooting.
A related negative effect is that deer management plans, which have been developed by a joint working group of the ADMG, the Red Deer Commission, SNH and Forest Enterprise at present, will be unlikely to be taken up in all deer management group areas owing to the indeterminable "black loss", which makes the development of reliable population models difficult. A compulsory tagging system would result in a closer record of the annual cull in Scotland with reduced opportunity for abuse and illegal disposal.
There is a potential research benefit from a tagging system, if modelled on the successful Forest Enterprise system which comprises three tags, one of which is placed in the jaw, one inside the animal—the pluck as it is known, the liver and heart—and the third in the jawbone. The jawbone is used for ageing and can be retained for examination and through the tag can be linked back to the carcass information which will be recorded on the standard larder sheet which is to

CWH 91
be introduced by the Red Deer Commission in 1996. This would provide a comprehensive data set in respect of each deer culled which will be a potentially valuable research resource, particularly relevant to cohort analysis and population modelling. We are making much progress towards accurate counting of the deer. I repeat: at the moment we just do not know how many are being shot.
The Red Deer Commission working group has concluded that a compulsory scheme would address all the points noted above and that it could be implemented without difficulty and at modest cost and without imposing a significant additional administrative burden on the commission itself, as follows. Tags would be purchased from the commission by all producers; the cost of a set of tags together with the associated administration, is estimated to be less than £1 per deer carcass. There I might add that deer forests have received a very substantial benefit in recent years in that the sporting rates, which we used to pay, are no longer payable. That has saved the industry roughly £1 million per year. The deer forests certainly have the money to set up this system themselves if they want it.
The tags would be indestructible and incapable of re-use. A simple system could be introduced whereby all those who shoot deer, either in the course of normal deer management or under authorisation or exemptions, would be required to obtain the requisite number of tags from the Deer Commission, submit a statutory return of deer killed, showing the tag number, and to return surplus tags at the end of the year. The commission already has the power to examine game dealers' records and, if these are amended to include the tag number for each carcass, a further check will be available as to the disposal of each carcass which can be cross-checked against its source. Thus all tags will be fully accountable, preventing abuse or the development of a black market in tags. I suppose it is possible that a small black market in tags will develop. However, I regard that as a very slight evil compared to the benefit which the scheme would bestow on the industry.
In summary, the Association of Deer Management Groups believes that the introduction of a compulsory tagging scheme will yield multiple benefits in terms of improved product quality, increased traceability, reduced potential for abuse and more accurate cull data, all of which would apply throughout the industry. I am advised that no existing legislation or regulation provides a basis for the introduction of such a scheme, and do not therefore wish to miss the opportunity presented by this legislation to press for the amendment to be included. I believe the amendment is widely supported by interests on all sides, and it would also be consistent with the recognised need to move to a more sophisticated system of integrated and sustainable deer management, based on a more rigorous and uniform approach. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I have a very great deal of sympathy with this amendment. During the passage of the 1982 Bill, there was quite a lot of discussion both on the Floor of the House and in the margins of the work being taken forward to develop that Bill and the
CWH 92
sort of proposal which my noble friend has described. One of the purposes of the 1982 Bill and the way it amended the 1959 Act was to make a serious attempt to diminish the effects of poaching. The trade in carcasses which resulted from poaching is just one of the elements which my noble friend has described. To that extent, it very much ties in with his concept of maintaining the quality of carcasses that reach the marketplace.
I well remember my noble friend Lord Mansfield, when he was in the position in which my noble friend Lord Lindsay now finds himself, and the late Lord Dulverton and indeed myself discussing at some length the three elements which seemed to be against the concept of tags: the development of a black market in tags, which my noble friend has described; the question of cost; and the question of administrative and bureaucratic effort, which might be needed to make the system work perfectly.
There was one other idea, which I believe I floated myself, which was connected with the question of records. The records which are described in Section 25B of the 1959 Act seemed to me to present something of an opportunity if at every stage in the handling of a carcass, from the moment that it reaches the larder to the time that it goes onto the dealer and subsequently to whatever the next stage in its processing, it had a record of some sort such as a multicoloured element attached to it—a different colour for each stage—which could be exactly the same as the venison dealer's record. I was not aware of the background to this, but if some sort of common form were to be introduced by the deer commission, that might make it easier.
I have to say that I find my noble friend's arguments about a tag, rather than the documentation which I have just described, much more appealing now than I might have done 14 years ago, not least because technology has moved on at a certain pace and it may well be possible to combine modern technology, machine-readable tags and so on in a way which would make this much simpler.
One other point is important. The opportunity to legislate on deer comes around only every fourteen or fifteen years. During the passage of the 1982 Bill, people said it would not happen for another 25 years. It has come forward rather more rapidly than that, but it would be a great mistake not to explore this very thoroughly. The opportunity must be taken to look at it carefully now. To miss the opportunity to do so when further technology might make it more possible would be a great shame. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say.
The Earl of Buchan: I have no idea what the noble Earl the Minister thinks about having this sprung on him at the eleventh hour, but I can guess. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has brought it up for this reason. I have sat in Edinburgh and here and have learnt a great deal about deer, red deer and other deer. I would therefore be most unhappy about taking this on board now without a great deal more discussion. I am not at all happy about tags, or about poachers, or about efficient policing. I cannot

CWH 93
support the amendment of the Lord Pearson of Rannoch and I look forward with great interest to hearing what the noble Earl the Minister has to say.
Viscount Astor: I am rather surprised at what the noble Earl said. The purpose of the Committee stage is for amendments to be tabled and for the Government to consider them. That is the way legislation works. It can work quite quickly. That is the way Bills progress.
To come back to my noble friend's amendment, it has certain advantages because the success of Highland estates is very much dependent on the successful marketing of their products. That means the price of venison being a decent price, and that depends on consumer confidence. We all know what happens when consumer confidence fails. We have seen it in cattle prices. I am sure that there are always arguments that this might be costly and it might be bureaucratic, but of course the cost fundamentally falls on the producers. In terms of bureaucracy, it is work for the producers to do, but we are not asking for anything more than what happens when selling beef cattle. Under the BSE rules, one has to have an extremely complicated passport in order to breed a cow to produce something to sell. That is there to give the consumer and the industry confidence. It has been very successful. I am sure your Lordships know that the price of beef has now risen to the levels it was before the previous scares. Anything we can do to enhance consumer confidence in the product, improve the quality of the product and benefit the venison producers in Scotland must be good for the whole process and must be ultimately good for the management of the deer.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Speaking as a cook, if I am going to buy venison I want to know that it has been produced under decent conditions and that it has been properly hung. That is what a tagging system would tell me. As the wife of an ex-deer forest owner, who, some years ago, went to a great deal of expense to modernise the larder so that his venison was produced under decent conditions, I would certainly reckon that any deer forest owner who did that would welcome the possibility of getting a better price.
The Earl of Lindsay: I shall deal with Amendment No. 75 of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch in some detail. It raises many issues which are crucial to deer management. There are two visions in my mind, reinforced by the discussion in the Committee. One is of the real benefit of having tags, flagged up by various Members for various reasons. I shall come onto the question of how strong the argument is for mandatory tagging. Clearly, tags serve various purposes. These include the preference of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for well-hung meat, with which I agree, to a wide range of other reasons. My noble friend Lord Astor mentioned BSE.
The other vision which springs to mind is the thought that the cull at the moment in Scotland is about 80,000 deer a year. We are talking about tagging every single bit of venison from Scotland. If we are going to be shooting more roe; if, for some reason—although red
CWH 94
deer numbers have stabilised—we decided that the red deer population needed to be reduced by a certain percentage; and if we catch up with some of the black market, we could be talking about 100,000 beasts a year needing to be tagged. If we are talking about three tags per beast, that could mean about 250,000 tags a year floating around Scotland. Therefore, this is an area which requires a great deal of thought. There are benefits to tagging but to go through with mandatory tagging is an immense project. The noble Earl, Lord Buchan, was absolutely right. It requires quite a lot of discussion.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur pointed out that when he was dealing with what became the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act of 1982, some of the disadvantages were identified; namely the black market element, the cost element and the administrative and bureaucratic element. Those are still issues which we would want to look at very carefully. While we acknowledge the benefits, we want to make very sure that in a deregulatory government we regulate in such a way that the benefits justify the effort. I need hardly point out that as a Scottish Office Minister, if I am to gain permission across the Government to pursue this, the benefits must clearly and significantly outweigh the cost disadvantage and the administrative disadvantage.
We are aware that this is an issue that has motivated discussion. There is some irony in that, as agriculture Minister in Scotland, I receive a good deal of flack from farmers about the cattle passports. We have just introduced the new sheep and goat identification directive—I forget the exact terminology. My noble friend Lord Astor prayed in aid the fact that farmers are used to having documents for cattle, but in fact we fight very fiercely to minimise them when we are negotiating in Europe, and then we do our utmost to persuade farmers that, because of animal health—and we are talking about the ill health of animals rather than the quality of meat—and because of subsidy, we have to put up with these systems. There are many beef and sheep farmers, and indeed goat farmers, who are not very keen about the way in which mandatory tagging and passporting is imposed on animals.
We are well aware of the discussion, both the recent discussion under Stephen Gibbs, and indeed the discussion which has gone back some decades. I would point out that no formal recommendations have been put to me or to the Scottish Office by the Red Deer Commission. We are aware that the working group came up with its recommendations, and I am aware that the Chairman of the Red Deer Commission in evidence in Edinburgh said that his personal opinion was that it probably should be voluntary and not mandatory. Despite all the consultation with the commission and with other bodies prior to this Bill and during the drafting of this Bill, this was not a formal part of the agenda. We are at a stage where for a Government Minister to be convinced that he should make a departure in this direction, he must be fairly certain that there is a real consensus behind it.
We in the Scottish Office were not consulted. I know my noble friend knows that no one came out against it. There are reservations in some quarters, and I know

CWH 95
there are many people who think this is a good idea, but we would expect to be part of the consultation process if you were seeking a Scotland-wide view.
It is most important that the costs and the burdens imposed must be more than compensated for by the benefits which arise. That is vital to understanding this.
I fully understand the key benefit of traceability, and that guarantees of traceability within the food chain are increasingly important. This, in itself, may bring some benefits to some people, but I am not sure that there is a major difficulty on hygiene and food safety grounds on this point at present with venison.
On the key point of carcass identification and linking offal to carcasses, my veterinary advisors are confident that the existing systems of identification, run by dealers and suppliers, are working in a satisfactory manner. Beyond that, hygiene requirements are met by an emphasis on control of processes and procedures with a key element being inspection of carcasses at arrival in the slaughterhouse. I understand that the Red Deer Commission working group has met officials concerned with meat hygiene, and these views have been relayed to them.
If a carcass tagging system implies something more than a tag showing origin, such as certain guarantees of handling procedures following killing, then I can well see that customers such as the retail trade could see benefits and would wish to encourage suppliers to adopt such a system. This, however, would imply the equal possibility of a voluntary scheme in which participants in a certain scheme could seek competitive advantage over other competing venison producers who are not prepared to make that effort for competitive advantage. I question whether it needs to be mandatory for that reason. Furthermore ,it occurs to me that a mandatory carcass tagging system would presumably be based around the lowest acceptable common denominator, which falls within health and hygiene thresholds under law, whereas a voluntary tagging system can set what standards that group of people want and could therefore achieve a much higher quality quite deliberately.
In conversation with some of the people behind this system I was given to understand that three out of four of the largest venison wholesale buyers had already embarked on tagging systems with their producers and that the Forestry Commission as we know has its tagging system. So there is precedent for voluntary initiatives in this area.
We certainly welcome any steps taken by the food production industry to improve its marketing position, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has mentioned just how important it is to sell venison out of our remote and rural areas. It produces jobs and maintains livelihoods in those areas. We work through the Marketing Development Scheme to help the Association of Deer Management Groups and others in this field.
The imposition of a mandatory scheme requiring the act of tagging may not deliver the quality assurance which we say the multiple retailer is looking for where every single carcass in Scotland at any one time, from Wigtown to Caithness, is sitting with an identical tag.
CWH 96
In a sense there is no distinction between the better-produced and the less-well-produced. There is also a danger that all the tag ultimately will mean to a purchaser is that the beast was possibly or probably legally killed and that the person who took that beast had the right to take that beast. This assumes no black market in tags. Given the aspirations now of the multiple retailer and its consumer, whether you can say more about how the beast lived and thrived and ate prior to death and how it was hung, for how long it was hung, how it was slaughtered and so on just on that one tag, I am uncertain.
As far as records of deer kills are concerned, there are other provisions in place for monitoring the killing of deer whose effectiveness has to be considered before weighing up the additional benefits on this point that the additional burden of the tagging system would bring. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur is well aware of the arrangements that he himself was involved in putting in place through the 1982 Act. The current system, where the deer commission checks through the venison dealers' licensing system, is possibly not absolutely perfect. It may be that it cannot claim to be 100 per cent. confident about the venison in Scotland, but I would suggest it may not be as inadequate as those promoting this amendment for mandatory tagging suggest. It may be that the deer commission gets sufficient idea of numbers and a very good idea of trends. Whether the 100,000 or 80,000 pieces of venison that are produced annually through the killing of deer in Scotland would not produce such a welter of information that it would take the deer commission much longer to sort out what was going on, I am not sure.
It is an important point that we are not just talking about red deer in this amendment. We are talking about very much larger numbers. We are also talking about an undefined group of people who can shoot. There are so many people in Scotland who have a right to kill and none of them has a statutory quota or limit within which he must remain. All of those many people, therefore, can shoot as many deer as circumstances allow.
The control of poaching may conceivably be enhanced by tagging. Once again, I pose the same question: would the additional burden of tagging justify the additional deterrent that tags might bring? We have various police powers from the 1959 Act, and we have in the 1982 Act further provisions, all of which can act as deterrents, but whether the complications and expense of the tagging system are more than compensated for by the increased control of poaching, I leave that as a question. It is something that we shall be wanting to look at as well.
Tagging works well in other countries, but that tends to be where individuals with a right to shoot deer are issued with legally binding limits. No one could possibly propose that that course of action should be followed in Scotland.
It is also important to recognise that, if carcass tagging is made mandatory, there will have to be a sanction for failure to attach a tag or for doing so illegally. Such a sanction could affect many people in

CWH 97
the venison chain. At the very least, the full consequences of creating a new offence of this sort should be fully examined before any steps are taken down the road. We all know and stay with people in Scotland and roe may be served as part of the hospitality—a roe which may have been shot on that farm or estate. In theory, that roe sitting in the deep freeze belonging to the owner of that land should also have a tag, or presumably he too is breaking the law. It might even be some other form of deer apart from roe or red.
It has been suggested that the Bill could merely contain an enabling provision to allow the Secretary of State to introduce a carcass-tagging system if he considered it appropriate to do so. I know that this House has views about enabling legislation, but I know also that this House has enough common sense to know that if benefits outweighed the constitutional doubts, it would be prepared to go ahead and do it. However, if, after scrutiny and the consultation that this subject deserves, we find that the mandatory tagging system is not the right way to go forward, I suggest that we do not want to put an enabling power into the Bill for something that turned out to be ill-advised.
Because I agree with almost all the benefits that will arise from tagging that have been pointed out by noble Lords, I shall continue to support very enthusiastically the moves already made by the industry to introduce it. In fact, so significant are some of the benefits that I question whether the industry does not have sufficient incentive already to pursue voluntary tagging, whether it be marketing-oriented, hygiene-oriented, information-oriented or whatever, without having to resort to a compulsory system. The precedent for that is well established with the Forestry Commission and some deer groups.
I hope that I have acknowledged the real benefits that tags can bring. I hope also that I have described the real doubts that we have and the clarification that we think we need before we can give this a more enthusiastic response.
6.15 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: If this clause consisted only of subsection (1) without the last two words "the scheme", it would merely be an enabling clause that would enable the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme if he thought fit without needing further primary legislation. Would the noble Earl care to comment on that?
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may follow the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Saltoun because my noble friend has put the case very fairly. There are two very distinct sides to this argument. He said quite rightly that many farmers do not like filling in forms and, indeed, that the passports are terrible. They certainly are. They are impossible to fill in. One of the advantages of them is that they have given the consumer confidence, and most people, while complaining of having to do it, are grateful that there is a market for the produce.
CWH 98
Deer Bills are very few and far between. They come between 14 and 23-year gaps. I do not think there is an area that has such few bills. Therefore, it is very difficult to get any legislation in the middle. I think that there should be consultation. I suspect that consultation will take quite a long time, probably rather longer than the passage of this Bill. I would, therefore, ask my noble friend the Minister whether he would consider—as suggested by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—a very simple enabling clause that would give the Secretary of State power by an affirmative resolution perhaps to introduce a scheme if he considered it necessary.
I do not think that would add very burdensome words to the Bill or add many unnecessary words to the legislation. I know I accused my noble friend the other day of adding on unnecessary words and no doubt he will very fairly accuse me of doing exactly the same thing. But in this case I hope he might consider that a very simple clause would not be unnecessary and would be there as a safeguard, because that is what we are talking about. If we do not have another Deer Bill for another 40 years, at least there is the opportunity to introduce something if the consultation proves that everybody is keen on the idea. I am sure that my noble friend has shown very clearly the best way forward for all of those concerns.
The Earl of Lindsay: I can confirm to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that primary legislation would not be needed in the scenario that she envisaged—the removal of the last two words of the first subsection of the clause and the removal of all other subsections in the amendment. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Astor came up with an unprompted confession about the mixed merits of wording which may not be strictly necessary after he chided me the other day. This Bill was five or six years in the making. The Chairman of the Red Deer Commission will know better than I how many days, weeks, months and years were involved in this. The consultation might, therefore, take longer than this Bill will take during Parliament—but I hope not as long as the whole preparation of the Bill.
I do not disagree with my noble friend. Let us look at this properly. If in the parliamentary time available to the Bill it makes sense, because of the likelihood that there is real merit in having this, let us consider how this might be possible. If at our end we continue to entertain doubts in principle about whether it is 300,000 tags, how large the black market will be and whether this is something which can be done with a voluntary scheme, then we may have to communicate those doubts. But I am genuinely open-minded as to the real benefits that the tags can bring.
The last point is, if I had a deer forest adjacent to my noble friend Lord Astor and we were both selling our beasts onto the mainland and down into the markets, I would ring up the best buyers and I would say, "I will tag mine to confirm that they have been killed in a certain way; that they have eaten the very finest of grasses on the island; that they have been hung properly; that they have been butchered properly. You will know my beasts as they have tags, whereas my noble friend

CWH 99
next door is really not to be trusted; he treats his venison atrociously". I would seek competitive advantage by voluntarily taking on a tagging system in that way.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may quickly answer my noble friend. He will be glad to hear that all the deer that leave the Isle of Jura, whoever they may have been shot with, are all tagged with a special Jura number to encourage people to eat the very fine venison that comes from the island, particularly when the deer have had such good things to eat as seaweed in addition to all the grass. We do that collectively under the deer management group.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sure the produce of my noble friend Lord Astor is not in doubt. However, what is in doubt is the amount of attention that the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, was paying to our procedures in Edinburgh, because I must take issue with him when he suggests that I have sprung this one on the Committee. Not only have we heard from my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, but it is a chestnut that has been around for a number of years.
In our proceedings in Edinburgh, I was most careful to raise the issue of tagging with as many of our witnesses as I thought appropriate. Perhaps I could refer the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, to page 46 of the voluminous minutes which we took in Edinburgh, Question 76, when I put the question of tagging to Mr. Hugh Rose of the British Deer Society and he was in favour of the scheme. I am afraid that I have not been able to go through this voluminous set of evidence to find all the other occasions when I raised the subject.
I agree with the noble Earl that the matter was not fully debated in Edinburgh, but the noble Earl will remember that that was because Mr. Stephen Gibbs, the chairman of the Association of Deer Management Groups and the chairman of the joint committee between the Red Deer Commission and the Association of Deer Management Groups was unable to reach us in Edinburgh as he was stuck in the train in the snow in Carlisle.
Mr. Stephen Gibbs was to have been the first witness after lunch on the second day, and therefore the noble Earl can be forgiven for not remembering the issue perhaps with the enthusiasm that it deserves. I would, however, point out to him that if he were to go as far as page 129 of our voluminous minutes, that we did have a more serious discussion with Dr. Bill Mutch, who is one of the great experts on deer in Scotland. Towards the bottom of the right-hand column on that page, Question 241—I will not bore the Committee with reading it out—Dr. Mutch came out very strongly in favour of a system of tagging for many of the reasons which I repeated to noble Lords this afternoon. Therefore I forgive the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, though I would not want him to think that I tried to pull a fast one in any way.
I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for at least leaving the matter open for further discussion. I have to confess that I have been looking at this scheme as something more for red deer in the Highlands of Scotland. I see that it could become rather more
CWH 100
complicated for roe deer in the Borders, in gardens and all the rest of it. It would be of benefit if all of us who are interested in this subject were to study what my noble friend has said in Hansard. I repeat that this is only an enabling clause and possibly my noble friend Lady Saltoun's suggestion would be adequate. In those circumstances, I trust we can continue with the discussion of the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Interpretation of the principal Act]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 8, line 43, at end insert—
(""deer management" includes the management of deer for sporting purposes;"").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 76 when we dealt with Amendment No. 15 on appointments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("stock-proof') and insert ("deer-proof").
The noble Lady said: I wonder whether the Minister would look again at the definition of "enclosed". Surely in the context of this Bill, the definition must be "deer-proof", not just "stock-proof", which seems irrelevant in the context of the Deer Bill. I know it is the same as the 1959 Act, but again, as before, I wonder whether it was right then. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: Of course I will look again at this, if the noble Lady would like me to do so. It is something which we have revisited since Second Reading and the Edinburgh evidence-taking.
Under the 1959 Act, occupiers of enclosed woodland can shoot out of season to prevent serious damage without requiring authorisation by the commission. The Bill does not change this right in any way. In order to allow for a clear distinction to be made between this right and the commission's proposed power to authorise out of season shooting to protect unenclosed woodlands from serious damage, we feel a clear definition of "enclosed" is required. On the advice of the Forestry Commission, the definition we have adopted reflects standard practice across most of Scotland, especially in the south of Scotland, where stock-proof fences are the norm.
I fear that it may be seen to be unreasonable to restrict or remove the existing rights of some woodland owners who regard a woodland surrounded by a stock-proof fence as being an enclosed woodland. If one sought to introduce a geographic distinction into the amendment to say that certain areas of an enclosed woodland had to have a deer-proof fence whereas in other areas, perhaps in the Borders, one did not have to have such a substantial fence, I understand that various difficulties would be raised in terms of the legal distinction between the red deer range and the non-red deer range.

CWH 101
I am worried that we have a Bill that involves the whole of Scotland, that we have different sizes of deer in different parts of Scotland and that we have the deer range moving anyway as people are enclosing or planting more land. The one comfort I can bring is that the stock fence must be effective. Therefore, if a fence is not effectively a stock fence—in other words, if it is down in one part—then it no longer qualifies as a stock fence and that woodland no longer qualifies as being enclosed woodland. The noble Lady has asked me to take another look at this, and of course I shall.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that. Of course, a fence which is down is no use at all—I entirely agree with him. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 9, line 18, leave out from ("features") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 80 would seek to remove the words,
"and the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside",
from the definition of natural heritage which is to be found in Clause 9 of the Bill. The definition at the moment reads:
"'natural heritage' includes flora and fauna, geological and physiographical features and the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
It is those last words which this amendment would remove.
I have tabled this amendment to try to find out from my noble friend the Minister exactly why these words have been included in this part of the definition. We can all understand that natural heritage does include the flora and fauna and the geological and physiographical features, and of course the natural beauty is also quite obvious. But what does the "amenity of the countryside" mean in this respect? When one talks of the natural beauty, is it not as though some people would find the Highlands of Scotland extremely beautiful as they are now—more or less denuded of trees—while others might not find them beautiful unless the forest or scrub had been returned to it. That is why these words, and whether or not they are included in the definition of natural heritage, are quite important to our understanding of where the natural heritage interest may take us in this Bill, especially in view of all the conversations we have had about including natural heritage or not in Clause 4 of the Bill.
It is a very simple amendment. I should like my noble friend the Minister to explain why particularly the words the "amenity of the countryside" are included under the natural heritage. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for explaining Amendment No. 80. The interpretation of natural
CWH 102
heritage is based on an Act which he knows well—the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. Broadly, we see the same definition as used in that Act as being the most useful definition to have in this Bill. We therefore saw no deliberate reason to start amending that definition which has become well known and respected.
For the most part, the Red Deer Commission's interest in the natural heritage will be concerned with the flora, the habitat and the fauna that rely on that flora and habitat. Therefore, in terms of the serious damage which is mentioned in Clause 4 and Clause 5, the deer commission will tend to look at serious damage to habitat and to flora. However, it is not impossible that other parts of the definition used in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 could in extreme circumstances be useful for the purposes of the deer commission; it could be that the natural beauty of an area is so damaged by deer that the deer commission feels it ought to promote some of its powers within the Bill.
It could be that the geology, or conceivably some other aspect of that definition, is for some reason compromised by the unusual damage done by deer. We see that as unlikely but we have to acknowledge that it is not impossible. Because of the acceptability, as it were, of that definition in 1991 and its broad suitability to this Bill, we have decided that this is the best definition.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Can I press my noble friend on the word "amenity"?
The Earl of Lindsay: Yes. Once again we are talking about some unusual circumstances, but it could be that access to the countryside enjoyed in a certain place is for some reason subject to serious damage by the deer in that place. We could be talking about the way footpaths are, or are not, maintained because of the damage that deer are doing. It is because of the importance of the amenity and access side of the Scottish countryside that we do not want specifically to exclude them from the definition of natural heritage in the Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to my noble friend. I recognise the description of the natural heritage from the 1991 SNH Act. I think there was general agreement at the time that no one understood it then; I am not sure that I am any nearer to understanding it now. It is true that the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside are expressions which one would expect to find in the phrase "natural heritage" when debating a Bill or drawing up an Act to bring Scottish Natural Heritage into being. Those aspects were, and are, very much part of its remit. I am a little bemused to see them in this Bill, and I cannot say that I am immensely informed by what my noble friend said. However, I thank him for his courtesy and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 9, line 30, at end insert—

CWH 103
(""species" includes any hybrid of different species of deer;").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 83 when moving Amendment No. 49 on close seasons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 9, line 32, leave out ("are grown") and insert ("have been planted").
The noble Lady said: With regard to the definition of woodland, the phrase "trees are grown" seems to me a little ambiguous. It suggests that the trees have been planted, but it does not seem to me very clear. If it is intended to refer to self-seeded trees perhaps the phrase should be "trees have grown" or "trees are growing". We would prefer the definition "have been planted". The substitution of
"mature woodlands or groups of mature trees",
is intended to make it clear that it is not just young plantations that are referred to. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lady for moving Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 and explaining them. It has been suggested that the definition of "woodland" in Clause 9 needs amending to ensure that the definition focuses on mature woodland and that areas of moorland where vestigial trees are present are excluded. In practice, this is what the definition implies. The phrase "trees are grown" implies a deliberate act of growing trees rather than simply the presence of trees or seeds. It would not be right to limit the definition to places where trees have been planted or mature woods exist, as has been suggested, since the modern concept of forestry as applied by the Forestry Commission includes woods that are regenerating as well as planted and which may be beside mature woodlands as well as a part of them. Although the regeneration of natural woodland is increasingly popular, it still comprises a fairly small part of our overall woodland policy. Nevertheless, it is a very important part. Therefore, we must recognise that regeneration is a legitimate woodland and forestry activity as much as planted trees in the orthodox sense.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend sits down, I referred earlier to land where trees clearly exist although they are very small, perhaps very young, often only two or three inches high. Particularly rowan trees and silver birch survive very well in those circumstances. But at a casual glance one would take the land to be moorland, and it is only when looks at it closely that one sees that there are trees there. If that land is then fenced off the trees begin to grow because the sheep and perhaps the deer are no longer grazing the ground in question. Can my noble friend give an assurance that the land to which I have just referred is not covered by this definition and therefore does not need to cause me worry under Clause 4 of the Bill?
The Earl of Lindsay: The definition is driven by the deliberate act of growing, Therefore if there are trees a
CWH 104
few inches high or even higher that are not deliberately being grown, they fall outside this definition. Therefore, on a grouse moor on Rannoch Moor or wherever, trees that are simply surviving just under browsing height, but are not the subject of deliberate husbandry, will not be part of this definition. If my noble friend puts a fence up around that area to exclude grazing, both by sheep and deer, and pursues policies which promote the growth of those trees, those trees are being grown, although my noble friend has not actually planted them.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, which clarifies what is on the face of the Bill. Does my noble friend wish to withdraw?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 89 to 91:
Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) In section 2 (appointment of panels), subsections (3) and (4) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("animals") and insert ("deer").
Page 11, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In section 10 (enforcement of control schemes), at the end there shall be inserted the following words "; and where the carrying out of such a requirement involves the killing of deer the Commission shall have power to dispose by sale or otherwise of the carcase of any deer so killed.".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 89 when moving Amendment No. 23. I spoke to Amendment No. 90 when moving Amendment No. 21 and I spoke to Amendment No. 91 when moving Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert ("and the words "the provisions of this Part of "").
The noble Earl said: This is a small technical amendment to which I spoke when moving Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 12, line 32, after ("subsection (2A)") insert ("—
( ) in paragraph (a), for the word "aircraft" there shall be substituted the words "moving vehicle"; and
( ) in paragraph (b),").
The noble Lady said: Since the introduction of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill a number of interested people, including the Chairman of the Red

CWH 105
Deer Commission, have called for the shooting of deer from all moving vehicles to be made an offence. I have raised this with a number of people since Second Reading and many said that there is no need for an amendment, because it is already in legislation. I searched through the legislation to find it, but I could not find it anywhere, and nobody could tell me where it was. That is why I am moving this amendment, which is designed to ensure that shooting deer from any moving vehicle is made an offence.
Shooting deer from a moving vehicle can lead to badly aimed shots, and it also goes firmly against the stalking tradition. In this context, a vehicle would include aircraft and boats, as well as land vehicles. In 1982, Parliament made shooting from an aircraft an offence for those very reasons, and this amendment will ensure that this practice is made an offence for all moving vehicles. The amendment will also have the effect of helping to ensure that the use of vehicles for driving deer, if authorised by the commission as proposed in Clause 7 of the Bill, is not abused in any way. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am glad to accept this amendment made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There are very strong welfare reasons for the amendment. She is quite right—there was some doubt as to just where, in other legislation, this was properly prohibited. We are happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 99:
Page 13, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) In section 27(1) (powers of search and seizure) the words "firearm or ammunition, vehicle or boat" shall cease to have effect.").
Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) Section 31(2) shall cease to have effect."). Page 13, line 35, at beginning insert—
("( ) in subsection (1), after the word "deprived" there shall be inserted the words ", or about to be deprived,";").
CWH 106
Page 14, line 16, after ("2A") insert ("—
(1)").
Page 14, line 17, at end insert ("and
(ii) for sub-paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(a) has had his estate sequestrated, has been adjudged bankrupt, has made an arrangement with his creditors, or has granted a trust deed for his creditors or made a composition contract;";").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 95 to 99 when moving Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 15, line 6, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 2, subsections (3) and (4).").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 100 when moving Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 104:
Page 15, line 20, column 3, at end insert ("and the words "the provisions of this Part of ".").
Page 15, line 27, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 27, in subsection (1), the words "firearm or ammunition, vehicle or boat".").
Page 15, line 27, column 3, at end insert— ("In section 31, subsection (2).").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 102 to 104 when speaking to Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Committee adjourned at thirteen minutes before seven o'clock.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Yasar Kemal
  Mr. Yasar Kemal
  Bosnia: Military Equipment and Training
  Bosnia: Military Equipment and Training
  Bosnia and Turkey
  Bosnia and Turkey
  Former Yugoslavia: War Crimes Investigation
  Former Yugoslavia: War Crimes Investigation
  Prevention of Illegal Working: Consultation Responses
  Prevention of Illegal Working: Consultation Responses
  Family Separation
  Family Separation
  Patient Information: Protection and Use
  Patient Information: Protection and Use
  Ordnance Survey: Performance Targets
  Ordnance Survey: Performance Targets
  Passenger Rolling Stock: Slam Door Fatalities
  Passenger Rolling Stock: Slam Door Fatalities