Sitting of 19 March 1996

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

    Benefit Fraud
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further action he plans to take to reduce benefit fraud. [19699]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): As I announced to the House on 5 March, I am creating a new benefit fraud investigation service, which will bring together almost 5,000 specialised staff from the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency. I announced yesterday the first three areas to be selected for a programme of local month-long anti-fraud drives.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that benefit fraud takes money not only from the Exchequer but from vulnerable people? Will he therefore address the important subject of political benefit fraud, and avoid following the Opposition's policy of thinking the unthinkable and spending the unaffordable, which would perpetrate a massive fraud on the people of this country? Does he think that that is a fair description of the Opposition's social security review?
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition have been trying to perpetrate a fraud on the British people over social security. They have systematically voted against and opposed every social security reform that we have introduced, yet at the same time they try to pretend that they are fiscally responsible.
    Mr. Bradley: Clearly, we welcome those belated measures to try to combat fraud—after the Government have been in office for 17 years. At Question Time on 23 January, I asked the Secretary of State exactly what his fraud targets were for each of the next three years. He said that he could not respond immediately from the Dispatch Box, so I wrote to him. He acknowledged my letter on 8 February, but I have had no reply to my question. Will he tell us today exactly what his yearly fraud targets are for each of the next three years?
    Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the reply that I gave him in debate, but I can tell him now that the overall fraud target for 1996–97 is £1.8 billion, and that for 1998–99 it is £2.5 billion. For the current year the target is £1.38 billion.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency of Eastbourne, since the push on fraudulent claims began, it has been found that fraudulent housing benefit claims are running at more than £1 million a year? Is he aware that my constituents who pay their taxes and do not claim benefits fraudulently are sick and tired of underwriting such activity?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The people who most support the attack on fraud and abuse are those on modest earnings who honestly pay their way in society without claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, and who greatly resent seeing others who achieve a standard of living not far below their own by abusing the benefit system. I am delighted that, in my hon. Friend's constituency, as elsewhere, we are being successful in cracking down on that abuse.

    Income Support Assessments
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the error rate for income support assessments in (a) 1988 and (b) 1995. [19700]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): It was 13.5 per cent. in 1988 and 16.1 per cent. in 1995.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister confirm that the value of the errors has increased, as they involved 2 per cent. of overall expenditure in 1988, but now involve no less than 5 per cent. of all expenditure on income support? Will he also confirm that, since income support was introduced, the Comptroller and Auditor General has qualified the accounts every year since 1988 because the Department cannot deliver income support properly? How, then, does the Secretary of State justify the recent plans to cut the cost of administering Department of Social Security benefits by 25 per cent.?
    Mr. Evans: Income support is a complex and well-targeted benefit, involving repeated change-of-circumstances considerations. Since 1988, the number of claimants, of cases and of changes in circumstances, as well as the total sums involved, have increased substantially. The change programme is designed to be a medium to longer-term remedy. In the shorter term, on most analyses the greater part of the errors appear to arise from income support mortgage interest payments, and the move towards a standard rate introduced last autumn should have a material effect on that aspect. The intention of the change programme is to provide a better service, with modern information technology and an altogether different approach to the organisation.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the objectives of his change programme include not only improved efficiency, but making fewer errors? Will he also confirm that the changes were opposed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on the ground that they would not work, although he had received a letter from the shadow Chief Secretary describing them as perfectly feasible?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is certainly right about both points. We are mystified by that contradiction.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister tell the House the date by which he expects income support to get unqualified support from the Comptroller and Auditor General? Surely that is what taxpayers require from the Government.
    Mr. Evans: We have introduced measures on a scale previously unknown. I am not in a position to give a date as requested.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist people to retain more of their occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement. [19701]
    Mr. Roger Evans: By their very nature, income-related benefit schemes normally take account of most forms of income, including that from an occupational pension; hence, it is only right that entitlement to those benefits should reduce as income increases. However, from April 1996, in line with Department of Health changes to the charging rules for people in residential care, people whose care costs continue to be met by income support may have 50 per cent. of their occupational pension disregarded where they remit at least this amount to their spouses who remain in the community.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the situation in my constituency of retired mineworkers who are entitled to an 80p a week increase in occupational pension? The Department of Social Security claws back 57p of that in housing benefit. A further 15p is taken out of council tax refund. The increase in the cost of fuel oil last year meant a further increase of l0p a week in transport costs. All the occupational pension increase for retired miners is being clawed back by the DSS and the Government's taxation policy. Furthermore, Yorkshire Water has increased water rates by more than twice the rate of inflation, which takes a large slice out of the increase in national pensions. When will the Government do something to allow pensioners to retain something of their occupational pensions?
    Mr. Evans: The constituent about whom the hon. Gentleman wrote to me was receiving a retirement pension and a modest occupational pension from the mining industry. He was, however, eligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit. Under the general rules, because those benefits are payable in circumstances other than those relating to income support, above the applicable amount 65 per cent. is taken off, and 15 per cent. is taken off in respect of council tax. If a full disregard for occupational pensions across the income-related benefits were introduced, the cost to the taxpayer in 1996–97 would be more than £2 billion. That is a public expenditure programme that Labour's spokesman had better contemplate with greater caution than the hon. Gentleman does.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that the Government will continue to press for increases in the holding of private pensions? Does he agree that the proposed nationalisation of private pension funds by the Labour party is a nightmare for those who are about to retire and those who are retired?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The great success of British pension provision has been UK-funded pension schemes in the private sector by way of occupational pensions, personal pensions and retirement annuity contracts. The total of those funds, in aggregate, is £600 billion. As the funds are properly privately invested, the return on capital in real terms since 1980 has been 10 per cent. per annum. It is a threat to ordinary pensioners in occupational pension schemes if other people such as trade unions, the Government or the state try to interfere with that private enterprise approach.
    Mr. Denham: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) right? Is it not true that many of today's pensioners retired believing that their state and occupational pension would keep them out of poverty, but that the Tories have taken their pension away and pushed them into poverty? Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Social Security, who wrote in The Times on Saturday that means testing punishes people who save? Is not that a clear example of the Tories saying one thing and doing another?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every score—he is not even halfway right, as the Evening Standard reported today. The issue at stake is whether retirement pensions should be uprated in line with prices, which is the undertaking that the Government have fulfilled. Everyone knows that the success of our pensions policy is due to private funds run by private organisations in occupational schemes and the like, which have provided, and continue to provide, a rising standard of living for pensioners. That is why recently retired pensioners enjoy higher occupational pension levels than those who retired a couple of decades ago.

    Benefit Reforms
    Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on how his benefit reforms will help people off benefit and into work. [19702]
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reforms of the benefit system he is planning to help unemployed people back to work. [19704]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): The Government's benefit-to-work programme has made a substantial contribution to the reduction in unemployment in the United Kingdom. In addition to family credit, which has helped 300,000 families leave income support in the past three years, about 750,000 people will be helped this year by a range of new measures. From April, the four-week extension of housing benefit will remove worries about rent for new job starters. The national insurance contribution holiday will help employers who take on the

    159
    long-term unemployed. Help with child care costs in family credit and disability working allowance will increase from £40 to £60 a week. Family credit claims will be speeded up to get the extra help to people more quickly.
    Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which is good news for everyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that the so-called welfare-to-work schemes, which often involve minimum wage levels, result in people being put out of work rather than in more jobs? Does my hon. Friend agree that such proposals are best described as work-to-welfare schemes and are the sort of schemes that the Labour party pushes?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend rightly points out the main flaw in the welfare-to-work package, which includes the minimum wage. The minimum wage does not help the poorest—studies show that the majority of low-paid workers are the second, or even third, income earners in high-earning households. In addition, the minimum wage tends to squeeze out jobs, particularly for the lowest-paid and those with the fewest skills. Our programme of finding ways to improve job opportunities for people and to help them to gain work through benefit offers the unemployed a far better option than a minimum wage.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend do what he can to encourage flexibility in the setting of benefits so that those who may have the opportunity of part-time employment, which may be seasonal, are better off taking a part-time job than sitting at home doing nothing? Will my hon. Friend ensure that staff in benefit offices are properly acquainted with all the rules?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the flexibility of the benefit system. I hope that my answer encouraged him, because that is precisely what we have been trying to do. Increasing earning disregards for those who remain unemployed is not necessarily the best approach as it may be a disincentive to their taking up full-time work, which we want to encourage. Those who are working part time on benefit will, from October, be able to build up a back-to-work bonus—a substantial lump sum that will help them into work.
    Mr. Barry Jones: There are 2,500 jobless people in my constituency. How many of them will be helped into work by these measures?
    Mr. Burt: We expect that some 750,000 people will benefit from the £600 million-worth of changes that the Budget made to work incentive measures last year. The hon. Gentleman should be able to do the division and work out how many people in his constituency are likely to benefit from these measures.
    Mr. Pike: When the Minister is next in his constituency, will he come a few miles north into Burnley and note the wage levels that are being offered to many people? Does he understand that they cannot afford to go to work—even with the type of help that he has spoken about this afternoon—because they are out of pocket if they do? What the Tories have done to wage levels and working conditions since they were elected is an absolute disgrace.
    Mr. Burt: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman fully appreciates the links between the benefits system and the wage system. I do not know whether his idea of a minimum wage—which would put even more of his constituents out of work—would help in any respect. If the hon. Gentleman studies the types of measure that the Government have introduced and the earnings top—up pilot that we are introducing this year—which will provide an opportunity for people on low incomes to see whether they can have their wages increased to help them into work—he will see that what we are providing will assist many of his constituents. I would guess, without looking at the figures too closely, that fewer people are now unemployed in his constituency than was the case at the last election—that shows the benefit of the measures that we have been passing.
    Mrs. Peacock: I welcome the Government's decision to give an extra £10 a week to people who are working 30 hours a week or more and are in receipt of family credit. Does my hon. Friend know how many families it will help?
    Mr. Burt: The extra £10 a week premium for those currently working 30 hours or more and in receipt of family credit will help a substantial number of people. It helps a substantial number of families at the moment. The exact number of people who will benefit from this extra measure has slipped my mind, and I shall write to my hon. Friend.

    Family Poverty and Low Pay
    Mr. Mackinlay:: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he has taken to ascertain the extent of family poverty and low pay; and if he will make a statement. [19703]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The key to helping people out of low income is to create opportunities and incentives to work. We have looked closely at the difficulties that families face in moving into work and we have introduced a wide range of practical measures to help overcome those barriers.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Why has no Minister from the Department of Social Security attended the hearings that are being held at Church house, Westminster? The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, many politicians and prelates are attending the hearings of the Church action on poverty to listen to people who are low-paid and homeless. Is it not time that Ministers went with some humility and listened to people who are in utmost deprivation, and explained to them how poverty has increased since 1979 from 4 million to 15 million people? Why are 4 million children in this country in poverty? How is it that the United Kingdom has one quarter of the people who are poor in the European Union?
    Mr. Mitchell: Ministers will take a close interest in the results of today's seminar at Church house. The Prime Minister sent a personal message to the seminar, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard. Why does he not tell the House that unemployment in his constituency has fallen

    161
    by 23 per cent. in the past 24 months? Why does he not tell the House that it has fallen by 750,000 since 1992? Why does he not tell the House that unemployment in the United Kingdom is well below the European average and below the level in Germany? Why does he not take account of the fact that the way to improve living standards, as the Prime Minister said in his message this morning, is to get people back into work? The Government have been improving and expanding into-work support, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said, and we are now helping 630,000 families on family credit.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the more public money that is used to give support to families in need, the more families will register as being in need of help and therefore be named as being in poverty? "In poverty" is hardly a description of people who have received substantial sums. It is the way that money is spent that is important.
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. The vast majority of our fellow citizens are a great deal better off than they were in 1979. Average incomes are up for all family types. Average incomes are up on average by a third since 1979 and pensioners' income has increased by about 50 per cent. We can therefore be proud of the Government's record in those areas.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is it not the case, however, that, after listening to the Minister and the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), one would suppose that poverty did not exist? It does, and it is growing. If the hon. Gentlemen had been to Church house today, they would have heard the evidence at first hand. Does the Minister realise that one in three children are growing up in poverty, compared with one in 10 when the Government took office? Is that not a standing indictment of the damage that the Government have done to our country?
    Mr. Mitchell: We are all looking forward to 8 May, when the hon. Gentleman will have finished his six-month review and when he can explain to the House whether, if he believes what he just said, he intends to increase payments for welfare as he suggested.
    If the hon. Gentleman is serious about what he says, however, why does he back the Labour party's decision to impose a national minimum wage and to sign up to the social chapter? If he were serious about that, he would acknowledge that the national minimum wage would reduce jobs and put people out of work, while destroying future job opportunities.
    We have discovered from recent surveys that the richest 30 per cent. of those affected by a national minimum wage would gain far more than the poorest 30 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about those matters, as part of his review of thinking the unthinkable he should change his party's policy on a job-destroying national minimum wage.

    Pilot Studies
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to use the Isle of Wight for one of the pilot studies of new methods being considered by his Department. [19705]
    Mr. Lilley: I believe that it is desirable, where possible, to try out changes to the benefit system on a pilot basis before introducing them nationally and I have obtained increased powers to do so in the social security system. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in this approach. The Isle of Wight is currently being used as a control area in the earnings top-up pilot. I shall certainly consider whether it would be suitable for piloting other schemes.
    Mr. Field: Because of its clear boundaries, surely the Isle of Wight is an ideal community for all pilot studies. I feel certain that all my constituents would welcome the Isle of Wight being at the forefront of modernisation of the welfare state, for which the Government have done so much.
    Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Isle of Wight, because of its island status, might well be a suitable area for future studies. If I were to select places for pilot schemes on the basis of the diligence of the Member of Parliament in pursuing his constituents' interests in social security matters, I would place the Isle of Wight top of the list.

    Mortgage Interest
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on his changes to the payment of mortgage interest for benefit claimants. [19706]
    Mr. Roger Evans: We have received a number of representations.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that the application of the standard interest rate to those with a fixed-rate repayment mortgage means that they suffer a significant reduction in benefit because they have to top up their payments, which his Department should be doing, to cover their mortgage? I have corresponded with the Minister about a constituent, Mr. Tickle of Maenclochog. Does the Minister accept that the way the standard rate is applied to people with fixed-rate mortgages means that the promise that his Department gave that no claimant would lose out is not being honoured, and that it is time for a change?
    Mr. Evans: The answer, I am happy to say, is no. I have caused further inquiries to be made about Mr. Tickle's case. I am told that he has a variable-rate mortgage, not a fixed-rate mortgage, and it appears that the system of add back is operating perfectly fairly, as we expected it to, to protect Mr. Tickle 100 per cent. I shall write again to the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to see me to discuss Mr. Tickle's case, I shall be happy to do so.

    Full and Part-time Employees
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount of benefit paid by his Department to (a) full and (b) part-time employees. [19707]
    Mr. Roger Evans: In 1994–95, the amount of benefit paid to employees through in-work benefits—such as

    163
    family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit—was nearly £2 billion. In addition, of course, employees may benefit, where they satisfy the conditions, from a range of other benefits, such as child benefit or disability living allowance.
    Mr. MacShane: If the Minister adds income support—about which he recently gave a parliamentary answer—to the figure, £3 billion is now paid out to people in work through the benefits system, which is double the 1990 figure. While all hon. Members want to protect people in poverty, is not the plain fact that employees in my constituency who are offered jobs at £1.44 or £2 an hour must turn to the benefit system, which acts as a huge subsidy for low-pay employers and distorts the local labour market? I put it to the Minister that, as a Conservative, a taxpayers' subsidy of that order cannot make economic sense.
    Mr. Evans: Evidence from research by the Institute of Employment Studies shows that employers do not know whether the family in question is in receipt of family credit because, of course, family credit is ordinarily paid to the woman. The evidence also seems to suggest that that is not having a distorting effect on the labour market. That is the first point.
    The second point is that in-work benefits such as family credit are better for people who are in the condition that the hon. Gentleman described, because they are acquiring and using work skills. Such benefits are also better for the taxpayer, because the cost of paying income support on a full means-tested basis would be considerably greater.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more practical and more moral to help low-paid people through family credit than it is to legislate for their unemployment through the national minimum wage and the social chapter?
    Mr. Evans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's two points. The basic problem with the minimum wage is that, in effect, it prohibits employment below a prescribed level—the effect of which would be to create unemployment, depending on the level of that minimum wage.

    Long-term Sick and Disabled People
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers in 1995–96; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79. [19708]
    Mr. Burt: Estimated expenditure on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers has quadrupled in real terms, from £5 billion in 1978–79 to more than £20 billion in 1995–96. With some 6.5 million disabled people, this represents a substantial commitment, and it is almost as great as our commitment to the 345,000 people—I can now provide that figure, as my memory has recovered—who will benefit from family credit extensions.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree mat our system of disability benefits is comprehensive and coherent? Does he agree that it promotes independence and integration, and that it focuses extra help on people who are disabled early in life and therefore have the least chance to work and save?
    Mr. Burt: Yes. My hon. Friend is correct. The system has for some 25 years tried to recognise the importance that disabled people attach to being independent, and benefits have increased accordingly. Our record on disability has been very good. The scheme recently announced by the NHS to allow access to powered wheelchairs and the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, which is currently going through the House, demonstrate that our commitment is undiminished and increasing.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: If the Minister wants to achieve value for the money spent on long-term sick and disabled people, will he accept that efficiency will have to be understood in terms of quality of service rather than merely in terms of savings to the Exchequer? Will he concede, particularly in the light of the shambles mat has been exposed in the privatisation of other parts of the Benefits Agency, that there is no reason to suppose that privatisation of the Benefits Agency medical service will secure better service or value even in the Treasury's terms, and that, if the Conservative party retains any sense of civic responsibility, it will abandon that project?
    Mr. Burt: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. In virtually every case where some form of contractorisation has been introduced, it has provided benefits to the service and the taxpayer, with no diminution in quality whatsoever. I do not consider that the Benefits Agency medical service will be harmed by the process of contractorisation now being considered and we expect an enhanced service to result.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's work for and funding of disabled people is remarkable? The same is true of people in poverty. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was not the only Member at Church house this morning; hon. Members in all parts of the House are taking part in that conference on poverty and recognise the importance of the theme. Is it not true that people are properly covered by the benefits system and that nobody needs to be in poverty?
    Mr. Burt: A remarkable tone of consensus was adopted on radio and television by some speakers at the conference this morning. My hon. Friend has adopted the same tone, but it has not been adopted by me Opposition. A considerable amount of effort and time is put in by the Government to try to ease the burdens of poverty. We maintain that the most important way to ease people out of poverty is to provide work and the opportunities for work. The success of our efforts in doing so has considerably reduced unemployment in the United Kingdom.
    As for our commitment to those in difficulties, expenditure on disabled people has quadrupled in real terms since we have been in office, which is evident manifestation of our commitment. This Government care and can prove that they care.

    Child Support Act
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care have been waiting more than a year to receive money for their children under the Child Support Act 1991. [19709]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Currently there are 194,000 parents, out of 1.5 million so far taken on by the agency, who made a maintenance application more than a year ago and have yet to have a maintenance assessment.
    I can announce to the House that the Child Support Agency will now be paying interest on maintenance that it has collected which is due for onward payment to the parent with care but has not been passed on within 28 days. That will apply to all payments received since 1 April 1995.
    Mr. Griffiths: I welcome the Minister's announcement. Does that not show that the Government have at last recognised that the CSA has been a shambles from the beginning? Would it not have been better if the Minister had announced today either that more staff would be employed to run the system or that the system would be simplified so that parents with care could receive their money more quickly?
    Mr. Mitchell: As the ombudsman found, there is no problem with staffing—the CSA has taken on additional staff—and the system is constantly being simplified.
    The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question related to a different matter. It is common knowledge across the House that the start of the CSA was "dire", as the Select Committee on Social Security put it. In its recent report, however, the Select Committee said:
    "The CSA is now on a surer footing and a whole range of indicators suggest that improvements are being made."
    We are determined that those improvements should continue in the months ahead, just as they have been evident in the months gone by.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that the ombudsman's report did not seem to take account of what is happening now in the CSA rather than historically? Can my hon. Friend tell the House the current figure for speed of payment to the parent with care? Will my hon. Friend also note that although the ombudsman criticised the average of 30 weeks taken by the CSA to clear up cases, perhaps we should judge that in the context of the average of 70 weeks that the ombudsman takes to clear up his own cases?
    Mr. Mitchell: On the first point, I noted that of the 20 cases the ombudsman looked at, some 14 involved problems which began in 1993. In that sense, his report is historic. As for the length of time it takes to get money from the agency to the parent with care, I was surprised at the ombudsman's criticism. The agency has been set a target to get payments out within 10 days to 90 per cent. of parents with care; this year, it has exceeded that target and managed to reach 97 per cent. of parents. The remaining 3 per cent. includes cheques that bounced. In that respect, I do not consider that the ombudsman's criticisms of the CSA were valid.
    Ms Lynne: In the light of the second critical report by the parliamentary ombudsman into the working of the Child Support Agency, in which he catalogues a series of errors such as the general mishandling of cases, mistaken identity and giving out confidential information, is it not about time that the Minister admitted defeat, scrapped the agency and brought in a fair and workable system?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady is wrong. First, on the cases which the ombudsman examined, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), some 14 of those 20 cases referred to events which took place in 1993 when the agency was in a very different condition. The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest scrapping the agency. It is here to stay. There is a wide consensus across Britain—if not among the Liberal Democrats—that the principles behind the CSA are right and proper in the interests of getting maintenance to the children who rightfully deserve it.
    The House will have seen that regulations were laid last Monday for the piloting of the departure scheme. That is most important to the development of the CSA as it will enable us to deal with the small minority of cases which cannot be dealt with fairly under the formula.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, proportionately, a year is a long time in the life of a child and that interest paid at the end of a year cannot do much to compensate for any deprivation that the child may have suffered? Will he continue with his efforts in nagging, cajoling and persuading the staff of the CSA to improve their performance and thus avoid further criticism?
    Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The CSA has been set demanding targets for next year to improve its accuracy to 85 per cent. and to increase the maintenance that it arranges and collects. There will be no resting by the CSA in its determination to ensure that there is a proper improvement in its service.
    Mr. Wicks: Is the Minister not being complacent and dismissive of the ombudsman's important work and report? Is he not concerned that one third of complaints to the ombudsman involve the Child Support Agency? Why has he not appointed an independent complaints adjudicator, as recommended by the ombudsman a year ago? Why has that appointment not been made? Will he announce that appointment today to bring some much needed fairness into the system?
    Mr. Mitchell: In respect of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are looking at the ombudsman's report with great care. I was responding to a specific question on the time taken to get money through to the parent with care. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the ombudsman looked at 195 cases. The CSA deals with 1.25 million cases. We are determined—there is certainly no complacency in the agency or among Ministers—to make certain that the CSA's performance improves. The hon. Gentleman's second point about an independent examiner is interesting and helpful. We are nearing the conclusion of our discussions on it and I hope to be able to say something to the House shortly.

    Single Mothers
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy in respect of single mothers. [19711]
    Mr. Lilley: Our policy has three strands. First, we have improved the incentives for lone parents to work, which increases their income and relieves the burdens on the taxpayer. Secondly, we aim to ensure that more of them receive regular maintenance from the absent parent. Thirdly, we propose to ensure that the benefits system does not discriminate against married couples.
    Mr. Steen: Since legal aid impinges on the social security budget, will the Secretary of State look at the case of an Australian schoolmaster earning £25,000 per year who gets legal aid to fight his wife in Britain? He has not paid a penny piece to either his wife or his children for four years, yet he still receives public money in Britain under the Legal Aid Board. That is not a good use of public funds or of our Government's care for the family.
    Mr. Lilley: I will take the matter up with the Lord Chancellor, whose responsibility it is to meet the budget for legal aid. I agree that great resentment arises from that sort of case.
    Mr. Chisholm: Why are the Government hell bent on reducing lone parent benefits and ignoring all the evidence about the additional costs faced by lone parents, as presented in the Department's 1985 Green Paper and in a recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Trust? Why not let the facts get in the way of prejudice for a change?
    Mr. Lilley: Far from being hell bent on this, we are taking a gradualist approach. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his colleague, the Chairman of the Social Security Committee, who said:
    "If one-parent benefit is phased out … it is a move we"—
    the Labour party—
    "should support"?

  PRIME MINISTER

    Easington (Visit)
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to pay a visit to the Easington constituency. [19729]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Cummings: What a pity—the right hon. Gentleman will never know what he is missing. Since I gave the Prime Minister notice of my question, has he had the opportunity to ascertain why the Department of Transport has rejected a submission by Durham county council for funds to provide access roads to the Dawdon and Fox Cover enterprise zones in my constituency? Would it not be common sense—[Interruption.]—for the Department of Transport to support those sites, which have been designated by the Department of the
    168
    Environment, and for funds to be allocated to allow the building of access roads to the A19? Is this not a case—[Interruption.]—of one Government Department not knowing what the other is doing? Will the Prime Minister use his influence to get the problem resolved?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question—all of it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has confirmed the orders which will allow the Dawdon and Fox Cover road link to be constructed. As the hon. Gentleman will know, designated enterprise zones may be areas attractive to private sector inward investment and I am confident that the regeneration agencies in local partnerships will go some way to funding the link road, which I agree is the key to the regeneration of the area. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the designation of enterprise zone status will provide the impetus for the creation of up to 1,000 new jobs in the two zones.

    Engagements
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19730]
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Burden: The Prime Minister will no doubt remember that a few years ago the present Home Secretary was the Minister in charge of water privatisation. Does the Prime Minister recall what his right hon. and learned Friend said on 17 March 1989? He said that after privatisation
    "it will entirely disappear as a political issue. No one will be talking about it at all. It will be in the private sector, delivering the goods."
    With 800 million gallons of water leaking away every day, and with the goings-on in Yorkshire, when the Prime Minister holds his crisis Cabinet meeting, where will he lay the blame for the lack of a water feel-good factor—on the privatised utilities or on the judgment of his right hon. and learned Friend?
    The Prime Minister: Water companies have a statutory duty to maintain supplies and we expect all companies to take the necessary measures to do that. Yorkshire Water has invested more than £1 billion in the past five years and will invest as much again over the next five years. Around two thirds of every pound in profit is reinvested for the benefit of consumers.
    On the general subject of water privatisation, more than £15 billion has been invested in modernising the industry since privatisation. That could not and would not have been possible without the industry's access to private sector finance.
    Madam Speaker: Questions are getting too long. Let us have a short one.
    Mr. Allason: I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. In a week in which an Algerian suspect has been arrested on charges involving terrorism in France, many people have been distressed to realise that Hamas supporters in this country have been raising money for terrorism. It is especially distressing that they have all been receiving social security benefits in this country. Will my right hon. Friend put a stop to that?
    The Prime Minister: We are certainly determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is not a base for external support for terrorism anywhere in the world. I take to heart what my hon. Friend has said about Hamas. We must also look at the activities of other people who come here and actively conspire to commit terrorist acts, those who abuse the hospitality and protection available here and those who use this country as a base from which to cause trouble for other countries.
    Mr. Blair: In the wake of the Dunblane tragedy, does the Prime Minister agree that we should not prejudice the outcome of the Cullen inquiry? Will he confirm that all the issues concerning gun laws will come within the scope of the inquiry? Does he further agree that it would be sensible at least to begin to examine those issues now on an all-party basis? In particular, we should address, first, the question of handguns being kept in private homes. Secondly, we must address the concern expressed at the weekend by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—and many others that currently the police have to prove why a firearms certificate should not be issued rather than the gun owner having to prove why it should.
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that Lord Cullen's inquiry will be considering the subject of handguns. I can also confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has begun a review of existing gun controls and intends to offer every assistance to the inquiry under Lord Cullen. At my right hon. and learned Friend's invitation, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is already a member of the Firearms Consultative Committee, but I know that my right hon. and learned Friend would welcome the views of other parties in the House before he makes a decision on the entirety of the evidence.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cutting off the electricity supply to any home in our country should be undertaken only as a last resort? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last year when electricity was a nationalised industry no fewer than 80,000 households had their electricity cut off, but that since then the figure has dramatically reduced and last year only 1,000 households out of the 24 million in England and Wales were disconnected? Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the privatised electricity companies for adopting what can perhaps most aptly be described as a more enlightened policy?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the changed circumstances following privatisation. There is no doubt that privatisation has proved to be the right structure for the industry, and the independent regulator's promotion of competition is very much in the interests of the consumer.
    170
    We have seen evidence of that in falling prices and, as my hon. Friend has vividly illustrated, in a better service for the many people who face difficulties.
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19731]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wicks: As the Prime Minister has summoned his Cabinet colleagues to a crisis meeting tomorrow to discuss the mystery—to him—of the missing feel-good factor, will he consider having a meeting with the victims of negative equity, who number 1.7 million, or with representatives of the 8 million people who have become unemployed since the last general election? Does the Prime Minister accept that those people do not feel good, but that they feel bad and they feel let down by him and his Government?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the nature of tomorrow morning's meeting. He really ought not to believe all—or, indeed, much—of what he reads in The Independent.
    I am delighted that the number of people in negative equity is falling. I am also delighted that fewer people are unemployed in this country than in any comparable country in Europe—in particular, those comparable countries which follow the policies that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, given the chance, would inflict on this country.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19732]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his disapproval—expressed in the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference—of the power of the European Court of Justice to make new laws that are binding on nation states will be warmly welcomed? Is he further aware that he is not alone in Europe, but shares with others—such as the French Prime Minister—concern that the European Court is overstepping the mark? Will he assure the House and the country that at the IGC he will insist that the court's powers are cut back, so that it does not become the supreme court of a federated superstate of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. I heard what the French Prime Minister had to say, and I thoroughly approved of the way in which he said it.
    I am greatly concerned about the fact that the European Court's interpretations have too often seemed to go beyond what Governments intended when the laws were framed. The court's functioning can be improved; I believe that it must be improved, and we will seek improvements at the intergovernmental conference. As my hon. and learned Friend said, a federal Europe with

    171
    the European Court becoming, little by little, a European supreme court is not a Europe that this Government can support.
    Mr. Clapham: In view of the fears expressed in the nuclear industry that the heavy running of the advanced gas-cooled reactors may have resulted in distortions which could cause a nuclear accident, and bearing it in mind that if the nuclear industry were privatised, commercial decisions could outweigh safety decisions, will the Prime Minister now shelve the idea of privatising the nuclear industry?
    The Prime Minister: We have sought advice, and we have been advised that privatisation of the nuclear industry would not in any way damage safety standards. That is clearly very important. Thus far, Nuclear Electric has an excellent safety record. I think that that is understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19733]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Waterson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has attracted more inward investment than any other country in the European Union, and more than France and Germany combined? Is that not the hardest possible evidence that the United Kingdom is well on its way to being the enterprise centre of Europe?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Skinner: Don't forget the social chapter and the minimum wage.
    The Prime Minister: I am in the happy position of being prompted by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to remind the House of the perils of the social chapter and the minimum wage. I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are indeed very damaging to the employment prospects of people in this
    172
    country, and I look forward to his support in denouncing them at every opportunity so that his constituents may stay in work rather than out of work.
    As for the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I certainly intend to keep the advantages that he mentioned at the forefront of the country's mind. Our policy is to put British jobs and British business first. Investors are attracted here by low costs and flexible working practices; we intend to maintain those, and to improve them. [Interruption.] In case the hon. Member for Bolsover is in any doubt, I repeat: no social chapter and no minimum wage.
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19735]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: If the Prime Minister is really concerned about the missing feel-good factor in areas such as Glasgow, will he agree to spend a day in the city with the new Lord Provost, Pat Lally, and talk to people and see for himself the severity of the problems caused by unemployment and poverty? If he were to do that, he might realise precisely why now is the time for a change.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman would stand back and look at the prosperity and opportunity that now exists in Scotland, he would see a total sea change from the situation that we inherited from the last Labour Government. If he would seek two or three cities throughout the United Kingdom that have shown the greatest improvement in that period, his own city of Glasgow would be among them.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the Government overturn any European Court of Justice judgment which damages our social chapter opt-out?
    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated, we intend at the intergovernmental conference to try to prevent the misuse of health and safety legislation to bypass the social chapter opt-out. That is a matter that we shall address directly at the IGC, with the intention of achieving the aims set out by my right hon. Friend.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mrs. Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 3 and 11 August last year, proposals were put to Bradford local authority's emergency planning officer that 1 million people in Yorkshire should be evacuated. Have you received any communication to that effect from the Secretary of State responsible or from Bradford council, because it is immensely serious that 1 million people in that part of the world should have to move house?
Madam Speaker: I have had no communication, either last August or at any other time, on that matter. It is a matter that would not concern me as Speaker of the House, although I understand that it may concern the hon. Lady, who represents an area in Yorkshire.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, which relates directly to you. I have been reading the European Commission's directive on the 48-hour week, and it seems to me that, without special dispensation from the European Court, you will not be entitled to do your job for us in the House, because you are required by the House to be on duty for far more than 48 hours a week. I wonder whether you will also read that directive and realise that perhaps you will have to go into job sharing.
Madam Speaker: I wonder who would determine who would share my job. I shall certainly read the directive, but as I have worked for more than 48 hours a week for the past 25 years, it would not be anything new for me to continue to do so.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson). In the light of the information yesterday about Yorkshire Water's plan to evacuate 1 million people, should not a Minister come to
174
the House and make a statement, because the consequences of evacuating 1 million people would be dire?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a Minister seeks to make a statement on that matter, but there are always opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise these matters, particularly on Wednesday mornings, and, of course, in the evening, in Adjournment debates.
Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has already had one. He cannot have a further point of order.
Mrs. Mahon: I am sure that it was a mistake, but, during Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister answered a question on the number of disconnections that have been made since the privatisation of the electricity industry. The fact is that there have been many more disconnections, because of the increase in prepayment meters and the fact that people now disconnect themselves because of the huge growth in poverty. I am sure that he did not mean to mislead the House, but those are the facts.
Madam Speaker: That may be a matter of interest to some hon. Members, but it is certainly not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Bruce rose—
Madam Speaker: I have already allowed the hon. Member to raise one point of order. It was a most interesting one and I have promised to read an EC directive, which will be enormously painful for me.
Mr. Bruce: On a point of information, then, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should come to my office if he wishes to take the matter further. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is waiting to present a ten-minute Bill.

Representation of the People (Amendment)
3.34 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts; and for related purposes.
I am grateful for this opportunity to seek the leave of the House to introduce this measure. Against the background of the great concern that Members of Parliament should act with probity at all times and that the working of the House should be beyond reproach, we have taken a number of decisions to bring about change. However, there is one area which falls beyond the scope of our new regulations on standards and interests and which we need to address. That is the payment of money to individuals seeking election to this place directly to assist them with their careers.
There are occasions when philanthropic or otherwise paternalistic assistance is to be encouraged. Equally, I have no problem with the sponsorship of candidates by trade unions and other bodies, provided that it is properly declared, and a candidate does not sacrifice his or her integrity or right to speak and vote without hindrance. However, what does concern me is a recent practice by which potential candidates are paid money on the basis that they will promote certain views and exercise their influence in this place to further the interests of those who pay them. That is an abuse of the House, and a corruption of the institution of Parliament.
On this occasion, I point the finger of accusation directly at EMILY and those behind that organisation. EMILY is an acronym for "Early Money is Like Yeast"—which makes dough rise—and it involves the payment of money directly to candidates—and for their training and expenses—who support the Labour party and are pro-abortion.
More specifically, Emily's List leaflets state:
"Applicants for sponsorship must fulfil Labour Party Parliamentary Criteria, support the programme and values of the Party, and be pro-choice in line with the 1992 Labour Party election manifesto".
That 1992 manifesto commitment was to increase access to abortion so that it was
"equally available in every region".
This move financially to assist women candidates, we were told by The Scotsman of 4 February 1995, involved payments of £1,000 to candidates, coupled with an additional £650-worth of training. The same article tells us that a number of Opposition women Members, including several who are on the Front Bench, were founding members of the organisation, and it is widely held that tacit support and possibly preferential treatment is given to Emily's List women during the Labour party's candidate selection process.
What concerns me and should concern the House is not that there are those who are willing to assist women Labour party candidates, but that there are those seeking election to the House who believe that it is acceptable effectively to sell their souls in this way to achieve selection, and ultimately election.
Many hon. Members in all parts of the House hold views that differ widely from mine on the issue of abortion and the sanctity of human life at its most
176
vulnerable. I do not share their views, but I have no reason whatever to doubt the honesty and integrity with which they are held. I am sure that many hon. Members who take such a pro-abortion stance will endorse my condemnation of a practice that effectively denies women candidates in the Labour party access to preferential advancement unless they will sacrifice their principles. Surely that cannot be right, and must be stopped. Would we tolerate the Ford Motor Company being able to pay candidates who gave a commitment to vote for the abolition of vehicle excise duty?
Lest there be any doubt that I am other than accurately reporting the position, let me quote from a letter, published in the Brentford, Chiswick and Isleworth Times, from Ann Ward, a committee member of Emily's List:
"our donors have the right to know how the women they are supporting would vote on the pro-choice issue in the House of Commons".
Anyone has the right to ask candidates how they would vote on any subject, and I encourage them to do so, but to pay money to people who give a commitment to vote a certain way is different. In passing, I record in particular my concern that a major retailer such as Tesco has allowed its name to become tarnished by being associated with the sponsorship of events for that organisation.
Furthermore, there can be no suggestion that EMILY is operating without the tacit support and endorsement of the Labour party. The April 1994 edition of EMILY News tells us that all Labour party regional women's committees are invited to send members to the Emily's List UK selection committee, and that other parts of the party are also invited to nominate members, including the parliamentary Labour women's committee and Labour Members of the European Parliament.
The defence to the accusation of "vote purchasing" usually deployed by Emily's List—for example, when challenged on radio by my good friend the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who has done such stalwart work in exposing this hypocrisy, humbug and corruption—is that it cannot hold a member, once selected, to a commitment given in return for cash. What a bizarre defence that is—my contract to corrupt Parliament is no ground for concern, because I find that I cannot necessarily enforce it.
The first report of the Nolan committee on standards in public life, which quoted from the 1947 declaration of the House, observed:
"It is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituency, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of the House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such an outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament".
Paragraph 50 of the same report states that it would be unsatisfactory and possibly a contempt of Parliament if a Member
"even if not strictly bound by an agreement with a client to pursue a particular interest in Parliament, was to pursue that interest solely or principally because payment, in cash or kind, was being made."
All existing Members are honourable. I seek the leave of the House to continue that tradition by amending the Representation of People Acts to require candidates receiving financial support from Emily's List to declare

177
that fact in their election address or on the ballot paper, so that, before deciding how to vote, the public will know that candidates have already sold their soul.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mrs. Marion Roe, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Vivian Bendall, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Dame Jill Knight.

Representation of the People (Amendment)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 March and to be printed. [Bill 85.]
Orders of the Day
  Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. [Relevant document: First report of the Welsh Affairs Committee of Session 1995–96 on the nursery voucher scheme in Wales (House of Commons Paper No. 186).]
New clause 1

  VISITS TO ASSESS SUITABILITY OF ESTABLISHMENTS
  'No grant may be made to a person providing nursery education under this Act in respect of any premises in which the nursery education is provided unless—

  (a) the premises have been visited by an inspector registered in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

  (b) the inspector is satisfied that the premises comply, or can
  be expected to comply, with such requirements as to suitability for the provision of nursery education in respect of which grants may be payable as may from time to time be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 14, in schedule 1, page 5, leave out lines 14 to 16.
  Government amendment No. 33.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: In Committee, there were protracted discussions on all the issues before us today. Unfortunately, despite the well-expressed and cogent arguments of Labour Members, the Government have not seen fit to incorporate our constructive amendments.
  New clause 1 and amendment No. 14 deal with safeguards, and provide for a preliminary inspection of institutions wishing to provide nursery education under the scheme, before they start to do so. The document "Nursery Education Scheme: The Next Steps", published by the Department for Education and Employment in January, proposed an application procedure for potential providers of nursery education based on self-assessment of their ability to meet the standards expected of them by the Department. Self-assessment is wholly inadequate.
  The next steps document reveals that the self-assessment schedule is
  "a guide and prompter for in-house discussion with staff.
  It then states quite baldly that the schedule
  "does not need to be completed or returned to the voucher agency."
  While the self-assessment schedule may be of use to applicant providers, especially those considering providing nursery education for the first time, self-assessment alone is clearly not a safe basis on which to entrust the vital responsibility of providing high-quality nursery education for young children.

  179
  The purpose of new clause 1 is simple—to plug the yawning gap in the inadequate arrangements proposed by the Secretary of State between the initial validation and the final validation of providers, which is quite properly dependent on providers being assessed and inspected. The next steps document says that inspection for final validation
  "will normally take place in the first year of participation."
  The new clause would impose a preliminary visit by a properly qualified and registered inspector. That would improve the scheme, and would offer a necessary safeguard to assure parents that a provider had been able to satisfy a registered inspector that he met the required standards, or, in the professional judgment of the inspector, could be expected to meet them within a reasonable time.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree, based on his experience, that a scheme must be up and running before it can be thoroughly inspected? Has he had experience in his constituency, as I have in mine, of people who are anticipating becoming providers taking enormous trouble to ensure that they have the proper qualifications and premises? That is the stage at which they get the necessary advice.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I will touch on the vital people in this process—the inspectors. He knows from his experience as a teacher, as I do from mine, the value that qualified, capable inspectors can bring to the whole educational process in our schools. He referred to schemes having to be up and running. Maintained and private nurseries are up and running, as are playgroups, and they will be incorporated in the scheme.
  We are trying to achieve a comprehensive framework to govern all providers and ensure that they provide the necessary standards of nursery education that I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree are desirable. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the arrangements for such visits by a registered inspector.
  Amendment No. 14 is about the registration visits themselves. Local education authority-maintained nursery schools and classes now have to be inspected under section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which means that once every four years an inspection is carried out by a team of Ofsted-accredited inspectors led by a registered inspector, according to Ofsted's framework for inspection, as is required for all primary and secondary schools.
  The amendment would delete the exemption of the maintained sector, thus requiring existing maintained nursery education facilities to be inspected under the arrangements being set up by the Bill. Technically, that would require double inspection-but in practice, as Ofsted is responsible for both systems, it would be foolish for it to do anything other than carry out a single process that met both sets of criteria. In effect, that would mean using the more rigorous framework currently in place for all mainstream schooling. It would therefore be necessary to adopt the same framework for private and voluntary provision too.
  180
  The Government are likely to argue that it would be pointless to require two inspections, and to try to suggest that the Opposition amendment is really about applying the less rigorous requirements to maintained schools. That is a seductive but false argument.
  As for the inspection framework, there is no doubt that the requirements under the 1992 Act for the maintained sector are significantly more rigorous than those envisaged for the new voucher providers. The difference between the Ofsted framework and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's document on desirable outcomes for nursery education can be illustrated by two quotations.
  The guidance on the inspection of nursery and primary schools published by Ofsted late last year says:
  "The inspection of subjects and the provision for pupils under five should focus on pupils' attainment and progress; teaching and other aspects of provision which make a significant contribution to what is achieved; and pupils' response."
  On the other hand, the SCAA, in its publication, "Nursery Education: Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning On Entering Compulsory Education", says something qualitatively different:
  "Confirmation of validation will be based on a judgement, through inspection, about the extent to which the quality of provision is appropriate to the desirable outcomes in each area of learning rather than on the achievement of the outcomes themselves by individual children".
  If we are concerned to achieve the desirable and laudable objectives, we must consider inspectors' qualifications. There is concern among educators about the level of qualification of the inspectors who carry out the work. Currently, to be a member of an inspection team undertaking an Ofsted contract, inspectors must be qualified teachers with significant relevant experience. They are also expected to demonstrate the professional skills associated with education inspection and advice during a week's course run by Her Majesty's inspectorate.
  The course is designed to accredit prior skills rather than to train beginners from scratch, and most Ofsted-accredited inspectors were already HMI or local authority inspectors and advisers before the introduction of the new system. That means, as we would expect, that they are widely experienced and capable people. To become a registered inspector—the person qualified to lead a team—it is necessary to take a further, more rigorous course.
  There is already a shortage of qualified inspectors with nursery experience, and there have been problems in maintaining the timetable for inspecting such provision within Ofsted's current four-year timetable.
  Early consultation by Ofsted revealed that suitable "initial selection criteria" for individuals wishing to become inspectors for private or voluntary sector providers of nursery education do not specify qualified teacher status, but include national vocational qualification level 2 in child care, the City and Guilds caring for children certificate, the Business and Technician Education Council nursing diploma, and Nursery Nurses Education Board qualifications. Those qualifications are not sufficient to secure a job as an ordinary teacher in a local education authority nursery school. To suggest that they might be adequate for inspectors is astonishing. That is turning the whole logic of inspection as understood in the maintained sector on its head.

  181
  The Association of Advisers for the Under-Eights and their Families wrote to Ofsted to register its "dismay, disappointment and frustration" at the "totally inappropriate" qualifications specified. Its letter concluded:
  "It is essential that the professionals who will be inspecting provision for the voucher scheme are seen to be credible, knowledgeable, early years personnel, with appropriate training and expertise."
  The Opposition say amen to that.
  Government amendment No. 33 improves the wording of paragraph 13 of schedule 1 and allows the chief inspector to set a time limit for the production of a report by the person conducting the inspection. It allows the limit to be extended by a maximum of three months. It provides for regulations to prescribe that copies are sent "without delay", whatever that may mean, to authorities and other persons—again, I wonder what that means.
  That seems to meet a requirement that we attempted to introduce in Committee in amendment No. 87. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will bear me out, because he tabled amendments Nos. 21 and 90 to effect such a change. I hope that the Government are at last beginning to respond to the constructive arguments that were put in Committee and that will continue to be made in this debate.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: I support new clause 1, which is important because, throughout the Bill's consideration, the Opposition have tried to table amendments that would raise the quality of the education offered to children in this so-called expansion of nursery education provision. Throughout our proceedings, Ministers have said that they support that intent, but every time we have put a practical proposal to the vote, Ministers have failed to support it. If they do not accept new clause 1 and other amendments, people will realise that the nursery voucher scheme has nothing to do with providing quality nursery education for our young children.
  At present, a new establishment that wishes to be eligible to accept nursery vouchers, and therefore to educate our four-year-olds, has to go through a system of validation, to get which it has to fill in a form. It is sent to Capita management consultancy, which has been employed by the Government in the first phase of the scheme. Capita has, by the Minister's own admission, no staff with educational qualifications.
  The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), wrote to me to say:
  "During Committee on Thursday, you asked whether any members of staff of Capita Managed Services Ltd employed on the nursery voucher scheme are qualified teachers, former HMI or nursery specialists.
  I can now confirm that they are not".
  The organisation responsible for validating the new settings, which will miraculously emerge as the result of the demand-led voucher schemes, has no education specialists on its staff. If we are to raise the quality of what is on offer to our young children, it is simply not good enough to allow such settings to be validated without an inspection.
  182
  4 pm
  I fear that Ministers will not accept the new clause, because they know that they probably could not implement it. It is important for the House to know the inspectorate's capacity for dealing with the so-called expansion of nursery provision. Ministers have never denied that there are only three qualified inspectors of nursery provision on the staff of Ofsted. A further 200 inspectors are contracted by Ofsted to carry out the inspection of nursery education settings in nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools.
  Everyone, including Ofsted, recognises that 4,000 inspectors will be needed to meet the new inspection requirements of this important early educational provision for our young children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said, that will probably mean a lowering in the standard of those employed to carry out the crucial task of inspecting the quality on offer to our young children. Is it true that it is considered appropriate for people with NVQ2 qualifications to carry out the inspection? Perhaps, when the Minister replies to the debate, we shall be given the answer.
  I am keen that we should welcome people with all sorts of qualifications and backgrounds to work with children under five, but it is inappropriate for people with NVQ2 qualifications to undertake crucial inspections to ensure that settings for under-fives are of the correct standard. The Government should come clean about how they intend to find 4,000 inspectors. There are also serious questions to be asked about how the policy is progressing.
  We know very little about what training the Government intend for those they recruit as inspectors. As I understand it, Ofsted is considering four half-days' training for those who carry out inspections. The lack of staff with relevant qualifications employed by the Department means that training will be carried out by the people who should be conducting the inspections. That is simply not good enough, and is a matter of great concern to us.
  We need to know whether that is why the Government will not ensure that a proper inspection of settings takes place before they are validated as appropriate for use for the nursery voucher scheme. I also want to know what action the Government intend to take to improve the situation.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Nursery schools and classes were formerly inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors of education. In Committee, it was my understanding that, while nursery schools and nursery classes are now inspected by Ofsted, under the Government's proposals—to which we are objecting in the form of new clause 1—it would be possible for the inspectors whom my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) describes to have lower qualifications than the nursery teachers they inspect. If that is so, should not the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), address that problem when he replies to the debate?
  Ms Hodge: I agree entirely with the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and I hope that the Minister addresses it during his reply to the debate. Inspection is crucial to quality, as was said last night in the debate on the space

  183
  standards in our schools and the deregulation of those standards. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment stated that it was not the space standards that mattered but the quality of the teaching in ensuring that an appropriate offer was being made to our children.
  The Labour party argues that both count, but we agree with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that quality of teaching counts, and that it is a crucial factor in how good an offer there is for young children. If the quality of teaching matters, someone has to inspect it. As the Labour party says in the new clause, it is appropriate and important that inspections be carried out before we allow these settings to teach a whole generation of four-year-olds.
  I shall tell hon. Members why that is so important. Approximately 400,000 people are currently working with children aged under five—of those people, 10 per cent. have no qualifications at all; of those people working with children in the nursery class or nursery school setting, in the maintained setting, over half do not have qualifications to teach; and the remainder have a range of qualifications. In that context, where there has not been an enormous investment in the training of those who are working with children at this crucial age, it is absolutely imperative—it is totally vital—that there should be an inspection prior to the validation of a setting to ensure that those who are working with young children have appropriate skills and experience, if not qualifications, to carry out their tasks.
  There is a lack of provision for training. In fact, Ministers in this Government were responsible for cutting the very little training that existed in the grant for education support and training budget for those working in the nursery education sector. Between 1990 and 1993, just under £10 million was available for training this group of staff, and that funding has been cut.
  The Government's commitment to a quality offer for four-year-olds is very much up in the air: there is a group of people working with children who have a variety of qualifications, if any at all; the Government have cut the part of the training budget that could assist in raising quality; and in the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme, the Government have not set aside any money for training—which is something that the Labour party has asked for time and time again.
  There is not much evidence in the Bill—which has been debated for many hours in Committee—that the Government are concerned about quality, although there are currently concerns in that respect. The best evidence we have—which we used extensively in the discussions in Committee—is a survey carried out by Her Majesty's inspectors entitled "A Survey of Provision for Under-Fives in the Play Group and Maintained Sectors in Wales: Inspected During Academic Year 1994–95".
  The survey looked at playgroups—the new settings which will be eligible for vouchers—and at the maintained sector. I shall quote briefly from the document, because I believe that hon. Members should be aware of it. I refer to the playgroups sector. On page 19, the inspector, talking about the quality of what was on offer to our children in the playgroup sector, said:
  "Standards in the development of children's pre-reading and early reading skills are satisfactory in about a fifth"—
  20 per cent.—
  "of the play groups … In around four-fifths of the groups, although reading materials are readily available for the children to handle and use, not enough is done to foster positive attitudes to books in a systematic way."
  184
  Four fifths of those playgroups that were inspected in Wales by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in Wales fell down on the key aspect of preparing children to read.
  The report says:
  "Few opportunities are created in any of the playgroups to develop children's early writing skills through play and practical experiences".
  On page 22, in its conclusions about the maintained sector, the report says:
  "There is a continuing need to improve standards in some aspects of the work, especially the development of skills for later learning in technology (65% of the schools), the development of knowledge and skills in the scientific area of learning (30% of the schools), the development of children's feelings and ideas in the aesthetic and creative area of learning (30% of the schools), the development of early reading and writing skills (25% of the schools) and aspects of the work in the mathematical area of learning (10% of the schools). The need is greatest in reception classes and mixed-age infant classes in primary schools."
  In its conclusion about the playgroup sector, the report says:
  "Standards need to be improved in most aspects of the work. Particular attention should be paid to improving standards in the development of early literacy, the use of mathematical language and the skills needed for later learning in history, geography, science and technology."
  That all shows that, in part of the United Kingdom where a proper inspection did take place, standards were sorely lacking. Despite that, Ministers are seriously suggesting that we should introduce a new range of settings—which may require the validation of as many as 12,000 new settings once the scheme is running nationwide—without having that early check on whether the quality of what is on offer is appropriate.
  Sixty per cent. of what a child learns is learned in the first five years of life; 60 per cent. of his or her intellectual development takes place in those first five years. It is a crucial phase of life. We have got it wrong for far too long. Are we yet again to miss an opportunity of starting to put things right? I fear so, if the Government's proposals are implemented.
  In Government amendment No. 33 on inspection, the Government suggest that the inspector should submit a report, but we all know that currently, when an inspection report on a private nursery is completed, it is submitted to those who own and run the nursery, and is not published generally. If our children are to attend private nurseries, and if public money is to be invested in children attending those private nurseries, do the Government intend inspection reports to be published? I hope they do, and I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort on that.
  Currently, non-educational institutions—playgroups or nurseries run by the voluntary sector, or private nurseries—must be inspected before they are registered and opened to the public. All we are asking in the new clause and amendment No. 14 is that the rigour that goes into ensuring that the care is of a certain quality should be applied to ensuring that the education is of a certain quality. That is the key to ensuring that children develop their potential. Government resistance to this important new clause would show the world that they do not really care about the quality of nursery education.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I cannot think of the Bill without thinking of it in the context of the changes to the Education (School Premises) Regulations

  185
  1981 that were debated yesterday. The Bill and those changes seem to amount, among other things, to an attempt to push early years education towards the private sector, cheapness and, potentially, overcrowded and overstressed conditions. Those dangers should be monitored and checked by proper inspection procedures, as laid out in new clause 1.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was quite right to say that we cannot inspect something that is not already there; however, the new clause places stress on "the premises" subject to the inspection. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) was quite right to say that a very early check is needed. That is a sensible way in which to think of the new clause.
  To my mind, it is quite improper, and possibly risky, for young children to be gathered in units that, for at least one year, are self-assessed by people who have a strong financial interest in ensuring that the self-assessment is positive. The assessment would then be sent to Capita, but numerous recent early-day motions have already cast considerable doubt on that organisation. Of course, the need for inspection applies not only to premises but to the quality of the activity and the personnel involved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking said.
  The voucher system will inevitably drive the centre of gravity in early years education away from comprehensive nursery schools and classes, which are financed and organised by local authorities, towards a provision that has been hurriedly scrambled together by individuals and companies. Some of the people involved in that provision will no doubt be excellent, but others will be out to grab and cash as many vouchers as possible before the inspector arrives and possibly closes their nurseries down.
  The expansion of early years education, which all parties in the House seek, clearly should not be governed by a system that takes large amounts of public money and pumps it into the provision of what might be no more than child minding, in places that could not accommodate activities other than basic child minding—although the facilities might pass muster in the social services' inspection under the Children Act 1989.
  The inspectorate must be mindful of the quality of learning experience for all the four-year-olds who will be placed in schools by vouchers. It must especially take into account all the recent research, which has demonstrated beyond peradventure the crucial educational and social benefits that accrue from high-quality early years education.
  It is, of course, also important that the quality of the inspectorate is of the highest standard. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Barking have already commented on inspectors' qualifications—NVQ2 is perhaps not what we would seek as an ideal qualification for an inspector.
  The Bill also contains nothing about training, either for the new nursery teachers—no planned expansion is envisaged in that respect—or for the new inspectors. Parents who live in areas that have never offered early years education provision before will no doubt be relieved that it will be available, but they may plump for whatever is offered. The new clause offers them at least a basic assurance about standards, in a sphere of education with which, by definition, they cannot be familiar. As the
  186
  unit—I can think of no better word; it may be a class—is already in place, they will trust that it is totally acceptable, and they may find out otherwise rather too late. That is why early inspection is tremendously important.
  In contemplating new clause 1, the Government have to bear in mind how brief but vital nursery education is. It is all over in 12 months—or 18 months if the child is fortunate—and by then a child may already have formed educational patterns. A bad or insufficient nursery experience may produce individual or collective tragedy. Early inspection would attempt to avoid that, so I hope that the Government will look favourably on what I consider to be a sensible and moderate new clause.
  Mr. Mike Hall: By way of introduction to my support for this essential new clause, let me draw the attention of the House to the principle on which the nursery voucher scheme is based. Under the nursery voucher scheme, public money will be used to subsidise private sector play schemes. It may even subsidise private sector child minding and other schemes that may or may not provide nursery education as there is nothing in the framework of the Bill to prevent that.
  New clause 1 is straightforward and simple. It will demand an inspection of existing provision to ensure that it measures up to what we expect of nursery education before any public money is put into a service. That is a great strength of new clause 1.
  I am concerned about the design of the voucher scheme and that it may harm the excellent provision of nursery education in the state sector. I am sure that the wording of the Bill and the way in which the voucher scheme will work—in the absence of an inspection before the private sector will be able to benefit from public money—will lead to a dilution or undermining of existing LEA provision. I am also confident that the way in which the scheme is currently set up means that it will undermine severely the provision of nursery education for three-year-olds. Therefore, new clause 1 commends itself to the House.
  I am clear in my own mind that the voucher scheme is nothing more than a political gimmick. It offers no real prospect of providing high-quality nursery education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. I say that confidently as someone who has read "Education: A Framework for Expansion", which was published in 1972 by the then Secretary of State for Education. It committed the Conservative Government of the day to providing high-quality nursery education. The fact that it was never delivered does not deter from the aims and objectives of "Education: A Framework for Expansion", which recognised the benefits that a good nursery education would bring to pupils' prospects and to levering up standards in the state system.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) has already said, 60 per cent. of learning takes place in those early years. It is therefore essential that we get nursery education right and plan for it properly. What the Government appear to be doing is designed more to please the Conservative party conference than to improve the quality of our state education.
  Had the Secretary of State for Education and Employment had her own way, I am certain that she would have not chosen such an approach. She knows full well that the voucher scheme is unwieldy and a bureaucratic

  187
  nightmare. We are debating the Bill only because last October the Prime Minister promised the Conservative party conference that we would have a voucher scheme. I am sure that that is not the way to plan the best education for primary school children, who need first-class nursery education.
  The Secretary of State was right to say on 19 October 1994 that, despite some people's opinions, voucher schemes were unwieldy. She also said in The Times Educational Supplement of 7 April 1995 that vouchers were not the favoured option. In fact, it was only because of the Prime Minister's commitment at the Tory party conference that she had to change her mind. He said:
  "I have asked Gillian Shephard to work up proposals to provide places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish them to take it up … What I am doing is giving you a cast iron commitment that it will happen".
  Mr. Spearing: The Prime Minister certainly did commit the party to a voucher scheme, but he also said that he would provide nursery education for all four-year-olds. The Government seem to intend to make it available to some, but it will not be nursery education as we know it today.
  Madam Speaker: Order. That question invites the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor to go even wider, and he was already making what seemed like a Second Reading speech. I hope that he will not pursue the intervention.
  Mr. Hall: You are of course right, Madam Speaker. I was coming to the point that we need inspections of nursery education before handing over taxpayers' money to private sector institutions. Certainly, high-quality nursery education should be available to all four-year-olds, as the Prime Minister said it would be. But it was clear from the debates in Standing Committee that it is not going to happen.
  This is a very poor Bill; we make no bones about the fact that we do not like its contents. New clause 1 in no way substitutes for poor legislation: it just tries to make the best of a bad job. One way of ensuring that the money voted by Parliament is spent for the intended purpose is to carry out inspections of private sector premises to ensure that they truly provide what we would expect to be done in the name of nursery education.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked that
  "no provider will be brought into the nursery voucher scheme unless the DFEE and the Welsh Office are satisfied that they meet the educational standards which can be gleaned from reports carried out by Ofsted, the Audit Commission and the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 1996; c. 193.]
  My hon. Friend wanted to be quite sure that all premises were right for nursery education, and that the resources provided would go towards quality education. These establishments and institutions must be committed to curriculum and planning control.
  The teachers in these nursery schools must be up to the task of providing high-quality nursery education. New clause 1 seeks reassurances about assessment and record keeping, and about the literacy and numeracy that teachers would hope to instil in the children in their care. We hope that the Government will commit themselves to ensuring that taxpayers' money delivers the goods. New clause 1
  188
  calls on Ofsted to go into the private sector institutions providing nursery education and to give us the information that we require.
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "Over time, Ofsted inspection reports will help to fill in the picture of the developing pattern of provision. They may also shed light on the most effective way to deliver good quality nursery education."
  I do not want to look back in a year's time and find out that the Government may have been able to do that. I want some reassurances now that taxpayers' money will be spent on providing good-quality nursery education. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government on the issue. The Government are prepared to allow the private sector to be involved in nursery provision, to allow public money to be spent on that provision and to inspect the outcome some time in the future. That is not an appropriate approach, and new clause 1 would change it.
  4.30 pm
  The Under-Secretary also said in Committee:
  "In case it is not obvious from my remarks, I must flag up for the Committee the fact that many of those matters, by their very nature, will emerge one or two years down the line. I hope that hon. Members agree that it would be unreasonable to wait for definitive outcomes before proceeding with the expansion of nursery education."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 1 February 1996; c. 54.]
  I do not think that we need to wait for those definitive outcomes to expand nursery education. We could do that through the state sector and local education authorities. It is unreasonable for the Under-Secretary to ask us to wait for two or three years before we find out whether taxpayers' honest money has been spent efficiently and effectively. That is my difference with the Under-Secretary on that issue.
  Whereas in new clause 1 we call for inspections to take place before public money is used, the Government are quite prepared to wait. The Government are not even prepared to set down a target for the number of private sector institutions that will be inspected in the first 12 months. It is clear that many inspections will be needed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, an extra 4,000 inspectors would probably be needed to complete the job in those 12 months. The Government are not even prepared to fix a target for the number of inspections in the first 12 months, and the reason given—it is totally unacceptable—is that those inspections cannot start until the Bill has received Royal Assent.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards)indicated assent.
  Mr. Hall: The Under-Secretary agrees, but there would be nothing wrong with delaying the implementation of the Bill until those inspections had taken place. If the Bill receives Royal Assent in its current form, the inclusion of new clause 1 would give us some reassurance that the Government were committed to inspection to provide high-quality nursery education. The pamphlet "Information for Parents: The Nursery Education Scheme" states:
  "The Government wants all parents to be able to choose good-quality nursery education for their four-year-old children if they want."

  189
  If parents are to make choices about good-quality nursery education, on what will they base their decisions? What will inform their decisions about good-quality nursery education? A step in the right direction would be an Ofsted report that stated that a nursery has the accommodation to provide good-quality education; has designed its curriculum to match the needs of four-year-olds; has well-qualified staff; and has proper assessment plans. That would be the type of qualitative report that new clause 1 would require.
  We have seen that the Government have committed themselves to a voucher scheme to provide nursery education. If we are to believe what the Government have said, the voucher, to the value of £1,100, will do a great deal. It will provide two and a half sessions a week of nursery education. It will provide for capital investment in the private sector to supply the 150,000 places that are missing at the moment. That has been recognised in the Government literature on the subject of nursery vouchers. The voucher will also pay for the inspection of the private sector schools. Those £1,100 vouchers will have to go a long way. I am not confident that they will provide nursery places for every four-year-old in the country. I am certain that they will undermine existing provision—and I am confident that, if the Government have the interests of education at heart, they will accept new clause 1. It is a step in the right direction, and would improve what I consider to be a very poor piece of legislation.
  Mr. David Jamieson: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), who made some excellent comments in support of new clause 1. I shall not repeat what he said, but try to complement it.
  We now have some cross-party accord on at least one feature of the Bill: the parties now agree that nursery education is valuable to children. Less than two years ago, Ministers were telling us that there was no proven connection between nursery education and the quality of a child's learning. Have we not heard the same words in connection with class sizes? Of course, that applies only to local education authority schools, not to the schools to which many Conservative Members send their children.
  I also remember a Minister saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was "obsessed" with nursery education. I am happy to say that Ministers are now equally obsessed with it—as are Opposition Members, who are following my hon. Friend's excellent lead. We welcome Conservative Members' conversion to nursery education; but that is where my agreement with the Government ends. We have the right policy, but, alas, the wrong solution.
  Let me say a little about the quality and value of inspection. The Government have rightly stressed the need for inspection of all schools. Opposition Members agree: we want to be absolutely sure that nursery school inspectors are meeting the standards that we want for our children, and also meeting the demands of taxpayers whose money is being spent to the tune of nearly three quarters of a billion pounds.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I do not expect the nursery voucher scheme to create many local education
  190
  authority places. I think that the vouchers will be used in the private sector. If a huge amount of capital and revenue is to go into that sector, we must ensure that the conditions are right before children begin their education. Nursery education is, after all, education, not child minding. If the conditions are wrong, children will suffer. The conditions must be tried and tested.
  Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend's comments are, as usual, well placed. The Bill could penalise authorities that are currently offering a high level of nursery education, and have done so for many years. A point that I hope will arise later in the debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I was tolerant in regard to the intervention, but can we now return to the new clause?
  Mr. Jamieson: I shall, of course, be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Later, however, we may hear from the Minister how some of the revenue provided by the vouchers could be used for buildings rather than providing nursery education places.
  It is vital that people of quality carry out the inspections. We need experienced inspectors with a proper understanding of young children and the way in which they learn; I do not think that the Minister will disagree with that. The inspectors must know what to look for.
  Before inspectors carry out inspections, as mentioned in new clause 1, we need people to train them. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that, when looking for people to train nursery school inspectors, only the Pre-School Learning Alliance and the Montessori organisation were asked to provide the names of people who could train inspectors. Has the Pre-School Learning Alliance—excellent though it may be—people with sufficient experience to train? Many teachers in the Montessori organisation obtained their qualification through correspondence courses and have done very little follow-up to that qualification, which is not recognised in state schools. They cannot teach in state schools. Yet they have been asked to train the people who will inspect nursery schools.
  I believe that a letter was sent out a short while ago to those two organisations and that the trainers have been offered a whole two days' training to train the inspectors. If they pass the training in April and May, they will be offered a further session in July just to ensure that they are competent to do the job. I understand that the people who will train the inspectors have only the equivalent of national vocational qualification level 2 in child care, which is just above GCSE grade 4. Yet they will train inspectors to inspect nursery schools to see whether they are appropriate. I should be grateful if the Minister would address that point, because I notice that, last week, The Guardian and The Times Educational Supplement—an excellent choice by the Department for Education and Employment and Ofsted—advertised for inspectors. Before the inspectors are in place, we need to know whether the people training them have the competence and quality to do so.
  New clause 1 has been cobbled together in a hurry and it has many deficiencies, not least those that I have just pointed out.
  Mr. Richards: It will come as no surprise to Conservative Members that what we have heard so far has been nothing more than a rerun of what we heard in Standing Committee—
  Mr. James Pawsey: And a boring rerun, at that.
  Mr. Richards: As my hon. Friend says, it has been a boring rerun, with Opposition Members seeking to find ways and means of tripping up the private and voluntary sector.
  We are introducing a number of important safeguards to ensure the quality of provision at participating institutions before inspection, which means that there is no need for the provision sought in new clause 1. First, we are accepting applications only from certain categories, or types, of institutions that we are confident will be able to provide good-quality education. These include maintained schools, finally registered independent schools, local authority day nurseries and institutions registered under the Children Act 1989.
  Providers registered under the Children Act have their premises inspected annually by social services departments, and maintained schools are covered by the school premises regulations.
  Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Richards: In a moment. Let me finish this point.
  New regulations were laid before Parliament on 22 February, to come into force on 1 September 1996. Hon. Members will be aware, from the lengthy discussions that have taken place on this subject in Committee, that we intend to deregulate minimum teaching and recreation areas in maintained schools, but they will know equally well that we are retaining the standards that bear on health and safety to safeguard the welfare of children.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Richards: I give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister just told the House that he will accept applications only from certain categories of organisation and institution to participate in the scheme. Will he tell the House which part of the Bill gives effect to the proposal that he has just announced?
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Richards: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the arrangements that we are making under clause 1 will ensure that that is indeed the case.
  Secondly, all participating institutions will have to work towards the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority desirable learning outcomes, and those on which we await advice from the ACAC organisation in Wales. The quality and standards of education that they provide will be subject to rigorous inspection. To provide good-quality education and work towards the outcomes, providers will need to ensure that their premises are suitable. We intend to inspect all private and voluntary providers within the first year. As explained in Committee, the inspections cannot begin
  192
  until the Bill has been enacted and it has come into force. Given the large number of providers involved, it would be impracticable to inspect them all at once. To insist on inspection before registration, as the amendment attempts to do, would delay the expansion of nursery education and would stifle parental demand.
  Mr. Spearing: I take the Minister back a few sentences to the inspection of premises. He referred to the fact that school inspections would be carried out under school premises regulations, but we know that schools have no space. Yesterday evening, the Secretary of State told me that, of course, they would be also be inspected under the Children Act. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Act contains minimum space requirements and, if so, what they are for the establishments that will be inspected under the Bill?
  Mr. Richards: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. On the criteria by which inspections are made under the Children Act, I do not know off the top of my head whether space is a criterion, but I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know in due course.
  Ms Hodge: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my hon. Friend allow me?
  Mr. Richards: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Dr. Hampson: Frankly, is not this a farce? Why do not we simply say to those people opposite that space, size, quality of classroom—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is a parliamentary phrase. All Members are honourable Members, not people.
  Dr. Hampson: I am delighted—if my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will allow me to continue the point and respond to the Chair—because I thought that, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were criticising the word "farce". It is a farce because Opposition Members seem to ignore the central point—education. The quality of the way in which we educate young people has nothing to do with a physical place. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but one can go to the most clapped out medieval buildings that are some of the best schools in the country—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Dr. Hampson: Mark Twain said that it was the quality of the mind at the other end of the log. It is well known. Research in the past decade shows that there is no positive relationship at all between premises and the quality of education.
  Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend makes a valid point when he speaks of Labour Members, who are far more concerned with providing occupation for their friends in local education authorities than with providing good-quality nursery education for the children of this country.
  Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman should contain himself. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked about inspections under the Children Act 1989. Guidance under that Act states that it is desirable that 2.3 sq m should be available per child. I stress that that is guidance under the Act.
  Mr. Hall rose—
  Mr. Richards: I should like to make a little progress. Opposition Members are getting a little excited. They should calm themselves.
  The self-assessment schedule will be an important and additional safeguard of quality. It will let providers know what is expected of them before they join the scheme. Providers are unlikely to apply to join the scheme unless they are confident that they can meet the requirements that are expected of them. It would be a poor advertisement for an institution to enter the scheme only to be ejected from it a few months later. As a final safeguard of quality, providers will also have to publish information for parents which includes the details of their premises. I ask the House to reject new clause 1.
  Amendment No. 14 seeks to provide for periodical inspection by registered nursery education inspectors of maintained primary schools that have nursery classes and of maintained nursery schools that are already subject to periodical inspection under section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 by inspectors registered under that Act. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton
  (Mr. Kilfoyle) forecast, such a duplication of effort would be unhelpful. The introduction of two separate cycles of inspection by separate inspectors would cause unnecessary disruption in schools and it could hardly be considered an efficient use of taxpayers' money.
  In undertaking periodical inspections of schools under the 1992 Act, inspectors registered under that Act are required to report on the quality and standards of education that are provided in the same way as registered nursery education inspectors are required to report. In doing that, they will have regard to specific guidance provided by Ofsted and by the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales on the inspection of early years education. From 1 April 1996 inspectors who are registered under the 1992 Act will apply the general guidance for inspection of primary schools, which also covers early years issues. Therefore, the quality of nursery education that is provided by schools that are subject to inspection under the 1992 Act is already being monitored by Ofsted and by OHMCI in Wales. I can see no reason to introduce an additional, separate inspection cycle for such schools.
  I shall now deal with some matters that were raised by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Walton suffers from a misunderstanding about the inspection of nursery provision in the maintained sector. Inspections in that sector and of private and voluntary sector schools will be undertaken in accordance with the guidance that has been issued by Ofsted and OHMCI. The guidance will apply to nursery provision across all sectors, which means that there is no question of private sector or voluntary sector inspections being any less thorough than those that are carried out in the maintained sector.
  The hon. Members for Walton and for Barking (Ms Hodge) and some other hon. Members asked about the qualifications of inspectors. The chief inspector will
  194
  have to be satisfied that inspectors are capable of performing the task, and he will require them to undergo training that is appropriate for each one. The hon. Member for Barking suggested that Capita Managed Services would validate the quality of education to be provided on the basis of the self-assessment questionnaire. Plainly, she did not read the letter that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), sent to her on that very matter. For ease of reference, perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to read part of my hon. Friend's letter. In paragraphs 2 and 3 the letter states:
  "Capita have no need for educational specialists. Their responsibility is only for administering the issue and redemption of vouchers, not for any of the educational aspects of the scheme.
  In particular, Capita is not involved with making judgments about educational quality. The Department has set out in its contract with Capita a tight framework within which Capita administers its part of the scheme."
  I have addressed the matters of issue and qualifications. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) asked who had been contacted about the possibility of training. Ofsted contacted not only the Pre-School Learning Alliance and Montessori: it contacted other organisations including the Independent Schools Joint Council, the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools and the National Private Day Nurseries Association. It will be for Ofsted to decide the training and qualifications that will be needed.
  Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Richards: I should prefer to make some progress on Government amendment No. 33.
  I ask the House to reject amendment No. 14. In Committee, Opposition Members tabled several amendments about the production and distribution of inspection reports. The amendments were not selected for discussion, but they raised important issues which we think merit inclusion in the Bill. We have always contended that inspection reports should be produced and distributed within a reasonably short time.
  For the sake of clarity, we are persuaded that it would be helpful to make legislative provision for the time scale within which inspectors should produce reports. We think that it would be sensible to follow the model contained in section 208(2) of the Education Act 1993 so that the report is made within a period prescribed by regulations, subject to any extension that the chief inspector considers necessary. Such extensions would be limited to the prescribed period plus three months. The power to make extensions will cover unexpected events, such as an inspector's illness, which could lead to delays.
  It also seems sensible that on receiving the report the chief inspector should distribute copies of it without delay, and that is achieved by amendment No. 33. As introduced, the Bill provided for a copy to go only to the inspected provider of the nursery education. On reflection, we think that it will often be appropriate for others to be sent a copy of the inspection report and the amendment provides for such further distribution to be covered by regulations. Of course, the regulations will prescribe that copies of the inspection report should be distributed to the provider.
  Mr. Hall: I apologise for interrupting the Minister in his reading of what is quite clearly a prepared brief. Who will pay for the inspections? Will it be the school—the private sector institution—and, if it is, will the cost come out of the £1,110?
  Mr. Richards: In England it will come out of the Ofsted budget and in Wales the OHMCI budget will cover inspections.
  There will need to be provision for copies of the reports to go to the LEAs in respect of their schools; to the Department of Social Security in respect of providers registered under the Children Act, and to the Department for Education and Employment and the Welsh Office in respect of independent schools. I ask the House to accept amendment No. 33.
  Mr. Don Foster: It was right of the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) to draw our attention to the kernel of the debate. As others have said, hon. Members on both sides of the House now recognise the importance and value of early years education, but the critical point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, South is that we do not want any sort of nursery education or early years education. To achieve the successes and benefits that we want, the provision must be of high quality. The concern expressed by many Opposition Members in Committee was that there was no evidence that the provision that we would gain would be of high quality. That is relevant to new clause 1.
  5 pm
  In Committee, we made the point, which is worth reiterating, that, in revenue terms, a £1,100 voucher, if that is to be its value, is insufficient to provide high-quality provision. It will certainly be insufficient to provide additional resources for capital work on any new premises that are to be built or for the training of additional teachers and ancillary assistants who will be needed. As a result, there is a fear that the additional provision that may be created, and that the Government suggest the Bill will create, is likely to be of low quality. That is why it is so critical that, before state money—taxpayers' money—is handed over for such provision, there is at least some initial quick health check to ensure that we can be satisfied that new providers are likely to provide the sort of quality provision that we want.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I intervene only to underline that there is a health check, literally, in relation to all Children Act 1989 registration—an annual inspection. It is one of the three main alternative requirements that every provider must have.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall return to that point because it is important.
  When the Minister responded from the Dispatch Box to those concerns, he assured us that a problem did not exist because the Government would accept applications only from certain categories of provider or organisation. I then intervened on the Minister and asked what assurances had been given and where they appeared in the legislation. The response was that it would be covered by the arrangements that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment
  196
  had the power to make. As we know only too well from our study of the Bill, few of those arrangements will return to the House for examination by hon. Members. We should all, therefore, be concerned.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: I happily give way because I hope that the Minister will now give us clause, chapter and verse.
  Mr. Richards: To save the hon. Gentleman and the House some time, if he is a little more patient, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment will return to that subject a little later.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister. With that assurance, I shall happily wait. The House wants far clearer assurances than it has received so far.
  I was pleased that the Minister tabled amendment No. 33. He has at least recognised, in a small way, some of the many concerns expressed by Opposition Members in Committee. The Minister has agreed to make copies of the report available to a variety of organisations other than the provider. I hope that, when the opportunity arises later, the Minister or one of his Front-Bench colleagues will go into a little more detail about whom they intend to make copies available to. The Minister mentioned the local education authority. I am delighted about that because I proposed it in Committee. We need far more information than we have received so far about that and about who will be responsible for some of the cost.
  The Minister will recall that he told the Committee:
  "There is already provision in paragraph 13 of schedule 1 for a copy of the inspection report to be sent to the provider. Providers will be required to make copies of the report available alongside other information for parents as a requirement of grant."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 20 February 1996; c. 357.]
  We and certainly the providers will need to be clear whether they will be responsible for bearing the cost of making many more copies of the report available, or whether some other source of funding will be made available. If the providers are to supply that funding, it will diminish still further resources to provide high-quality provision.
  I hope that, when the opportunity arises later, the Minister or one of his colleagues will say why they were not willing to accept the points that were made in Committee about the importance, before inspection, of consultation with the local education authority on non-local education authority provision. A strong case was made for that. The Minister said that he would consider that point. Many hon. Members will be disappointed that he has considered it, but taken no action.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on one thing: much of what we have heard tonight is a reran of what happened in Standing Committee. That is evidenced by the lack of Back-Bench support for the Government, constructive suggestions from Opposition Members and an especially boring and ill-informed speech from the Under-Secretary.
  The reason why we are so concerned is that, on 1 February in Committee, in column 58 of Hansard, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment could not give us any guarantee on inspections of premises. We are naturally concerned, especially when we consider

  197
  that, potentially, there are 40,000 providers. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales was concerned about that figure. He told us that the figure was only 28,000 and that the Audit Commission had the figures wrong, but included in the total are 2,900 providers from Wales, of which he had not even been cognisant.
  Claims have been made about the categories of institutions that will be catered for under the arrangements, but there is nothing in the Bill. We have heard much about premises being inspected annually. Reference has been made both to the Children Act 1989 and to the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. We know what happened with those regulations last night. I repeat to the Minister: I hope that he learns the difference between prescriptive regulation and optional guidelines, which the Government do not take on board.
  The whole point is that we also want inspection of educational quality, which must be at the forefront of everyone's mind.
  Mr. Hall: The point about inspection under the Children Act is that it does not do anything about quality; it involves only the registration of premises. It will have nothing to say about the quality of nursery education.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: That is the point that I am making. We are concerned with the quality of education as well the environment in which it takes place.
  I remind the Under-Secretary of State for Wales that I was not suggesting that we have two cycles of inspection—quite the reverse. I was saying that there could be potential for that, but that we would expect any sensible, well-organised body such as Ofsted to ensure that it did not happen. He made the point that the chief inspector is to be satisfied. That is certainly the case but, given many of the education policies pushed by the Government in recent years, the Under-Secretary is an easily satisfied man.
  Having said that, we do not intend to press the matter to a vote. We hope that the Government will see the sense of our arguments, go away and reflect on the valid points made by Labour Members. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

  RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
  '(1) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that adequate resources are available to a local authority in respect of advice or support provided by it to a child who is receiving funded nursery education other than in a maintained school and who is considered to have special educational needs but in respect of whom no statement under section 168 of the Education Act 1993 has been issued.
  (2) In this section "funded nursery education" shall have the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to this Act.'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
  198
  '(4) Such requirements shall require that—

  (a) any nursery education provided by virtue of the grant shall be supervised by a qualified teacher; and

  (b) where such nursery education is provided in respect of a child who has special educational needs that it conforms to any Code of Practice in respect of such education which may have been issued by the Secretary of State.'.

  Government amendment No. 35.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The new clause will find support on both sides of the House as it deals with a concern expressed by many hon. Members, as well as interested bodies outside the House, about the provision of good-quality education for children with special educational needs. The new clause would ensure extra funding for local education authorities to provide for children at stage 3 of the special educational needs code of practice—stage 4 being a statement—who are in nursery provision outside the maintained sector.
  Provision for children under five with special educational needs was extensively discussed in Committee. During our debates, hon. Members on both sides committed themselves to ensuring that such children enjoyed the benefits of nursery education as much as other under-fives. I note that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is in his place. In his private life, he is involved with the Royal London Society for the Blind school at Sevenoaks. I have had the pleasure of visiting that school and I know that it does excellent work and wants to be able to continue to do so.
  Many, many children with varying degrees of need—not as extreme as the children at the Royal London Society for the Blind school, as the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—would benefit from the new clause. Children with statements of special educational needs will be placed in provision by the local education authority. In fact, all but 18 children under five who have statements are in LEA-maintained institutions or non-maintained special schools.
  In Committee, the Minister failed to meet almost every single point raised by Labour Members. The one area on which there was agreement was the need to look carefully at the arrangements for children at stage 3 of the SEN code of practice, the stage where the institution begins to consider the need for external support, which would usually come from the LEA—the Minister nods in agreement—but before the formal assessment procedure begins.
  I shall remind the Minister of what he said in Committee:
  "There will be a small number of non-statemented children at level three in non-maintained provision who could require local authority support and, arguably—but not wishing to enter the argument-those numbers may increase as a result of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 1996; c. 242.]
  The Minister was suggesting that we may be able to diagnose more children at an earlier stage, which is to be welcomed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and I visited the Margaret McMillan school in the much-maligned borough of Islington. We saw the excellent work that can be done if early diagnostic and remedial skills are available in a multidisciplinary approach. That is what is afforded to those very needy children at that school.

  199
  The Minister also said in Committee that differential value vouchers would be unlikely to solve the problem. The same criterion apparently does not apply to differentiation on the basis of areas or of special educational needs of a different sort within cities. He made that clear in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). I fail to see why the same criterion cannot apply across the board. Perhaps the Minister will explain later.
  The Minister also said in Committee that requiring private and voluntary voucher redeeming bodies to have regard to the code of practice was not a practical way forward, but that discussion would take place with interested parties during phase 1 of the implementation to find a way forward. He then said that he hoped to bring forward a proposal on Report that would clarify the role of the local education authority for children at stage 3 of the code of practice. The new clause is designed to give effect to that ministerial commitment. I shall deal with the Government's amendment later.
  5.15 pm
  It is clear that, if more children under five are in nursery education, it is likely that any special educational needs will be found earlier, provided there are appropriately trained staff in the private and voluntary sectors. Again, we must deal with the question whether there should be a qualified teacher in every nursery, or at least one having a role in every nursery. LEAs will need to make financial provision for that new work. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that sufficient resources are provided to LEAs to undertake that work.
  To implement the code of practice will require, at the very least, qualified teachers supervising nursery providers who do not employ a qualified teacher. That is the key to amendment No. 7. There is wide agreement on the importance of nursery education and the benefits of investing in the education of young children. What is equally clear is the importance of the quality, knowledge and experience of staff if young children are to obtain maximum benefit from the experience. I am sure that the Minister and I are at one on that.
  The amendment would achieve the delivery of nursery education under the supervision of a qualified teacher. One of the very great strengths of the nursery education currently provided in maintained nursery schools and classes is that it is provided by properly qualified teachers supported by qualified assistants. Within the current initial teacher training framework, nursery teachers on Bachelor of Education courses receive the same training in terms of rigour and length of course as teachers of primary and secondary age children. They are awarded a degree that has the same status as those awarded to primary and secondary teachers. So should it be, given the tremendous importance of that stage of educational development in determining the whole future of individual children. Again, the Minister nods his agreement. I have to repeat the suspicion voiced many times in Committee that the hon. Gentleman is an ultra soaking wet. That is confirmed by the way that he readily agrees with points made by Labour Members.
  Our common approach, in the spirit of consensual politics, to the training of teachers of nursery and primary age children is appropriate, given that the children pass from the nursery stage to the primary stage—a transition
  200
  that should be seamless. The significant theoretical components of the training course embrace child development, child psychology, health and safety and the legal background to education, in addition to the range of subject areas in the national curriculum for which pre-school education is a preparation.
  Special needs is also covered in great depth in the Bachelor of Education courses. Nursery teachers, as well as undertaking this rigorous academic programme, also spend extended periods in a wide variety of settings on teaching practice, working under the supervision of qualified teachers.
  The next steps document states:
  "The Government considers that qualifications and training are key elements of good quality nursery provision."
  We say amen to that. However, the document then immediately states that the Government
  "sees no need to change the requirements on staff qualifications set out in the Children Act guidance and the DFEE circular."
  In effect, that means that in pre-schools and playgroups only half the staff have to hold a relevant day care or education qualification or have to have completed a special training course.
  Although there is no doubt that the vast majority of current providers of pre-school provision want to provide quality of care for young children, the distinction between nursery education and care is being blurred by the current proposals. There is no doubt that those with child care skills and qualifications have a significant contribution to make. However, if education—I stress "education"—is to be the focus of the new scheme, the leadership of the institutions making the provision must surely be education professionals.
  If the Government are serious about providing high-quality nursery education, it should be delivered by properly qualified teachers. The early years are crucial in the education and development of young children. As the National Commission on Education says in its document "Learning to Succeed", early years teaching is a complex task demanding a high level of skill and understanding.
  To digress slightly into my personal experience, I told the Minister and his hon. Friends in Committee about my one and only visit to a reception class, many years ago when I was doing my teacher training. I was horrified by the complexity of the work involved in caring for overcrowded groups of toddlers—work which we may tend to treat as mundane but which is so crucial. That job is a calling. If work in any part of the education system can be described as a vocation, that description must apply to the work of the people who deal with the very early years.
  Qualified teachers who have been trained in the appropriate skills and understanding must be the proper people to lead the teams delivering early years education. There can be no justification for applying less rigorous standards of training to staff in that area than we apply to those who work in the later stages of the educational process.
  In Committee, the Minister claimed that the qualifications of staff would be
  "part and parcel of parents' choice"
  and that
  "Many parents presumably may be persuaded that qualified teacher status is of greater worth than other qualifications and will be more inclined to take their children into a local education authority setting than into an alternative".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 1996; c. 214.]

  201
  I agree, and I hope that that happens, because it reflects parents' demands for their children. They are looking for a professionally led educational experience in an appropriate educational environment. What the Minister said may be true of many parents, but others will assume that the Government have done all that they can to ensure that the providers in any voucher-accepting institution have been trained to a sufficiently high standard.
  The Department's pamphlet containing information for parents on nursery education makes no mention of the range of qualifications that staff may have, beyond saying that schools, nurseries and playgroups will need staff who "meet our conditions".
  Amendment No. 7 would ensure that those in charge of provider units had been trained to the highest possible standards. It represents an opportunity that should not be ignored. Paragraph (b) would require nursery education given to a child with special needs to conform to the code of practice drawn up under the Education Act 1993.
  As many hon. Members will know, but people outside may not, the code sets out stages 1 to 5, along which a child passes as learning problems are identified, and differing levels of resources are devoted to the child's needs at each stage. Although the present code was developed with the maintained sector in mind, it is surely imperative to have a statutory framework within which it can be applied to private providers. Ideally, the same standards would be set.
  In Committee, the Minister mentioned that problem and spoke about the need to adapt the code in some shape or form, but he put no meat on the bones of his statement and, both self-evidently and by his own admission, the present code of practice is not intended to cater for providers outside the maintained sector.
  I am sure that a "spin", as the spin doctors would say, will be put on Government amendment No. 35. Indeed, that has happened already, and the Government are attempting to portray it as a concession. It will extend an LEA power in section 162 of the 1993 Act so that LEAs
  "may supply goods or services"
  to governing bodies to assist with their special needs responsibilities. That is an excellent and laudable aim, but it is not worth the paper it is written on unless the appropriate moneys are made available for LEAs to meet the new demands.
  Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) asked the Minister how provision over and above the value of the voucher would be delivered for children with special education needs. I have yet to be persuaded that anything has changed since the Minister replied:
  "Local education authorities will keep some of their existing funding for four-year-olds, and be able to spend more than the value of the voucher where needed to offer appropriate provision to pupils with special educational needs".—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 978.]
  I welcome the spirit behind that answer, but I must ask the Minister where the funds will come from to meet the demand, especially as, by his own admission, there will be increased demand as we delve further into early years education and learn to diagnose special needs better. I hope that the Minister will answer that question when he replies to the debate.
  202
  I am sure that, as the Minister is on the wet left wing of the Conservative party—indeed, he is so far to the left I am surprised that he remains on the Front Bench—he will recognise how cost-effective it is to make the early interventions. Even with normal nursery education, the Ypsilanti study conducted by the university of Michigan showed that about £7 was saved for every £1 invested. If that is true of nursery education in general, how much more true is it of early intervention in cases of special educational need?
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who brings practical experience to our debates. I find myself much in agreement with what he said. We may differ as to the means of achieving it, but the objective for both sides of the House is similar.
  I notice that the hon. Gentleman twice chided my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for being "damp". Yes, my hon. Friend is a bit damp, but he is redeemed by the fact that, as he is my partner in the House of Commons bridge team, I can assure the House that when he bids he is very dry. He bids boldly and strongly, and I trust that he will do some of that this afternoon.
  One of the advantages of the Bill is that it has allowed the House to focus on an aspect of education that we seldom debate—nursery education for children with special educational needs. I can recall few occasions on which the House has debated such provision for the under-fives.
  My interest in and knowledge of the subject comes not only from my time as Secretary of State for Education and Science but from the fact that, for the past 18 months, I have had the privilege of raising money for that centre of excellence, the Royal London Society for the Blind school, at Dorton house, Sevenoaks. The hon. Members for Walton and for Barking (Ms Hodge) have visited the school, and it is a splendid institution.
  The staff there are over-qualified—or, I should say, fully qualified—and, because of the support that the school has had, they provide a wonderful range of services to children who are either totally blind or seriously visually impaired, and who sometimes have other serious physical disabilities, too. The staff do a remarkable job, train the children for GCSEs and NVQs, and give them the chance to share in life.
  I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Walton that if the process can be started before the age of five, so much the better. There is no doubt that if children with such difficult handicaps can be helped, their sense of isolation can be reduced. Any child who is deaf, blind or seriously physically handicapped has a sense of isolation, and to be brought into contact with other children and with teachers who give them lots of attention and love is an enormous step forward, beyond their family associations.
  The social skills are important, and so are the steps towards learning, because education must be there-the capacity to start learning the fundamentals of numeracy and literacy. Such education is very expensive. In the hospital schools, which deal with the most severely handicapped children, the teacher-pupil ratio is 1:1. At schools such as Dorton house, it can be 2:1 or 3:1. Blind children have to be led around, or carried when they are very young.

  203
  Such provision is somewhat patchy. For post-five children, local education authorities have fully developed systems to help children with special educational needs. Few children aged two are statemented. Statementing usually begins at some time during the third year, might not be completed in the fourth year and may be done again in the fourth year, rising five.
  5.30 pm
  Provision for such children is the duty of the local education authority. The single most important residual duty of an LEA is the provision of special education, either from the local authority's resources or from the non-maintained sector. Schools in the non-maintained sector are not spatchcock schools but have considerable skills and facilities and their premises are usually adequate. Although they are not in the maintained sector, they get a great deal of support from the Government in that their post-five children are funded by local education authorities. In the schools that I know, that is not enough. Extra money has to be provided by charitable subscriptions, which is what I have been involved in for the past 18 months.
  In Dorton house, there are some 10 to 15 children in the nursery sector—we have just raised money to build a nursery school and there will be more. For those 10 or 15 children, Dorton house gets no money from local education authorities. I think that that also applies to the school in Hereford and Worcester. The children who go to Dorton house have not been statemented, either because the process has not reached that stage or because parents have not asked for their children to be statemented even though they clearly have educational needs. Sometimes such children are halfway through the statementing process. One or two have been statemented, but their parents feel that the provision at Dorton house is better than that offered by the local education authority.
  How can we help such schools? On Second Reading, I proposed differential vouchers. That did not find much favour with Ministers or with the Labour party. It was savaged by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), if that is not too strong a word to describe his oratorical style, and dismissed. I still believe that one day we will have a differential voucher system, but that is for the future. I have discovered that education reform is a growing and progressive process.
  Dr. Hampson: My right hon. Friend took the big bang approach.
  Mr. Baker: The Labour party opposed almost every part of my big bang reform but now supports large parts of it, which I welcome. I do not make a party political point: the Labour party has come to see the wisdom of our proposals. I suspect that in years to come there will be a differential voucher scheme.
  Dr. Hampson: My right hon. Friend's great reform Bill embraced a great deal. It is interesting that, yet again, in the past couple of days, the Liberals have accepted a fundamental tenet of Conservative policy—loans for students.
  Mr. Baker: That is right. During the passage of the Education Reform Bill, the Liberal spokesman was the
  204
  present leader of the Liberal party. He had only a tentative and fugitive knowledge of the Bill. His view was formed as the Bill went through. As we know, his knowledge of the subject is rather shallow, but I welcome the conversion. I am glad that the Liberals have accepted student loans.
  Mr. Kilfoyle rose—
  Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment. I am accepting the support of the Liberal party. Am I going to get the support of the Labour party as well?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, if a differential can be built into vouchers not only on a regional basis, as is apparently being considered by the Government, but for given areas, at the behest of hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), to cover what were formerly educational priority areas, it is beyond the wit of Whitehall to produce a scheme that allows special educational needs to be met in the same way? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Labour party's view that, instead of a differential on vouchers—I doubt whether the Government will have the opportunity to effect it—there should be differential entitlement?
  Mr. Baker: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it would be possible to devise a scheme of differential vouchers, once a voucher scheme has been established. We are in the early days, with four authorities at the experimental stage. As I well know, there will be a bedding-in process over the next two or three years. I hope that the Labour party will not decide to abandon the general voucher scheme, because it is an effective way of dealing with under-fives education. That broadens the debate and I want to stick to my point.
  I shall deal with entitlement. We all agree that more assistance should be provided for such needs. How best should that be done? The hon. Member for Walton has proposed new clause 2 to seek to do that. As I understand it, Government amendment No. 35 fulfils much the same purpose—I shall come to the money side in a moment—by extending the power of LEAs to make grants to non-maintained schools or other bodies at the moment when the local education authority has determined that extra help is needed and the authority or other person involved does not have it. I welcome that. We will have to see how it operates in the experimental scheme.
  In the four authorities, there will be children with special educational needs who were at stage 3 of the code of practice with whom local authorities cannot cope and in respect of whom they must find extra help. They may be able to provide it from their own resources in LEA schools or send the child to a maintained school and provide some extra assistance, such as an extra therapist or part-time help. Let us see how it works. I believe that it is a step forward.
  Mr. Pickthall: Has not the right hon. Gentleman described the present situation? My local authority has done that for many years. I suspect that many others have, too.
  Mr. Baker: As I said earlier, local authority provision and activity are varied and patchy. From my close involvement with Dorton house over the past 18 months and my experience of other schools that deal with blind

  205
  children, I know that what I have described does not happen. I agree that it can happen. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman's local authority does that.
  The hon. Member for Walton mentioned that, if the power is exercised, greater costs will be incurred by LEAs. It is no good giving LEAs that power unless resources are provided. The hon. Member for Bridgend is rubbing his fingers as I suppose he does when he waits for the national lottery draw each Saturday night; he wants some money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will intervene in a moment and not only explain Government amendment No. 35 but say that, to the extent that local authorities use that power, they will be reimbursed through the normal procedures of the revenue support grant. If he says that, I hope that the Labour party will not seek to divide the House on the matter. We have always tried not to divide the House on special education. It is a subject on which there should be agreement across the Floor. I hope that if my hon. Friend can give that assurance, the matter will rest; it will rest only for the moment, because I suspect that this is only the first step on what will be a very long road.
  Ms Hodge: I wish to respond to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). There is a general acceptance of the importance of special educational needs, particularly at the level of nursery education, and of the importance of early intervention. I have seen that for myself at Dorton house, and in two other instances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) mentioned the Margaret McMillan school in Islington. Children with multiple disabilities came to the nursery school there. Before they came to that school, they had done nothing but lie on the floor of the day centre or wherever they were. They had not responded to any social interaction, and certainly had not started to learn. After one month or so in the Margaret McMillan school—which has the capacity to support them and an environment in which they integrate with other children and where they receive special assistance and additional teaching—they made stunning advances.
  The other example is that of a primary school in Northampton with an autistic unit attached to it, which I mentioned in Committee. For the children to have attended the school for two and a half hours a day would have been nonsense. It is necessary to work with the children for a full day in order to help them to develop. The children attended that unit in the primary school at a cost of £8,000 per child and the progress that they made in that resource-intensive environment was stunning.
  I ask the right hon. Member for Mole Valley to think again about Government amendment No. 35. At present, there is absolutely nothing to prevent local authorities, if they are so minded, from supplying goods and services to individuals—in the maintained sector or the voluntary or private sector. The amendment is a sop to the right hon. Gentleman and will not change anything; it does nothing to change the statutory framework under which special educational needs are catered for in the nursery sector. The amendment states that a local education authority "may"—not "will"—supply goods or services; it does not change the existing legislative framework.
  206
  The costs are horrendous. I have the costs from Dorton house that were supplied to the Minister; they show that teaching a child with profound and multiple learning difficulties costs nearly five times as much as providing nursery education for a child without any difficulties. A child with severe communications difficulties—such an autistic child—costs 3.6 times as much as a child without such difficulties. The costs involved are horrific, and the provision of a permissive power that already exists under the current legislative framework achieves nothing: if we do not ensure adequate resources, it bodes ill for those children for whom the right hon. Member for Mole Valley expresses concern.
  The briefing document provided by the Royal London Society for the Blind states that it would cost £3 million to ensure that we have an effective system in place which can cater for that group of children. That is not a large sum in the context of the scheme's total cost; it is not a large sum, even within the context of the new money set aside to introduce the nursery voucher scheme. New clause 2 ensures that money is made available to meet the needs that all hon. Members know to be essential. Those who care for children with special educational needs have a duty to vote with us for the new clause to ensure that the Government make money available specifically for those needs.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I welcome the tenor of the debate that we have enjoyed, which echoed that of similar debates that we had in Committee. I make that comment notwithstanding the two further attempts by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) to blacken my name and retard my future prospects in an even more public place. However, I would not wish that aspect to be seen to dominate the debate.
  I start by repeating our commitment to ensure that children with special educational needs enjoy to the fullest extent the benefit of good-quality nursery education. As all hon. Members know, the voucher scheme creates for the first time the possibility for all four-year-olds to benefit from three terms of good-quality education. I agree with the hon. Member for Walton that it also holds out the possibility of earlier identification of any learning difficulties.
  I am sure that Opposition Members who were present during our discussions in Committee would agree that we had a helpful debate on the interaction of nursery vouchers and provision for children with special educational needs. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for his contribution to that debate. There were some genuinely felt concerns about the impact of vouchers on the provision for young children with special educational needs. We were able to demonstrate that many of those concerns were misplaced. I hope that my speech today will underline the fact that those concerns were groundless.
  5.45 pm
  One of the principal concerns involved funding. The funding mechanism for the voucher scheme takes from local education authorities' budgets just the voucher value of £1,100 for a full year in respect of four-year-old children who already have a maintained place. Where a place costs more—as it is commonly accepted that it will in the case of many children with SEN statements—the additional resources remain within the LEA; when put

  207
  together with the voucher value, no resources are lost. None of the funding for three-year-olds is affected by the voucher scheme—nor does it affect existing duties on LEAs in respect of those children.
  We also made it clear that we shall be looking carefully at SENs during the first phase of the nursery voucher scheme's implementation. I thought that it would be helpful if I briefly reminded hon. Members of the commitments that have already been made in respect of children with SENs as a result of the legislation.
  First, we have made a firm commitment to consult interested parties during phase 1 about making it a requirement for all providers to have regard to the SEN code of practice. That provides excellent guidance on identifying, assessing and providing for children with degrees of SEN. As I made clear in Committee, the code is a distillation of existing good practice in the maintained sector. We all agree that all employers should have regard to the principles of the code, but making it a requirement of grant to have regard to the code before consulting the voluntary and private sectors—and, of course, SEN interest groups and LEAs—would be inappropriate. I stress, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is not a question of whether we should require all providers to have regard for the code, but a question of how. Let us use the opportunities that phase 1 offers to consider how best to embrace the essentials of the code and apply them to the non-maintained sector.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: If the question is how the code of practice is to be used for four-year-olds, as part of the package, will the Government give serious consideration to the possibility of a qualified teacher being involved wherever provision is made for four-year-olds?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman anticipates some of my later comments, although I am not sure that I shall eventually give him quite so much satisfaction on that issue as I hope that I am currently giving him.
  The second aspect involves the publishing of SEN policies. As a requirement of grant, we are requiring all providers to publish their SEN policy so that all parents can make informed choices about the most appropriate pre-school setting for their child. All providers must publish details of their admission policy and what consideration is given to children with SEN, of the facilities available to assist and allow access for children with disabilities, and of staff with knowledge and skills in SENs, and other details to be provided as set out. Hon. Members who have an interest in the matter will be aware of our previous discussions.
  Thirdly, I refer to additional resources. I explained in Committee that it is neither necessary nor practical to enhance the value of the voucher for children with SEN statements. In Committee, I judged that this was acknowledged by Opposition Members and by those outside the House who have an interest in SEN. As I have already said, existing local education authority resources and responsibilities will not be affected by the nursery voucher scheme; the value of the voucher will contribute to the cost of making the provision specified in a child's SEN statement.
  I welcomed the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), whose reputation on issues relating to education and to SEN is a matter of record,
  208
  as he demonstrated again today. He rightly highlighted the variations which in practice must exist between the different policies of LEAs. I hope that he will accept in turn that those differences should—indeed, must—be reduced as a result of the operation of the code of practice. While we are grateful to my right hon. Friend for stirring our imagination and for informing our debate in Committee by his earlier suggestion, we have concluded that it would not be appropriate at this time.
  We acknowledged in Committee that we should examine more closely the requirements of a particular group of children who attend institutions in the private and voluntary sectors, who have special educational needs but no statement and who require support and assistance over and above what could be provided for within the pre-school setting. Those children would by definition be at stage 3 of the SEN code of practice. Following further consideration, we have decided to give LEAs a new power—the power under Government amendment No. 35—to supply goods and services to providers outside the maintained sector in respect of children who have special educational needs and who require additional support.
  In response to the specific point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—who, like me, is an old LEA leader and an old hand in these areas—I must say that the hon. Lady is only partly right. Currently, LEAs have limited powers to pay grants to voluntary providers; they do not specifically have powers to provide goods and services to non-maintained providers in respect of children with SEN, except incidentally—in other words, incidental to other payments. I make that clear because I would not want the hon. Lady to be under any misunderstanding.
  Most four-year-olds will be in the maintained sector—where the resources are already available for the purpose of meeting special educational needs—so the number involved is likely to be small. We shall need to consider very carefully the resource implications for LEAs, but it would be logical to assume that because the number will be small, the cost to LEAs of assisting the non-maintained sector will be relatively low. However, the amendment will allow—and we shall ensure—that during the annual round of standard spending assessment discussions, which is the most appropriate forum in which the matter can be discussed, the level of resources for LEAs will also reflect the consequences of what I am saying today and what we are spelling out in the amendment.
  Ms Hodge: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Squire: I will finish one more sentence before giving way to the hon. Lady. I will then refer to other aspects. I submit that new clause 2, which set out to do the sort of thing that Government amendment No. 35 is doing, would be unnecessary.
  Ms Hodge: Why has the Minister not considered providing a special grant—a specific grant—for this purpose as a way of ensuring that the money goes directly to the children concerned? I refer to the experience of refugees, for example, who are in concentrated and specific areas of the country. When provision is made through the standard spending assessment discussions, the money simply does not get to go to the purpose for which it is intended.
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady, in part, gave the answer in her question. Logically, this need would not be concentrated in a particular part of the country—unlike refugees—but would tend to be much more of a general requirement, and it makes sense for that to be part of general funding. The hon. Lady must not take me down the general line of specific grants or we shall be here for a long time. She would have to go some way to persuade me, at this stage, that there should be specific grants. These matters can and will be raised by LEAs in the ordinary way during our discussions.
  I am outlining the things that are already happening. It is important that I do so because people will read the transcript of the proceedings, particularly those with SEN interests, and I wish them to be reassured.
  I was grateful to Opposition Members who pointed out in Committee that under existing legislation LEAs did not have a power of access to Children and Young Persons Act 1988 registered providers and non-approved independent schools for the purposes of monitoring the provision specified in a child's SEN statement. We are proposing to rectify that by making it a requirement of grant for providers in the non-approved independent, private and voluntary sectors to allow LEAs access to their premises for the purpose of monitoring SEN provision specified in a statement.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will be pleased to hear that on the specific question of portage, I have decided to allow, as a trial during phase 1, vouchers to be exchanged for portage offered by National Portage Association approved schemes. Portage is about education, not about child care. Portage home visitors and management teams are highly trained in early years work and there is already an emphasis on sharing information with parents. These schemes can be inspected both as schemes and in terms of how they are implemented. The local authority will be the registered provider and therefore the recipient of the grant. For parents in phase 1 areas, the inclusion of portage will give them additional choice.
  I hope that in this respect hon. Members will be assured of the Government's commitment towards children with special educational needs and that objective observers will note that these flow naturally from our discussions. I have already paid tribute to the part that Members on the Opposition Benches have played in that.
  With regard to Opposition amendment No. 7 and the question of qualified teacher status, I share the concerns of Labour Members that all children must receive a good-quality nursery education. However, I do not share their belief that this will be achieved only if all voucher-redeeming institutions are led by staff with qualified teacher status. Indeed, Labour Members have said that they want to see the private and voluntary sectors play an important part in the expansion of good-quality nursery places. Insisting on qualified teacher status would exclude the majority of these providers who in many cases, as the Audit Commission has made clear, are providing good-quality pre-school education.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Squire: I am keen to make progress and I have given way a lot during the debate, and I also did so in
  210
  Committee, as hon. Members will acknowledge. We value qualified teacher status—of course we do; it is a particularly important and valuable qualification for those working with pre-school children—but it is not the only qualification: there are a number of qualifications that I have set out elsewhere, and do not propose to repeat now, including national vocational qualifications levels 2 and 3 in child care and education, and the new range of BAs in education and child care. Each of these qualifications offers a slightly different, yet relevant, range of learning, experience and competence for working with children under five.
  I submit that this is the key. In this area, the competence and quality of staff are more important that their specific qualifications. It is important that all four-year-olds get good-quality nursery education in exchange for their vouchers. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales covered the question of inspections. I am sure that they and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority learning outcomes will together ensure good-quality provision for all. In conclusion, I recommend that hon. Members reject new clause 2 and amendment No. 7, but that they accept amendment No. 35.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: When the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) made his contribution to the debate, I thought that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment was nodding in agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's request. He seemed to be asking for a guarantee of adequate resourcing in the areas in which we all acknowledge that he has a particular interest. When the Minister eventually responded, it sounded as if he was going to offer yet another of the Prime Minister's infamous charters in terms of the information that would be made available. We welcome any information that could be made available in relation to special educational needs policies.
  We then got to the crux of the issue, which is the Government amendment. In technical terms, the amendment provides the opportunity for local authorities to exercise new powers in terms of goods and services, but it does not—and the Minister also failed to do so—satisfy the Labour party in terms of new resources.
  It is one thing to talk about the standard spending assessment as a distribution mechanism and quite another to suggest, in a fudged way, that it provides new resources—which, by the Minister's admission, will be rather small but might be crucial in some areas—to cater for special educational needs. Most Labour authorities spend far more on educational provision than standard spending assessments provide, so Government amendment No. 35 will only massage the figures—it will not provide any extra resources.
  If the Minister were to intervene to say that the Government would guarantee extra resources when they are required for that aspect of special educational need, we would welcome Government amendment No. 35. As things stand, however, it offers only a shift in notional figures and means nothing in terms of extra grant. Does the Minister wish to intervene?
  Mr. Robin Squire indicated dissent.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister declines to intervene, so we have no option but to ask the House to vote for the Opposition's new clause 2.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 278.

  Division No. 81]

  [6.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ainger, Nick

  Faulds, Andrew

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Foulkes, George

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Galbraith, Sam

  Ashton, Joe

  Galloway, George

  Austin-Walker, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John

  Barron, Kevin

  George, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benton, Joe

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Berry, Roger

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blunkett, David

  Gunnell, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Hain, Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Hall, Mike

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hanson, David

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

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Burden, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Byers, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug

  Caborn, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chisholm, Malcolm

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

  Church, Judith

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clapham, Michael

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hutton, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corston, Jean

  Janner, Greville

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

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

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Khabra, Piara S

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

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Denham, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dixon, Don

  Litherland, Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dowd, Jim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eastham, Ken

  McAllion, John

  Etherington, Bill

  McCartney, Ian

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Macdonald, Calum

  212

  McFall, John

  Rendel, David

  McKelvey, William

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McLeish, Henry

  Rogers, Allan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rowlands, Ted

  MacShane, Denis

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maddock, Diana

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Alice

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mandelson, Peter

  Short, Clare

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

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

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Maxton, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Spellar, John

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Michael, Alun

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stott, Roger

  Milburn, Alan

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Miller, Andrew

  Straw, Jack

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Timms, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Touhig, Don

  Morley, Elliot

  Trickett, Jon

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Trimble, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Tyler, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mullin, Chris

  Wallace, James

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Walley, Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Olner, Bill

  Watson, Mike

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pearson, Ian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wilson, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Wise, Audrey

  Pope, Greg

  Worthington, Tony

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Raynsford, Nick

  Mr. Eric Clarke and.

  Reid, Dr John

  Ms Ann Coffey.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Boswell, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Amess, David

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burns, Simon

  Bates, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butler, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butterfill, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Booth, Hartley

  Carttiss, Michael

  213

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clappison, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Congdon, David

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

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

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Elletson, Harold

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Faber, David

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mills, Iain

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Norris, Steve

  Hannam, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heald, Oliver

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Pawsey, James

  214

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sykes, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Richards, Rod

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Riddick, Graham

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Trend, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sackville, Tom

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whitney, Ray

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sproat, Iain

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stewart, Allan

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Roger Knapman

  Sweeney, Walter

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

  DECISION IN RELATION TO VOUCHERS
  '—(1) Where a local education authority notifies the Secretary of State within such a period as he may specify in relation to a financial year, the provisions of sections 1 to 5 and of schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall not apply in respect of any person providing nursery education within the area of that authority in respect of that year.
  (2) No authority may notify the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above unless—

  (a) it has consulted parents, such voluntary organisations as appear to it to be concerned, head teachers and teachers and providers of nursery education within its area;

  (b) having regard to the results of such consultation it has resolved that the making of grants in respect of children within its area is likely to damage the overall amount and quality of nursery education within that area; and

  (c) it has agreed an alternative scheme for the development or improvement of nursery education in its area which it considers will more effectively maintain and enhance the overall amount and quality of such education within its area; and

  (d) it has approved a resolution which gives effect to the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) above, and which is in accordance with subsection (3) below.

  (3) No authority may agree a resolution of the type referred to in subsection (2)(d) above unless three quarters of the members of the authority voting in full council have approved it.'.—[Ms Estelle Morris.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6.15 pm
  Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Local authorities already providing nursery education—
  'Nothing in this Act shall enable the Secretary of State to do anything (whether by reducing any funding however provided or otherwise) which would result, or would be likely to result, in a reduction in the proportion of children receiving nursery education in the area of any local education authority by comparison with the proportion of children receiving such education in that area at the time at which this Act enters into force.'.
  Amendment No. 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after '(1)' insert
  'Subject to subsection (1B) below'.
  Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
  '(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to allow the Secretary of State to make arrangements which have the effect of reducing the resources available, whether in grants or otherwise, to any local authority in the first or any subsequent financial years of the operation of those arrangements.'.
  Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
  '(1A) Where the Secretary of State proposes to exercise for the first time his power under subsection (1) above, he shall lay before Parliament a report detailing the amount of nursery education available in the area of each local education authority and the likely demand for places in nursery education once such arrangements are made.
  (1B) The Secretary of State shall in each subsequent year to the year in which he lays the report under subsection (1A) above, lay before Parliament further reports outlining the effect of arrangements made under subsection (1) on the number of children for whom nursery education is provided in the area of each local education authority.'.
  Amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
  '(1A) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an evaluation of the operation in any local education authority area of any arrangements under which grants are made otherwise than under this Act in respect of nursery education in the financial year 1996–97.
  (1B) No arrangements may be made under subsection (1) above which have effect in any financial year commencing on or after 1st April 1997 before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the kind referred to in subsection (1 A) above'.
  Ms Morris: The purpose of new clause 3 and the other new clause and amendments in this group is to allow local authorities to opt out of the voucher scheme in certain prescribed circumstances. Before such an opt-out would be allowed, a local authority would have to consult widely with parents, teachers, head teachers and early years education providers and agree an alternative scheme for the development or improvement of nursery education in its area. Further, the new clause would require three quarters of the elected authority members, voting in full council, to approve a resolution. In most cases, that resolution would effectively require a cross-party consensus.
  216
  A similar new clause was moved in Committee. This one, however, differs in a number of respects. In particular, it requires that the
  "overall amount and quality of nursery education"
  will be likely to be damaged without an opt-out.
  Let us be clear about it: this option is likely to be used only by local authorities that are currently high providers of nursery education. Indeed, in Committee, talk about the option became commonly known as "the Solihull amendment". It is sad but true that, despite the best efforts of myself and other Opposition Members, and after weeks of discussions, the Government still fail to understand—or fail to admit that they understand—that this legislation will damage high providers. There is no doubt that the Solihulls, Dudleys and Calderdales, where provision is good, will be losers under this legislation.
  Dr. Hampson: The whole problem with what the hon. Lady has said is contained in paragraph (c), which states:
  "which it considers will more effectively maintain and enhance"
  provision, because "it" is the council. The chief inspector of schools has recently said that 40 per cent. of council or local authority primary schools are under-performing. Why should it be at the discretion of "it", the council—which is palpably failing this country—to determine what it thinks is the best form of nursery provision? Why cannot we allow parents and the people to determine what choices they want? If a council such as Solihull is offering a good option, people will choose it.
  Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman should read the new clause, because it makes it quite clear that an opt-out would not be allowed unless the widest consultation had taken place with the people to whom he has referred—parents, teachers, head teachers and those in the wider community. The notion that central Government—this Government, of all Governments—can deal with under-achievement when local authorities, which have been working against massive opposition from the Government, have not been able to do so, is absolutely unbelievable. The idea that the Government have the answer does not ring true. This opt-out would be allowed only after consultation, and it really is a case of trusting local people.
  Solihull has been able to provide good-quality pre-school education for 100 per cent. of its four-year-olds and more than 70 per cent. of its three year-olds mainly because it has prioritised such provision, but also because it has been able to estimate its income, project its numbers for the next and subsequent years, and therefore use its staffing and buildings in an economical way.
  The Bill pretends to be about extending nursery education provision, but let us make no mistake about it: not to agree these amendments will work against the claimed purposes of the proposals.
  There is another, equally important reason for supporting the amendments: to decentralise decision making to the local level. The decision—in consultation with users and other people in communities—on how a local authority should provide nursery places can and should be taken locally.
  The Bill represents a massive centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. If it is passed, the Secretary of State will determine one set of arrangements

  217
  for the distribution, value and redemption of nursery vouchers, and she will determine which provision can be funded and which cannot.
  Let us be clear that it has taken 17 years for the Conservative Government even to get round to doing anything about nursery education—they have certainly had a long time to think about it. The idea that, after 17 years, they have come up with the one and only way of organising nursery education is preposterous. While the Government have done nothing for 17 years to advance nursery education, many local authorities, both Labour-controlled and Conservative-controlled, have got on and provided it in a variety of ways.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: That is exactly what has happened in Calderdale, where, for 20 years, all the parties have worked together, so that 70 per cent. of three and four-year-olds now receive good-quality nursery education. What the Government propose is authoritarian, bureaucratic and centralising.
  Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Calderdale, the teachers, the local authority, parents and everyone else work in partnership. They should be congratulated on devising a system that works for them. I know that my hon. Friend will have been dismayed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who decried the high standards that have been achieved in Calderdale, Solihull and elsewhere.
  The Labour party believes that those authorities that have developed their own way of providing nursery education, with no help from the Government in the past 17 years, should be allowed to get on with it. They have proved that it works, so let them carry on. Why disrupt something when it is already working well? Why force a local community down one road when it clearly prefers another? Why switch money from nursery places to paperchases, as the nursery voucher system does?
  The Government talk long and hard about decentralising power. Last night, we heard Ministers argue that even building regulations should be left to local decision. They claim that they want to give power and influence to parents and autonomy to schools. If so, the Government should welcome the new clause and the associated amendments.
  The new clause is not a wrecking amendment. It will demand the highest standards of local authorities, and require them to produce a plan to show how they will develop and maintain high-quality nursery education in conjunction with the voluntary and private sectors. At long last, the provision of high-quality nursery education is a shared aim of hon. Members. It is nonsense to suppose that there is only one way in which to make that wish a reality.
  Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Lady not realise that she has just let the cat out of the bag with that sentence? Her own words condemn her. At a time when we are moving away from the idea that LEAs are the only acceptable means of providing education, and moving towards the provision of more and more grant-maintained schools, the hon. Lady would like us to take a massive step backwards. Why do we need to do that?
  Ms Morris: The hon. Member is respected on both sides of the House for his efforts in education, but he should listen
  218
  carefully and read the new clauses and amendments. I said clearly that local authorities would be expected to develop a plan and work in conjunction with the voluntary and private sectors to ensure that high-quality nursery education was provided and its standard maintained. There never has been any suggestion—on Second Reading, in Committee, or even now, on Report—that the future for nursery education lies only in local authority provision. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) would like us to return to those dark ages.
  The new clause is designed to put on the agenda our desire for top-quality nursery education. It also acknowledges the wealth of experience and skill of local authorities, which have done the job and provided nursery education despite the Government. Under the new clause, those authorities would be allowed to make a local decision to opt out of the voucher scheme and, according to their discretion, produce a plan to do the job as they see fit.
  Sir Donald Thompson: I am from Calderdale. In 1977, I was chairman of the education committee that devised the system that has just received such praise from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). I do not think that the Bill will do anything to damage that system. In fact, I am sure that it will enhance it. The local authority can still devise a plan to work with the private sector, as the hon. Lady has suggested. Calderdale has not, however, yet devised a plan to work with the grant-maintained sector.
  Many working women want more flexible nursery provision than can be provided by the maintained sector. If the hon. Lady thinks that the Bill could have been framed differently, she and her party should have encouraged representatives of Calderdale to sit next to the Secretary of State and advise her. In fact, her party drove Calderdale away from consultation. The authority should have been party to the voluntary consultation.
  In an effort to be brief, I put the following questions to the Minister. Can he allay the fears of my constituents about the loss of income? As far as I can see, the Bill will provide for increased income—one more child means 1,100 quid in the kitty. Can he allay their fears about the ability to plan forward? Given that the current system operated by Calderdale is so well run and maintained, I cannot see why such fears have been expressed. Can he allay their fears about the registration system being sufficiently flexible? People will then know their rights when they come to register and take their chits to the headmaster promptly. Will my hon. Friend meet some of my constituents to discuss the finer points of the scheme?
  Mrs. Mahon: Before I state my specific reasons for supporting new clause 3, it is worth while commenting on the extraordinary behaviour of the Secretary of State in the media today. She said that those who are against nursery vouchers were "pathetic". I do not think that the people of Halifax, the local education authority or people up and down the country deserve that insult. We are expected to believe that the Secretary of State is the moderate, sensible voice in what is increasingly becoming an authoritarian party. She told millions of listeners today, however, that she favoured the nursery voucher system because it gave parents "choice"—something which she accused Opposition parties of wanting to deny to them.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT
  Parliamentary Debates
  Volume 274
  Session 1995–96
  ISBN 0 10 681274 2
  CORRIGENDUM TO THE INDEX
  A number of errors were made in the production of the index to this volume. Please make the following changes:

  Add:

  Evans, Mr Roger

  Questions

  Social fund, Finance 19w

  Gill, Mr Christopher

  Questions

  Royal yacht 444w

  Jamieson, Mr David

  Debates etc.

  Finance Bill, Rep 1117–8

  Prentice, Mr Gordon

  Questions

  Health authorities, Public appointments 378w

  Royal yacht

  444w

  Soames, Mr Nicholas

  Questions

  Royal yacht 444w

  Delete:

  Burt, Mr Alistair

  Questions

  Social fund, Finance 19w

  Redmond, Mr Martin

  Questions

  Health authorities, Public appointments 377–8w

  Change
  Cancer
  Diagnosis 662w
  Consent to medical treatment 662w
  Cousins, Mr Jim, Questions
  Consent to medical treatment 662w
  Diagnosis 662w
  Diagnosis
  662w
  Cancer 662w
  Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Questions
  Parliamentary questions, Home Office 2w
  Home Office
  Parliamentary questions 2w
  Horam, Mr John Questions
  Consent to medical treatment 662w
  Diagnosis 662w
  Howard, Mr Michael Questions
  Parliamentary questions, Home Office 2w
  Maclean, Mr David Questions
  Parish constables, Manpower 708–9w
  Nicholson, Mr David Questions
  Parish constables, Manpower 708–9w
  Parish constables Manpower 708–9w
  Parliamentary questions Home Office 2w
  NOVEMBER: THE STATIONERY OFFICE
  To
  Cancer
  Diagnosis 658–9w
  Consent to medical treatment 659w
  Cousins, Mr Jim, Questions
  Consent to medical treatment 659w
  Diagnosis 658–9w
  Diagnosis
  659w
  Cancer 558–9w
  Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Questions
  Parliamentary questions, Home Office 205w
  Home Office
  Parliamentary questions 205w
  Horam, Mr John Questions
  Consent to medical treatment 659w
  Diagnosis 658–9w
  Howard, Mr Michael Questions
  Parliamentary questions, Home Office 205w
  Maclean, Mr David Questions
  Parish constables, Manpower 502w
  Nicholson, Mr David Questions
  Parish constables, Manpower 502w
  Parish constables Manpower 708–9w
  Parliamentary questions Home Office 205w
  I am receiving dozens of petitions, almost daily, from people of Halifax and Calder Valley—the very constituents of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson). They state clearly in their petitions that they want to exercise choice. One such petition states:
  "We, the undersigned parents, feel that the Government's proposed Nursery Voucher Scheme for 4 year olds is a highly bureaucratic one and will be detrimental to the quality of existing education services.
  We therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education to exempt Calderdale from the Nursery Voucher System altogether, as Calderdale is already a high provider of good quality Nursery and Reception education. We believe it would be more appropriate to concentrate on providing adequately funded state nursery and reception places for all children."
  Those are not my words or the words of any political party. The petition was from a group of parents whose children attend the Shade primary school in the Calder valley, which I am sure is well known to the hon. Member for Calder Valley.
  Petitions are coming in from all over Halifax and the Calder valley. Parents are saying loud and clear, "We demand the right to choose what is best for our children." We should challenge the Minister to give them that choice by supporting new clause 3. I am slightly disappointed that it seems that the hon. Member for Calder Valley will not be joining us in the Lobby tonight. The Secretary of State and the Minister can hide behind warm words for only so long. The people of Britain are telling them loud and clear what they want.
  6.30 pm
  In Calderdale, all children are entitled to a year of full-time schooling in the school year in which they have their fifth birthday. A local organisation, Schools Against Vouchers in Education—SAVE—has produced an excellent fact sheet, which is being posted through every door. I shall quote it at some length, as I want to put the facts on record. It states:
  "Education is provided free of charge in Primary School Reception Classes. Calderdale also provides nursery education for 70 per cent. of three and four year olds"—
  that is a very high figure—
  "and is working to expand this so that nursery schooling is available for all children in the school year in which they are four."
  SAVE is not a political organisation. Its supporters come from all political parties and vote across the spectrum. It continues:
  "This is now under threat from the Government's new voucher system."
  That is clear from the fact sheet. It then explains some of the costs in Calderdale:
  "The Voucher is called a Nursery Voucher. This is misleading since it applies to all education for four and five year olds and so covers both Nursery and Reception class."—
  The voucher will be worth £1,100. This is not enough for a full time place. It costs £2,256 per child"—
  Mr. Pawsey: Top-up.
  Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman says, "Top-up." I wish that he would come and see some of the schools in my constituency, where there is all-party support for extra funding.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Mahon: No. Anyone who makes that kind of sedentary intervention clearly does not have the good of children at heart. It was a ridiculous intervention.
  220
  The document continues:
  "It costs £2,256 per year for a child in Nursery Class and £1,866 per year for a child in Reception Class.
  For most children in Calderdale the £1,100 voucher is not new money."
  As SAVE makes clear:
  "To fund the scheme the Government will take £3 million from Calderdale. This is three quarters of the money the council spends on schooling for the under fives. This could mean fewer teachers, larger classes and cuts in nursery and reception places."
  Local people are telling the Government that they do not want the new scheme. They are happy with what the council is doing, and they know that the council is working very hard to improve nursery provision from 70 per cent. to 100 per cent., as is available in Solihull.
  Head teachers, teachers, governors and councillors of all political parties are campaigning to stop vouchers being introduced in Calderdale. Similar campaigns are being set up by schools all over the country. We believe that Calderdale and other local authorities should be allowed to opt out if they wish to continue providing an excellent service.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Mahon: I am sorry, but time is short, and I want to conclude. I am making the case for Calderdale on behalf of the people who are launching the SAVE campaign. The facts are all there. It has taken 20 years, using ratepayers' money and getting all-party agreement, to provide a high standard of nursery education. I challenge the Minister to listen and learn, and the Government can do that by accepting new clause 3.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I hope to astound you by my brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I am grateful for having been called to speak. I come rather late to the debate on the Bill, and I apologise to the House for that. On the other hand, I have taken an interest in education for almost as long as I have been adult and sentient, and that interest has not yet departed from me.
  One of my first ever speeches in the House, when my party was in opposition, was sceptical, if not critical, of a move towards vouchers in state education. That was in 1976. In one sense, I have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, but in another I have clung to a sceptical view on the matter.
  As I understand it, new clause 3 concerns how we carry forward the expansion of nursery education in Britain. There are currently four pilot projects—three in London and one in Norfolk. My first thought is that, if they are genuine pilot projects, it would be greatly preferable if we could take a bit longer to build up the empirical evidence to find out whether or not it is a good idea. I am not in favour of rushing such matters, and I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister why he thinks it is so necessary and expedient to go ahead so fast from the pilot phase to the full-blown phase.
  I remember the arguments 20 years ago—nothing has changed fundamentally—that vouchers are supposed to be an empowering measure to give parents greater choice and flexibility to do well by their children. However, it is important that the House should be told tonight—even if it has been told in Committee, whose debates I have not had

  221
  the chance to follow as closely as I should—how much extra money will flow from the new arrangements, allowing for any clawback, and how many additional places will be created for the nursery education of our children.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but the figures have been made public. In the first year, we are providing £165 million of new money in phase 1, and £390 million is being provided over the three years. My hon. Friend will recognise that it is not possible to predict exactly how many additional places there will be, but more will be provided in response to the money.
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That makes me feel considerably better than I did a few moments ago. Those substantial sums could do a power of good for the children concerned. It is important that we should know that.
  I should report to the House that I visit all the schools in my constituency as frequently as I can. On a recent visit that I made to Bandon Hill primary school in Wallington, the head teacher, the staff, the classroom assistants and all the parents who introduced themselves to me were almost unanimous in their view. They were worried and sceptical about the implications of the scheme, although it is possible that they did not have the full facts. They urged me to make that point to the House, and that is exactly what I am doing this evening.
  I had the chance to speed-read new clause 3, and I paid attention to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) said in her brief opening speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said in an intervention, one of its weaknesses is that many of the paragraphs in subsection (2) of the new clause make the local education authority effectively judge and jury in its own cause.
  Although there is a provision for consultation, to which the hon. Lady referred, I know from my own local authority—alas, under Liberal control—that local authorities' idea of consultation is to put out some expensive documents and go through the motions of listening, but the real parental influence is very small, so it usually turns out to be an expensive sham. If the hon. Lady is resting on that element of her argument, I think it is a fragile foundation.
  My scepticism, as I say, goes back 20 years. I am glad to hear from the Minister that genuine extra money will be forthcoming. I hope that it will create useful new nursery places. If it satisfies that criterion, I shall reluctantly support him in the Lobby—but it will need to do that. I hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on developments.
  Mr. Iain Mills: I tabled new clause 5, whose objective is similar to that of new clause 3. The Minister will not therefore be surprised to learn that, for reasons that I shall outline briefly, I shall be joining those voting for new clause 3.
  I am distraught at the idea that a Conservative Government are not listening to parents. I have explained to the Secretary of State and to the Minister that, in my constituency, almost every parent of a nursery school
  222
  child has contacted me to tell me that they are highly satisfied with Solihull's current provision of nursery education. Whatever colleagues may say about local authorities, providing £l,800-worth of valuable education is a lot better than introducing a national voucher worth £1,100. The local education authority provides that service voluntarily; it is already strapped for cash by the Government under its standard spending assessment calculation. The money comes from council tax payers, not from the Government. Now, this Government, whom I loyally support, are saying that they intend to impose a system that is bureaucratic, expensive and open to fraud. The parents in my constituency do not want it, and I consider it nothing short of madness.
  By all means introduce vouchers for LEAs that are not providing enough nursery education, but it is quite wrong to force the scheme on us and on other LEAs that are doing a fine job. There has not been enough consultation. According to the press, the pilot schemes have run into a great many problems. Forcing through the new scheme by April 1997 will amount to another Dangerous Dogs Act. This rush for nursery vouchers is wholly misguided.
  What does the Minister think that I should say to parents? I intend to vote against a scheme that they do not want. Is it a fair, just or democratic solution? Is it Conservative? The Minister cannot talk about parental choice at the same time as countenancing the forced introduction of this scheme for local authorities such as the one in Solihull. The authority is not against private provision. Perhaps the private sector will eventually provide enough high-quality places—but certainly not by April 1997.
  Perhaps I should not get so excited, but I am worked up on behalf of the thousands of parents who have contacted me about this issue. [Interruption.] The Minister is talking to his private parliamentary secretary, but I hope that he will listen to the rest of my short speech. I am grateful to him for answering my parliamentary questions and letters. He is a charming Minister, but how can he compare £l,800-worth of provision with £1,100?
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: I do not need to. Parents will.
  Mr. Mills: I must point out that the provision already exists in Solihull. The Minister is going to charge parents more money for what they already have.
  Mr. Squire indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mills: Well, I do not see how the extra £700 will be created.
  Mr. Riddick: The money will remain in the hands of local authorities, which will then be able to top up provision for those parents.
  Mr. Mills: That is fine in theory. The briefing note says that the SSA for the under-fives from which the deduction is made
  "was allocated on a need-to-spend basis and is unsuited for a flat £1,100 deduction."
  Solihull's achievements in teaching reading, writing and arithmetic to three-and-a-half-year-olds have been brilliant, but the under-fours cost 100 per cent. more than other groups, so the money cannot later be recouped.

  223
  I have been asked to leave time for the Minister to sum up, and I am sure that colleagues would like to add their contributions—
  Mr. Pawsey rose—
  Mr. Mills: I shall give way only because my hon. Friend is indeed a long-standing friend.
  Mr. Pawsey: I have some correspondence from the Department for Education and Employment dated 11 March, in which it says:
  "There is absolutely no reason why provision for three year olds should be damaged—no resources have been deducted from LEAs' SSA in respect of provision for three year olds."
  I suspect that my hon. Friend will find that reassuring.
  Mr. Mills: I always value my hon. Friend's advice and find his company extremely pleasant. He will forgive me if I differ on this occasion. Every year, I have been told by Education and Environment Ministers that Solihull's SSA will improve, and every year it has got worse. That is part of the problem: the SSAs do not contribute enough money. I wonder whether my good and hon. Friend understands that Solihull is such a good education authority that more than 1,000 pupils from Birmingham, Coventry and Warwickshire are on its books.
  I understand that a small amount of new money—about £20 million—is to be spent on administration.
  Mr. Squire: Inspection.
  Mr. Mills: If I carry on much longer I shall be shot at dawn—I do not know whether the Minister would like that. Can he give me one good reason why our well-loved, efficient, nationally reputed scheme, which is supported by all parents, should be abandoned in favour of the new one? Why cannot Solihull opt out?
  Mr. Alan Keen: I cannot beat that. I wish that more Conservative Members were willing to speak out on behalf of the parents who have contacted them, just as they have contacted me in my constituency.
  The benefits of nursery education are well known. I had thought that they were accepted on both sides of the House, but I began to doubt that while serving on the Standing Committee throughout February. Research in the United States has shown that the money spent is returned four times over in the lifetime of the recipients of nursery education, but that effect will not be achieved in a watered-down system. That seems to be what the Government are intent on perpetrating on local authorities that already provide high-quality, proper education. I support new clause 3 to defend that high quality, which has been built up carefully over many years and is an investment in the future of the nation.
  Both matters covered by the Bill—nursery education and grant-maintained schools—show the Government's persistent short-termism. Manufacturing industry, the health service and now children's education are suffering under the short-term policies of the Government.
  We all want to give parents choice, but not to the detriment of the education of our children. If the Bill were to provide high-quality nursery education for all children, it would have everybody's full support. If it were to provide
  224
  high-quality education and a chance for parents to choose additional playgroup hours, it would also have everyone's support. We do not want high-quality nursery education replaced by playgroups. Some parents, through necessity, may choose longer hours instead of quality. The Government should finance schemes to assist parents to find suitable child care or playgroups. Aiming finance in that direction would stimulate provision, but it is not acceptable to damage existing high-quality nursery education.
  The provision of nursery education varies greatly throughout the country. Where it exists, it is integrated into the statutory education system and is an integral part of the infant school years of children who benefit from the cohesion and continuity that the direct links between nursery education provision and statutory education bring. The Government are suggesting a very different scheme, which can be worth while, but not as a replacement for quality nursery education.
  New clause 3 would give parents the chance to make an informed and constructive choice. It would give choice to head teachers and voluntary organisations. For an LEA to opt out of the Government scheme, three quarters of local councillors would have to agree. In most cases, that would require cross-party agreement. In Hounslow, that would not be the case at the moment, but the Tory group leader has already said that he supports the retention of Hounslow's nursery education.
  I asked in Committee what commercial company would risk damaging a successful part of its business, as the Government will with the nation's existing nursery education. No answer was forthcoming. Why are the Government persevering with the Bill? None of the answers rings true, so there must be another one. The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) have asked the same question. We understand that the Government must be attracted to the idea of sending out vouchers worth £1,100 to parents of four-year-olds. On Second Reading, I said that they might as well stamp "Vote Conservative" on the vouchers. That is the only possible explanation of why the scheme is being hurried through so quickly. I am sad to have to say that in a debate about the education of our children.
  Why should a Labour Member of Parliament care about electoral prospects of Conservative Members? I care very much about the parents, and the future of our children, because they are the responsibility of us all. Why are the Government risking the futures of some Conservative Members of Parliament in areas with a high quality of nursery education, as two of them have described tonight? I do not understand. I beg the Government to have another think about the Bill and not to do dreadful damage to existing provision.
  Mr. David Sumberg: I shall be brief. In the roll call of honour of the local authorities that provide good nursery education—Calderdale and others have been mentioned—Bury should be included. It provides good nursery and reception class education and I pay tribute to the local authority, which is not of my persuasion, and to the governors, teachers and parents.
  I oppose new clause 3 and shall support the Government for two reasons. I believe that it is right in principle to give the freedom of choice that the Bill would provide. I attended a meeting with local head teachers of primary

  225
  schools in my constituency recently and argued that case with them. The pilot scheme, too, is right, because whenever the Government have proposed legislation in the past, the cry has always been for pilot schemes.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reassure me on two points, and I make those points conditional. First, can my hon. Friend assure me that the pilot scheme is genuine? I told my head teachers that it was; that lessons will be learnt from it; and that, if errors and inconsistencies are found, changes will be made. I ask my hon. Friend to give me that assurance.
  Secondly, in specific terms, I have been told by my hon. Friend and his Department that, when this scheme comes into operation in Bury in 1997, if the same number of children who attended school in 1996 turn up in 1997, there will be no loss of funding—not one single penny—for the local authority of which my constituency is part. Will my hon. Friend assure me that that will be so in 1997 and in the years that lie ahead? Will my hon. Friend assure me—I accept that the arrangements will be subject to the elements of local authority funding—that the scheme will make no difference whatever to the funding arrangements for the people whom I represent? On that assurance—that parents will be no worse off and some may be better off, depending how the scheme works—and on the answer about the pilot element, I will support the Government.
  Mr. Robin Squire: It is not surprising that there has been much scaremongering tonight, mainly from Opposition Members, about the alleged effect that the voucher scheme will have on local authority funding. Frankly, I remain at a loss, having had discussions for months now, to understand why Opposition Members appear genuinely to believe that nursery vouchers might damage existing good provision. Let me make it clear—they will not. I shall spend the short time available spelling that out.
  If LEAs are offering a good and popular service, parents will continue to choose that service—obviously, reasonably and intelligently—and nothing will change. No school will be forced to take more children. No school will be forced to change its admission arrangements. We are not forcing schools to undertake activities that the best have not already seized with both hands. What we are doing—it lies at the heart of the debate and is no doubt why Opposition Members continue to use scaremongering tactics—is allowing parents to choose in a way that they have never been able to in the past.
  New clause 3, moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), would give every local authority the opportunity to exempt itself, for a financial year, from any of the grant arrangements set out in the Bill. The new clause sets out the conditions and circumstances in which an authority can activate that exemption.
  Like my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), I wish to stress that the new clause would require consultation with parents. That is an improvement on what was suggested in Committee. The new clause would even involve consultation with the private and voluntary sectors, but at heart it is still about putting local authorities back in the driving seat for the
  226
  development of local nursery education facilities. All the new clause would require is consultation. There is no mention of any sector apart from the LEA sector playing a decisive role and, of course, there is no mention of a requirement on the local authority to obtain the agreement of those other sectors.
  I said over and over, especially in Committee, that we want to put power in the hands of parents and, far from the Bill being a nationalising, centralising measure, it is the greatest decentralisation of all. Let parents decide what is best for their child. Let parents decide whether their child will flourish in the more informal surroundings of pre-school or a more structured environment. We want choice for all parents, not just for those who live in areas whose authorities have chosen not to exempt themselves from the scheme. There is nothing to prevent more local authorities from developing and publishing plans, and I trust that good, forward-looking authorities will do that now. We do not need legislation for that, but we do need legislation to ensure that parents are in the driving seat.
  I agree with m y hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who tabled new clause 5, that none of us wants participation in nursery education to decrease. Indeed, as I have spelt out—for instance, in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington—we are providing significant new funds to expand nursery education rather than reducing it. There is already a healthy variety of nursery provision, but I want it to be extended still further. As we have made clear time and again, every parent of a four-year-old will have the power to reinforce the decision on where that child should receive nursery education.
  7 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden asked me two specific questions. Let me make it clear that no one is forcing a change in the existing provision if parents do not want it. If parents strongly support local authority provision—my hon. Friend made clear the excellence of Solihull's current provision—they need not oppose the voucher scheme; they can simply take their vouchers to the local authority school of their choice, which will give it the maximum buttressing. Moreover, they can tell their friends about it.
  Let me tackle a linked point that was made by both my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). Local education authorities do not need to attract extra pupils to make the voucher funding mechanism cash neutral: they need only continue to fill the same number of places. Indeed, if they attract one more pupil, they will be in pocket. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, as a good Yorkshireman, will appreciate that.
  Let me explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden that the top-up that was referred to is, in effect, the extra money that still lies with his local authority—£700. At present, the authority spends that money on providing the excellent nursery education that my hon. Friend mentioned, and it will continue to be able to do so. As for the £20 million that my hon. Friend said was spent on administration, it is spent overwhelmingly on inspection, and will ensure that more than 12,000 providers that are not currently inspected will be. I hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome that.

  227
  Local authorities will not need to close nursery schools or classes, or change their admission arrangements, as a result of the voucher scheme. Local management of schools will enable voucher income to be passed to schools, so local authorities will not even need to change the way in which they fund those schools. I accept that, at this precise moment, I cannot persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, but I hope that he will think about what I have said. I assure him that parents and schools in his constituency have nothing to fear.
  Amendment No. 3 is intended to ensure that local authority resources will not be reduced in total as a result of the voucher scheme. That goes back over ground that we discussed in Committee. In effect, the amendment would give a blanket protection to all LEAs. Although I am sympathetic in principle to the idea of ensuring that local authorities do not lose money, I will not countenance an amendment that would ensure that they retain resources for ever and a day, even when their provision is not good and parents have determined to use alternative providers.
  I am at a loss to understand the intentions of amendments Nos. 4 and 11. Nursery education is not compulsory; the Secretary of State cannot prejudge parents' decisions, and would not wish to do so. While there are some 660,000 children aged four in England alone—that figure varies from term to term—I see little point in laying an annual report before Parliament setting out the number of children for whom funded nursery education has been provided.
  Amendment No. 12 includes the word "evaluation". My hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South and for Carshalton and Wallington rightly drew attention to the importance of learning lessons from phase 1, and I assure them that we shall do so. Only two aspects of the scheme are different—the funding mechanism and the inspection regime. On the funding mechanism, we shall be in an excellent position to draw lessons not just from the first term of the scheme, but from the second term, which will begin in September. That will inform us about the mechanisms under which vouchers are redeemed and issued. I am pleased to say that—contrary to comments by Opposition Members—phase 1 is going very well, and the number of providers is up.
  I am sorry to have spoken for so long, but a good deal is contained in the new clauses and amendments that we are discussing. I ask the House to reject them, because they are unnecessary and unreasonably delay the advent of the universal nursery education that I assume is wanted by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Ms Estelle Morris: The Minister has signally failed to advance any argument in favour of forcing local authorities that currently provide top-quality education, and whose communities want them to continue to do so, to adopt the nursery voucher scheme.
  Conservative Members have questioned the consultation provision that is inherent in new clause 3. What consultation has taken place about the introduction of the voucher scheme? How many people have queued up to say that that is the best way of providing nursery education? Local authorities did not want to be part of phase 1. Whatever hon. Members' doubts may be about the quality of the consultation for which new clause 3 provides, they cannot doubt that there has been little, if any, meaningful consultation about the voucher scheme.
  228
  Let me tell the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) that his original instincts were right: there is no new money for new places in the scheme. Any new money will go into the private sector, so that parents of children who are being educated in that sector can receive £1,100 to pay for a place for which they are paying out of their own pockets. It is what is described as a dead-weight cost. There will be no new places; there is no new money; there has been no consultation.
  New clause 3 would allow local authorities such as Solihull, Halifax and Bury—as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the hon. Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg)—to go on doing what they have done successfully for the past 17 years, after listening to teachers and parents. The Government have not cared two hoots about nursery education; why, at this late stage—when they have suddenly realised that this is a service worth protecting and working for—should they be able to say to local authorities, "You have been doing this well for a long time, but move over now, because we know how to do it better"? Why should such a central Government diktat be possible? That is what the Minister is saying, however, and that is what he is asking us to vote for.
  If the Minister were seriously concerned about the effects of the scheme, he would announce a proper pilot scheme. He would announce a period, after phase 1, during which proper evaluation could take place before phase 2. However, he is asking the House to ignore the proven success of Solihull and other areas, and to replace their arrangements with a scheme that has not even started a pilot phase. There is no argument for that; the Minister has never made such an argument. He has failed to do so again tonight, and I ask the House to divide on new clause 3.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 276.

  Division No. 82]

  [7.08 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainger, Nick

  Caborn, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cann, Jamie

  Barron, Kevin

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Battle, John

  Church, Judith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Blunkett, David

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Paul

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

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

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Burden, Richard

  Dafis, Cynog

  229

  Dalyell, Tam

  Litherland, Robert

  Davidson, Ian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Denham, John

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Dixon, Don

  Macdonald, Calum

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McFall, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McKervey, William

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McLeish, Henry

  Eastham, Ken

  McMaster, Gordon

  Etherington, Bill

  McNamara, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  MacShane, Denis

  Fatchett, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Flynn, Paul

  Maddock, Diana

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Galloway, George

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gapes, Mike

  Martlew, Eric

  Garrett, John

  Maxton, John

  George, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michael, Alun

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Milburn, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Miller, Andrew

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mills, Iain

  Graham, Thomas

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moriey, Elliot

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hall, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mullin, Chris

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Olner, Bill

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoey, Kate

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Parry, Robert

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Ian

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jamieson, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Leuan Wyn (Ynys Mùn)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ruddock, Joan

  Keen, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

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

  Sheerman, Barry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

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

  230

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wallace, James

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Joan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Spellar, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Watson, Mike

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Welsh, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stott, Roger

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wise, Audrey

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wray, Jimmy

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Ms Janet Anderson and Mr. John Cummings.

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alexander, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Couchman, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

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

  Arbuthnot, James

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bates, Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Elletson, Harold

  Bendall, Vivian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowis, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gallie, Phil

  Butler, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butterfill, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cash, Wlliam

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Congdon, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  231

  Hannam, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hawkins, Nick

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Pickles, Eric

  Hendry, Charles

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  PortiIlo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Horam, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Richards, Rod

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Key, Robert

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Sproat, Iain

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stewart, Allan

  Lord, Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Sumberg, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sweeney, Walter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sykes, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Tredinnick, David

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Trend, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trimble, David

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steve

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Ward, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  232

  Watts, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Winterton, Nicholas (Mace'f'ld)

  Whitney, Ray

  Wolfson, Mark

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wlkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Wilshire, David

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

  AUDIT
  '.—An authority or other person to whom a grant is made under arrangements under section 1 shall be required to keep such proper accounts and audit arrangements as the Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I moved a similar clause when we discussed this matter in Committee. At that time I said that the matter was relatively simple and that I did not need to delay members of the Committee for long. There is no reason why it should delay the House now. I know that the Minister will have reflected carefully on his words in Committee. The new clause is merely a small addition to the Bill to require that bodies in receipt of grants as a result of the legislation will be required to maintain proper audit arrangements.
  When we debated the matter in Committee, the Minister shared my concerns. He said:
  "I recognise and share the hon. Gentleman's concern which prompted the amendment. We are of course dealing with a large amount of public expenditure and it is right that taxpayers' money should be properly audited and accounted for. That is a principle to which the Government attach the utmost importance, and the voucher scheme is no exception." —[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 20 February 1996; c. 305.]
  I entirely agree with the Minister. He should accept what has been accepted in other legislation that has included references to the need to keep proper audited accounts, and should agree to the inclusion in the Bill of a mere 38 words that will ensure probity in arrangements for the nursery voucher scheme.
  No doubt the Minister will say that the new clause is unnecessary and cumbersome and that it adds to bureaucracy, but ensuring probity, especially by the addition of only 38 words, is no great encumbrance. The Minister may also say that it will remove flexibility, but it would do nothing of the sort. It merely states that there must be a requirement that such arrangements be made and it gives the Secretary of State power to determine the nature of those arrangements. I hope that the Minister will accept what the Government have accepted many times and will appreciate the strength of the argument.
  Mr. Richards: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Sadly, he lost his way somewhere in the middle, as the Liberal party is prone to do. I agree that it is essential that public money is properly used and properly accounted for. We must be confident that the grants that are paid to providers—public, private and voluntary—will be used to provide good-quality education for our four-year-olds. However, there is no

  233
  need for the Bill to specify auditing arrangements. I had thought that the leader of the Liberal Democrats would intervene, but he has sensibly backed off.
  Local education authorities and maintained schools are already subject to audit and the requirements that we are imposing on private and voluntary providers will include provisions for accounting and auditing: they are a requirement of the grant. They will include a right for the Department's internal auditors and the National Audit Office to examine the books of any such provider. On those grounds, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
  Mr. Don Foster: I am not entirely convinced by the Minister. Nevertheless there will be an opportunity in another place to take the matter a stage further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  ARRANGEMENTS FOR MAKING GRANTS
  Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 6, after '(1)', insert
  'Subject to section 7(1A) below,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 6, after 'may', insert 'by regulations'.
  Government amendment No. 27.
  Amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
  '(3A) Any arrangements made under section 1(3) above which specify the age of children shall be made by regulations.'.
  Government amendment No. 28.
  Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
  Government amendment No. 29.
  Amendment No. 6, in clause 7, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
  '(1A) The power to make arrangements under section 1(1) above shall be exercised by order and no such order may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  Amendment No. 38, in page 2, line 41, at end insert—
  '(1A) Any arrangements for the making of grants under section 1(1) above shall, where those arrangements make provision for the amount of grant payable in respect of a child, be exercised by order and no such order may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 30 to 32 and 34.
  Ms Morris: The purpose of this rather large group of amendments is to ensure proper annual debate on the grants that are made under the legislation. As we have said, the Bill gives the Secretary of State for Education and Employment many powers. Not only does she have the power to dictate how a local community will make provision for its early years education, but Ministers can make arrangements about grant criteria, voucher values,
  234
  the framework within which grants are to be administered and what action should be taken after an assessment of the scheme. All that can be done at the moment without recourse to Parliament.
  Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 specifically refer to parliamentary scrutiny of the value of the grant, and that would be done in a way that is similar to the current scrutiny of the amount that is put into the assisted places scheme and the student grants and loans scheme. There is considerable similarity between the arrangements for the assisted places scheme and the nursery vouchers scheme. Both involve significant transfers of revenue from local government to central Government and out again. In addition, the nursery voucher scheme can certainly be seen as a significant change in local government finance.
  In the interests of good legislation and democracy, it is not acceptable for crucial aspects of the Bill to be decided and controlled by Ministers and Ministers alone in the Department for Education and Employment without proper scrutiny by the House and the other place. The House has a record of being able to scrutinise legislation. It jealously guards that right and exercises it on the assisted places scheme and the student grants and loans scheme year by year. There is no reason why it should not be able to exercise that right in the context of the amount put into grants as part of the nursery voucher scheme. The amendments will allow proper scrutiny by the House and that is right and proper.
  Mr. Robin Squire: The Bill sets out the broad framework and the necessary legal underpinning for the grants. It defines what they can be used for and refers to allowing the use of a child benefit database and defining inspection regimes and so on. As I have said—it may even have been in debate with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris)—the grant arrangement will include a great deal of administrative detail.
  It is clearly not sensible to make all these matters the subject of legislation, whether primary or secondary, and I do not presume that the hon. Lady would suggest that. Time-consuming amendments would be needed for the slightest change and that would be absurd. It would also limit the flexibility of grants that would be paid to a range of types of institutions.
  Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28 set out the child's age and describe the eligible institutions in the regulations. I shall be brief in speaking to the amendments because I am sure that it will not take much to convince hon. Members that they are eminently reasonable and respond to points that were made to me in Committee. In that context, I note and welcome the fact that Opposition Members agree with the Government to the extent that they have tabled a similar amendment to amendment No. 27.
  In Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) tabled an amendment that sought to put the description of children eligible for nursery education grants into regulations rather than arrangements. They graciously agreed to withdraw that amendment following my commitment to table an equivalent Government amendment on Report—amendment No. 27 fulfils that commitment.

  235
  7.30 pm
  Clause 1 defines nursery education for the purposes of the Bill by specifying the upper age limit of children who can be covered by nursery education grants. It would be neither necessary nor appropriate to include in the Bill a lower age limit or any other description of eligible children. That would greatly restrict flexibility in future, but amendment No. 27 would cause the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make regulations to specify what I might call the lower age limit of children eligible for nursery education grant, although the lower limit need not be a specific age.
  As the House is aware, we propose that, initially, the voucher scheme should cover only four-year-olds. The amendment would mean that if, for example, the scheme were extended to cover three-year-olds, fresh regulations would be needed and Parliament would have the opportunity to debate that change, if it so wished.
  Amendment No. 28 covers a slightly new area in terms of responding to comments in Committee, but, as hon. Members will recall, I made it clear that I was keeping an open mind on the things that should be in the Bill and the things that should be covered by regulation. The amendment would require the descriptions of providers eligible to receive grant under these arrangements to be specified in regulations. A couple of hours ago, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made passing reference to that. The exception is local education authorities in respect of their schools. I have made it clear on a number of occasions, and "The Next Steps" document also makes it clear, that, to be eligible to receive grant, a provider must be one of the following: a maintained school, a local authority day nursery, a finally registered independent school or an institution registered under the Children Act 1989.
  The identity of those eligible to receive grant is an important part of the policy both for parents and for providers. Parents need to know and understand which providers can accept their vouchers, and providers need to know whether they can accept vouchers if the provision that they offer is sufficiently good.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the Minister explain just one simple thing? If we have an annual debate on the assisted places scheme, why cannot we have a similar annual debate on the provisions made for nursery vouchers?
  Mr. Squire: There are significant differences. The most obvious one is that the assisted places scheme operates on an individual by individual basis, in mat the benefit, as it were, that the parent attracts is related to his or her income. With nursery vouchers, we are talking of a standard amount regardless of circumstance. There are other differences, but nursery vouchers are more akin to grants for education support and training, for instance, which are again a standard sum.
  By introducing Government amendment No. 28, we have met the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath and others outside. In the same way as changing the age range of children covered by the vouchers is not an administrative detail, so changing the list of institutions that are eligible to receive grant is not an administrative detail. Both should therefore be set out in regulations. As a result of Government amendment No. 28, that will be so. I think that, on reflection, Opposition Members will agree with that.
  236
  Amendment No. 38 puts the amount of grant in regulations. Here we reach the matter that the hon. Member for Yardley referred to. It is essential that grant arrangements should specify the amount, timing, frequency and method of payment of nursery education grants. Providers need that information for planning, but to specify the amount of grant in regulations, and especially in regulations subject to affirmative procedure, would be inappropriate.
  The amount of grant payable to any particular provider will depend simply on the number of vouchers that they redeem. The calculation of grant will be a matter of simple arithmetic. There is no need for that to be covered by regulations, just as the amount of grant payable in any particular case is not covered by regulations under section 100 of the Education Act 1944 or GEST regulations.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am still unclear. Will the Minister take this a little further? Surely we do not deal with the individual circumstances of a recipient when the House debates the assisted places scheme or, obviously, the voucher scheme, given that there is a flat voucher fee. In principle, therefore, what is the difference between the two? We are not dealing with individual amounts, which necessitate account being taken of people's circumstances.
  Mr. Squire: I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman or the House. I was not suggesting that we debate individual circumstances in assisted places scheme debates. I was seeking to show that the comparison that the hon. Gentleman drew relied on assuming that there was a strong similarity between that scheme and the voucher scheme. There are several differences, one of which I highlighted. Another is that a voucher does not become legal tender until it is accepted by a provider and so it is a different beast from the sum granted in the assisted places scheme, but the hon. Gentleman and I are able to have different opinions on this and the world will, I hope, continue to revolve.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The implication of what the Minister has said is that, somehow, the recipient of assisted places scheme financing receives it, but that is not legal tender either. Presumably, parents receive a letter saying that they are entitled to a certain amount of education, the rates for which are set out annually when we debate the cost of the assisted places scheme. How is that different from the voucher? With an assisted places scheme, we are not dealing with tender any more than we are with a voucher scheme.
  Mr. Squire: I sought to point out that the difference was that, in the voucher scheme, we are invariably talking about a fixed sum that, as I conceded and as all hon. Members recognise, becomes money when a provider agrees to make a place available. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the assisted places scheme sets out the scale of remission of fees that parents will receive according to their income. That makes it rather a different kettle of fish. It does not mean that one could not envisage circumstances in which voucher grants would be comparable with those on the assisted places scheme, but it is not an immediate, natural link. Having considered it, I could not be convinced that the hon. Gentleman's example made sense in the way that the two examples that I have given—one conceded in Committee and one in the House today—made sense.

  237
  They represent a significant departure. If it wanted to, the House could reasonably expect to be able to debate them under the usual provision.
  As all Committee members are aware, all the grant arrangements will be set out and published. As I have said, the key aspects will be in regulations. The usual arrangements for accounting to Parliament for public expenditure will continue to apply.
  Government amendment No. 30 deals with powers to make transitional arrangements. It is a technical amendment. The Government think it wise to include the usual provision for power to make transitional arrangements in regulations under the Bill. Frankly, the circumstances in which they might be needed would be relatively rare.
  Government amendments Nos. 29, 31, 32 and 34 are drafting amendments that simplify the references in the Bill to regulations. The Secretary of State will of course lay all such regulations before the House in accordance with normal parliamentary procedure.
  The Government accept the case for including some aspects of the grant arrangements in regulations and have demonstrated that by tabling amendments that will provide for both the description of children who can be covered by the grant and the list of providers who can receive grant to be set out in regulations. I have not been convinced that the amount of the grant, still less the grant arrangements in their entirety, should be set out in regulations. If the matter is pressed to a Division, I urge hon. Members to reject amendments Nos. 5, 26, 9, 2, 6 and 38.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister deserves to be congratulated. As those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will be aware—and it is important that the House is also aware—the Minister has responded to a request in Committee that at least a large amount of information about the scheme be made available to the House annually. I want to place on record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his positive response to our request.
  In a letter to me within the last couple of days, the Minister said that he had been giving thought to what information should be made available and put in the departmental report. He acknowledges that much of it will be statistical or historical, but says that it will be none the worse for that. He said:

  "I have in mind the following broad categories:

  Value of the voucher (including any regional variations and areas covered by different value vouchers)

  Number of Vouchers issued

  Number of Vouchers redeemed

  Total Resources made available through vouchers

  Number and type of validated institutions

  Number of inspections carried out of each type of institutions under new legislative provisions

  Number of institutions from whom validation withdrawn

  Sums of money received into consolidated fund, and from what source."

  That is a wide range of areas to be covered by the report, so I am grateful for the Minister's response.
  Of course, all that draws to the attention of the House the very large number of issues that will be put into effect by the Bill. It also draws attention to the very wide powers that will be given to the Secretary of State under the Bill
  238
  and the arrangements to make regulations on these and many other issues. It is because the Bill gives so much power to the Secretary of State, over a wide range of issues that are not detailed in the Bill, that considerable disquiet is felt in many quarters about what is happening. That is why there have been various attempts, through the amendments, to provide an opportunity for hon. Members regularly to be able to contribute to the thinking about any changes, to debate them and to vote on them.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) said that, under amendment No. 5, the regulations would be debated under the affirmative resolution procedure. She believed that that was a perfectly reasonable suggestion. She drew a number of significant parallels—although they were rejected by the Minister—between the Bill and the assisted places scheme. Hon. Members will be well aware that, for example, section 17(6) of the Education Act 1980, which set up the assisted places scheme, requires all arrangements to be made by regulations. Section 35(2) requires regulations to be made by the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament.
  The Minister said that there was not enough similarity between the assisted places scheme and the Bill to go down that route. He protests too much in attempting to show that there are huge differences between the two. After all, the assisted places scheme began by taking money away from local education authorities. That is exactly what is happening with the nursery voucher scheme—money is being taken away from LEA budgets to operate the scheme. As the hon. Member for Yardley said, the sums of money involved in the voucher scheme are significantly greater than the sums involved in the assisted places scheme.
  7.45 pm
  The Minister is not convinced that the similarities are great enough to use the same procedures. Will he therefore look carefully at amendment No. 26, which adopts a slightly different way to bring the regulations before the House on a regular basis, but using the negative resolution procedure? That would require hon. Members who opposed a particular part of the resolution to pray against it in the usual manner. It would mean that Members of Parliament, who do not have a great deal of spare time, would pray only against matters about which they felt very strongly. There would be no unnecessary time wasting, but hon. Members would have an opportunity regularly to debate issues about which they felt strongly.
  Mr. Robin Squire rose—
  Mr. Foster: I shall happily give way to the Minister. I was about to say that it would be nice if he intervened to tell us whether he thinks that that way of doing things would accord with the democratic procedures of the House, especially given his unwillingness to include in the Bill even a statement that the Secretary of State will take responsibility for the details. I happily give way and hope that the hon. Gentleman will be positive.
  Mr. Squire: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants to drown me in praise, as he did earlier, or cover me with whatever the reverse of that might be. He conceded that two Government amendments will allow

  239
  for precisely what he has described to be dealt with by negative resolution if the House so agrees in due course. Apart from the amount of grant itself—and on that matter I can add little to the earlier exchanges between myself and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)—can the hon. Gentleman say what other areas he has in mind that might be covered in the way he suggested? I am interested in considering them.
  Mr. Foster: I think that the Minister and I are beginning to go down the same track. There seems to be some agreement and there may be a positive resolution before the evening is out which will help us to find a way forward. The Minister asked what other areas I had in mind. I would include, for example, not simply the amount of money, but the grant criteria that would operate. We would want to discuss the nature of the settings in which provision is to be made.
  Mr. Squire rose—
  Mr. Foster: The Minister is no doubt about to say that the grant setting is already included. We may wish to widen the definition if we are to consider the use of modern technology and other things that may arrive in the not too distant future. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would want a debate, followed by a decision, about the inspection arrangements. They are not currently included.
  There seems to be some coming together of both sides of the House and I am grateful for that. Perhaps as the debate progresses there may be more. The real concern for many hon. Members is that the Bill gives a great deal of power to the Secretary of State without a real opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. Unless our amendments are accepted, when the Bill reaches another place, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee will have a field day.
  Ms Estelle Morris: I am amazed that the Minister has turned down the opportunity for even more debates such as those that we have shared over the past few months in Committee. But he seems to have wasted that opportunity, which is disappointing. The Bill involves much detail, and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has given us a list of subjects that should have proper parliamentary scrutiny. Like him, I feel that those are issues that their Lordships may address when the Bill reaches them. But, for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 7, after 'education', insert 'in England'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 8, page 3, line 17, leave out
  'or Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales,'.
  No. 20, in clause 10, page 3, line 30, leave out 'and Wales'.
  No. 21, in schedule 1, page 4, line 14, leave out from 'England' to end of line 16.
  No. 22, in page 4, line 27, leave out from 'England' to end of line 29.
  240
  No. 23, in schedule 2, page 5, line 38, leave out from 'England' to end of line 40.
  No. 24, in page 8, line 23, leave out
  ', civil servants in the Welsh Office'.
  No. 25, in page 8, line 25, leave out 'or the Welsh Office'.
  Mr. Dafis: The amendments would exempt Wales from the provisions of the Bill. I tabled them for several reasons—first, because many people asked for an exemption for Wales. The Parent-Teacher Associations of Wales specifically asked for one, and that is an important sign, because its members are not the educational establishment but the very people for whose children nursery and other educational provision is intended. Moreover, that association speaks with the same voice as the overwhelming bulk of opinion in Wales—not just the local education authorities but educationists, parents and the public at large. They all overwhelmingly oppose the introduction of nursery vouchers.
  As for the voluntary sector, Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin opposes the idea in principle, and fears the Bill's effects on Welsh-medium education. Can the Minister give us any assurances on that aspect? The Select Committee report asks the Welsh Office—if, indeed, the scheme is applied in full—to monitor closely the effect of vouchers on Welsh-medium education.
  The Welsh Language Board recently published the results of a survey showing that 50 per cent. of parents in Wales would choose Welsh-medium nursery education if the option were available. That is a fact of far-reaching significance. How do the Government propose to ensure that that wish of 50 per cent. of the parents of Wales can be met as we increase nursery school provision?
  It must be admitted that the Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association supports the scheme in principle. After all, it has a particular interest in doing so, because the scheme would make playgroups a more attractive option in comparison with local authority nursery classes than they are now. But even that body has expressed important reservations, because it is concerned that the scheme's benefits may be eroded if insufficient resources are made available. If that happens, it does not see how it could make the necessary capital investment in improved provision.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, because the report from the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector said that about three quarters of the settings in which playgroups operated were not of a sufficient standard. The Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association expressed strong concern about the need for capital funding if playgroups were to be eligible for the scheme. And so far as I know, the Minister has given no assurance on the subject.
  Mr. Dafis: No, indeed. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, even though he has used up the next sentence of my speech. It would certainly be interesting to hear whether the Minister is prepared to give any kind of undertaking.
  I emphasise again what the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has already said—that the inspector's report on nursery provision in Wales emphasised the high quality of provision by local authorities in nursery schools

  241
  and classes, and showed how superior it was, by and large, to the provision in the voluntary and private sectors. There was consultation on the Welsh Office proposal, but although there was no suggestion of any support, the Government insisted on going ahead in the face of overwhelming opposition.
  My next reason for tabling the amendments is that legislation on education matters should always be specific to Wales. That is a matter of principle. The Bill does not apply to Scotland; that is the regular pattern of things. I simply ask: if the Bill does not apply to Scotland, why should it apply to Wales? In all kinds of areas, we must move towards parity with Scotland.
  Circumstances and tradition in Wales are radically different from those in England. That is why we need a parliament with primary legislative powers in Wales—a phrase which I often utter these days—to give us the right kind of provision in all kinds of areas. I shall return to that subject later.
  The principle applies to nursery education and the provisions of the Bill in particular. I shall not at this stage rehearse the ways in which the situation in Wales is different, or set out what our priorities should be for early years education. I did that on Second Reading, and what I said is on the record. However, I urge hon. Members and everyone else interested in the subject to read the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on the nursery voucher scheme in Wales.
  That report is carefully prepared and written, and it presents a pretty devastating condemnation of what is happening. In the first place, it points out that
  "Because of the investment already made by local authorities in Wales in under fives education, the benefit to Wales … will be much less than to England."
  That is perhaps not altogether condemnatory, but my next quotation from the report certainly is. The report states:
  "It seems extraordinary to us that the Government has determined on introducing a voucher scheme for four year olds without first ascertaining the full extent of current provision."
  In our questioning of Ministers, we had discovered that there had been no process of identifying the extent or nature of existing provision.
  The Select Committee report also mentions the danger that provision for three-year-olds might be reduced as a result of the introduction of the voucher scheme. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that, too.
  What I have said about the existing situation in Wales does not mean that we should be complacent. That danger, too, was mentioned in the Select Committee report. On Second Reading, I said that it was possible that much of the existing provision, of which we are so proud, would not be altogether appropriate. I mean, for example, the practice of providing for under-fives in primary and infant school classes. It is clear that the kind of education menu provided for children there may not give the intense learning experiences that constitute the real value of pre-school education before the age of five.
  The report from the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector refers to that possibility. It says that LEA nursery schools and nursery classes provide high-quality pre-school education, but it makes a clear distinction between those and infant reception classes. We need
  242
  appropriate high-quality provision for pupils in the early years, with properly qualified staff, and we should be talking about a strategy for moving in that direction.
  That means that we need change in Wales. We must not get ourselves into that familiar frame of mind in which we constantly react against change. That is why we need the powers to make the changes that are relevant to us. We need a policy for the development of early years education in Wales. I described such a policy in my speech on Second Reading.
  We need not only the means not to apply the Bill in Wales—to opt out—but the means to be proactive and creative. I know that the hon. Member for Bridgend is going to speak. I would like to hear from him how the Labour party, if it forms a Government after the next general election, will enable the people of Wales to fashion an education system that suits our circumstances and priorities. It is a matter not just of not doing something but of being positive and constructive.
  For example, how will Labour's assembly be proactive and not merely enable us to opt out of damaging provisions such as this? I do not see how Labour's current proposals, with secondary legislative powers at best—and perhaps not even those, according to the Labour leader—will give the people of Wales such powers. I covered that quickly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will now proceed to other matters, but perhaps the hon. Member for Bridgend can offer me some encouragement.
  If ever there were a case of Wales being dragged in England's wake in a way that is irrelevant to our needs, it is this. The Select Committee report concludes, even though it is expressed with some understatement, with the devastating comment:
  "We are not convinced that in this case the possibility of taking Wales along another path was considered very seriously."
  I am convinced that it was not considered at all. The report continues:
  "It is hard to believe that, if acting alone, the Welsh Office would have seen a voucher scheme as the most effective means of improving educational provision for four year olds in Wales."
  That is pretty devastating. It is a perfect example of Wales's needs being ignored and our prospects being damaged by inappropriate legislation driven by other people's ideology and priorities.
  I tabled an amendment that would have required a pilot project to be conducted in Wales in 1997–98 before introducing the full scheme. It was not selected, but I draw the Government's attention to it as a fallback from this amendment. It is still open to the Government to offer such a compromise and I appeal to them to do so, if they are not prepared to accept this amendment. The Select Committee recommended that there should be a pilot scheme. Will the Minister at least agree to have the matter debated in the other place to find out whether that would be reasonable? That would make good sense. There will be a general election before the scheme is properly implemented.
  8 pm
  Mr. Richards indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dafis: There will be one before the scheme has been properly implemented—a matter of months, at best, after the scheme begins to operate.

  243
  Labour is committed to scrapping the scheme in Wales, which is why my unselected amendment was relevant. It is not responsible to introduce such a revolutionary scheme. It is a demand-led instrument for developing education provision rather than a process of putting resources into provision. It changes the whole approach to the funding of education. It is not responsible to introduce such a scheme at such a time. However, a pilot scheme could be run and we could examine the situation to find out whether there was justification for such a change in the funding of education. I appeal to the Government to act responsibly in the matter and either accept our amendments or at least give us the fallback compromise.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Although we did not table specific amendments relating to Wales, our new clause 3, which dealt with the conditions under which a local authority could continue to operate its own provision with the consent of the members of the council and after consultation with the parents and other providers in its area, would have covered Wales.
  The situation in Wales is different from that in England. In Wales, more than 90 per cent. of four-year-olds are already in maintained provision. In a couple of counties, which, unfortunately, are in many ways about to die—Clwyd and West Glamorgan—the figure is nearly 100 per cent. The lowest provision is in Gwynedd, at 77 per cent. It is clear that the Welsh counties, without any financial support from the Welsh Office, have been good providers of education for four-year-olds.
  That provision is backed by that of the Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association and Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. Although most of their provision is not for four-year-olds, they have some children of that age and, through their training schemes for their workers and volunteers, they have been at pains to raise standards.
  The key point is the waste of money that the voucher scheme involves in Wales. For less expense than the additional money that the voucher scheme will cost, the Government could provide funding for local authorities to provide the extra 5 per cent. or so places that we need, and there would be no problems with the level of provision in Wales. Of course, there are still other problems and there will be problems under the voucher scheme.
  The excellent report of Her Majesty's inspector in Wales was made on the basis of a year-long set of inspections in 1994 and 1995 in which 120 schools and 22 playgroups were inspected against an educational framework and bearing in mind the onset of the voucher scheme. The report's 23 pages showed clearly that the best-quality education—this was almost universal—was in nursery schools and classes. A little way behind came the reception classes and mixed-age infant classes that catered for four-year-olds. Quite a long way behind that came the playgroups.
  That is not because the playgroups were failing to do what they intended but because in the past they have not tried to meet the formal educational objectives that schools in the maintained sector have been set. I pay tribute to the playgroups, the Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association and Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, for being prepared to take part in the inspections. They gave themselves a framework against which to judge whether they would be ready to take part in the nursery voucher scheme.
  244
  The issue in Wales is the quality of provision, and raising that quality, without getting involved in the bureaucratic paperchase of the voucher scheme. The inspector's report made it clear that the strong points of provision were often down to the support given by the local education authority. For professional development and in-service training, local authority courses were vital in helping to raise teachers' standards. The report also showed that the local authority guidelines and advice notes to schools on curriculum planning meant that there were high standards in the maintained sector for curriculum planning. There should be no doubt: Wales does not need the scheme.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) mentioned the fact that the Welsh Office consultation had not produced much support. He could have said even more clearly that, as a result of one of his questions, it was shown that not one of the 1,100 responses supported the Government's voucher scheme. The Welsh Office put that down to mass misunderstanding; if it had been a teacher in front of a class of pupils, he or she would have been labelled unsatisfactory by an Ofsted inspection. If the Welsh Office says that everyone, without exception, misunderstood what it published about its scheme, it is just trying to wriggle out of the fact that its scheme is unpopular in Wales.
  The inspectorate in Wales carried out a thorough investigation. The report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs made it clear that, having asked hundreds of questions of people who submitted evidence to it, there was no evidence to suggest that anyone in the Welsh Office had thought that the scheme was the way to fill in the 5 per cent. of places not yet provided in Wales. I hope that, even at the eleventh hour, the Minister will admit that the Welsh Office was grabbed by the scruff of its neck and dragged into the voucher scheme, come hell or high water, so that the bad record of English Tory councils was not over-exposed in the debate on how to improve provision.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that Welsh county councils have an excellent record of provision and that the nursery voucher scheme will make no improvement that could not be achieved more cheaply and effectively, simply by providing the money directly to the local education authorities of Wales.
  Mr.DavidHanson: I must place on record the excellent service that Clwyd county council provides in nursery education in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), the Under-Secretary of State. Clwyd county council provides nursery education for three and four-year-olds at an almost universal level. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) provide what is needed by my constituents and by people throughout Wales. There is no desire in Clwyd—indeed, in Wales—for any nursery vouchers. There is universal nursery education provision, and the people do not want and do not need the Government's scheme.
  I have been astounded at the level of opposition to nursery vouchers in my constituency and throughout the rest of Clwyd. Political parties are often accused of stirring up issues, but I can honestly say that parents, parent-teacher associations, school governing bodies and

  245
  local authorities feel strongly about—and are even resentful of—the actions of the Welsh Office in proceeding with the proposal.
  A couple of weeks ago, I received a 1,000-name petition from parents at Greenfield primary school in my constituency. Next Friday, I am going to Ysgol Glanrafon to receive petitions from parents in Mold. Next Monday, I am to receive a petition from every school in Hint. Those are not the actions of people who are politically motivated, but the actions of those who seek to defend the nursery education that their children have received for future generations.
  The Minister should know about nursery education in the county of Clwyd; he represents one fifth of that county in the House. For him to come to the House tonight to argue against the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is to put in danger the nursery education that is provided in that council at an almost universal level.
  There is a genuine fear among parents of children—both those who are at nursery school now and those who are rising to go to nursery school in future—that the voucher scheme will destroy all that is good about nursery education. It will not add anything to nursery education in Wales but will put at risk all that is good.
  I plead with the Minister to accept the amendments and reconsider the issues. I see that he shakes his head, but he will reap the rewards of the amendment when he comes before the people of Clwyd, North-West at the next general election. When he does so, I feel sure that the local Labour candidate will prise from him the seat that he holds today. People in my county demand and need nursery education, and the Minister should accept the amendment.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Richards: If I were the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), I should be looking over my shoulder, because Councillor Karen Lumley will soon be upending him at the next general election.
  If ever there was a group of amendments that was politically motivated, this is it. I say that to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) in all honesty and seriousness because, as he said, this is a matter of principle for his party. I sympathise with him politically, because his party makes no secret of the fact that it wants independence for Wales in all things—education, nursery voucher schemes and the rest. I respect him and his party for the unequivocal position that they adopt across the spectrum of political life. That is more than I can say for the Labour party.
  I have looked at all the amendments, including amendment No. 17, and I have found that neither the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) nor any of his Front-Bench colleagues who speak on Welsh affairs have put their name to any of the amendments. That is the party that wants an assembly in Wales to discuss Welsh affairs—its policy on the subject does not bear scrutiny.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North raised some serious points. He asked about monitoring the effects on Welsh-medium education—to which my answer is yes. He then asked how the Government would
  246
  meet the wishes of Welsh parents with regard to nursery education—my answer is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We shall offer parents the choice, so we shall discover whether we are meeting their needs in terms of the provision of nursery education.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about resources and raised the issue of capital funding. The Government will not be providing capital funding directly, but the voucher scheme contains an element for capital funding. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will see that the voucher scheme offers an income stream, against which providers can borrow.
  Opposition Members continually talk about new build. As they have all been involved with Labour-controlled authorities, they can think only in terms of new build, but the voucher scheme—the income stream that it offers—does not necessarily mean new build; it can mean adapting or refurbishing buildings that currently provide nursery provision.
  I shall talk later about the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, about four-year-olds and about the proposal's alleged effect on nursery provision for three-year-olds. Today Opposition Members have told us that there is no need for a voucher scheme in Wales and that there is already excellent provision for three and four-year-olds. The Opposition have asked why we should have additional bureaucracy; they have said that the cost of administration will be handed to local authorities and that the scheme will threaten provision for three-year-olds and jeopardise LEA planning.
  I shall briefly deal with those matters. However, I must point out that we did not hear from any Opposition Members why parents in Wales should be denied the right to choice and to diversity, which are offered in England. Wales has good provision for four-year-olds, with some 90 per cent. of them receiving some form of education in the maintained sector. That is a record of which we should be proud and I congratulate the education authorities in Wales on that.
  I am at one with the comments of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in this respect: we should not be carried away by that record. The actual provision varies in different parts of Wales—from 75 per cent. in Gwynedd to almost 100 per cent. in Clwyd and West Glamorgan. Even when local authority provision is at the highest level, that does not mean that parents necessarily have much choice about the sort of provision that they can have for their children.
  The Government's commitment to extend nursery provision to all four-year-olds goes hand in hand with their wider policy of increasing parental choice and diversity of provision. Not only are we seeking to achieve 100 per cent. provision in Wales, but we want it to be achieved in a way that gives parents much greater scope in the type of provision that they can choose for their children. In that, there is no difference between England and Wales. That is what has led us to bring forward the voucher scheme; that is why we are determined that parents in Wales should not be denied the opportunities being offered to people in England and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Several Opposition Members have expressed opposition to the voucher scheme. Why is there significant opposition to the voucher scheme in Wales? There is a significant amount of misunderstanding about

  247
  the proposals. That is hardly surprising, given the scaremongering tactics of, and misleading material distributed by, what might be considered responsible bodies. It is little wonder that parents put their names to petitions and to pro forma letters that are printed by the hundred by schools when local education authorities encourage them to do so.
  Bodies such as the Carmarthenshire Head Teachers Federation and the Clwyd Federation of Primary School Head Teachers have sent letters and material to parents in schools that are blatantly misleading, suggesting that LEA schools will be obliged to move from full-time to part-time provision, that parents will have to pay to make it up to full-time provision, that school budgets will be cut and that provision for three-year-olds will be reduced. That is misleading, mischievous and incorrect.
  We have been told that the cost of administering the scheme—in effect, the contractor's cost—could have been given to LEAs to top up existing provision to achieve 100 per cent. cover. Why do Opposition Members think that only the LEAs have the right to provide education for four-year-olds, that LEAs always know what is best for children and that parents should meekly accept what is on offer and be grateful for it? I repeat, for the benefit of Opposition Members, that the Government believe in choice for parents, but that there is a price to pay for giving them that choice—and that is a price we are prepared to pay.
  I refer to the threat to provision for three-year-olds. The threat is in the minds of those who conceive the voucher scheme only as a means of depriving local authorities of funding, of those who still do not seem to comprehend, despite all the assurances that we have given, that we will transfer no more than the value of the voucher—£1,100—from local authority funding per four-year-old place. I remind hon. Members that LEAs can continue to spend more than £1,100 per four-year-old place if that is what they want, and the funding made available for three-year-old provision will not be affected. There is no reason why the voucher scheme should affect provision for three-year-olds.
  Any thinking LEA would say to itself, "If we increase the provision for three-year-olds, surely that will lead them to continue in the maintained sector when they become four-year-olds." In other words, there is an incentive for local education authorities to increase the provision to three-year-olds.
  I welcome the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. It has made many interesting comments and I congratulate it on considering the voucher scheme thoroughly and expeditiously. I shall comment on its report in due course. I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North has said. I do not agree that the Select Committee's conclusions and comments on the voucher scheme are devastating.
  I refer to the issue of a separate pilot phase for Wales. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the purpose of phase 1 of the pilot scheme was to look at procedures and mechanisms for the voucher scheme, and no more than that. We can learn as much from phase 1 in England as we could have done had we had a phase 1 in Wales. I made it perfectly clear, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, that had anyone come forward and offered to run the pilot scheme in Wales, we would have seriously considered the offer. However,
  248
  because of the political control under which, sadly, local education authorities operate in Wales, no one came forward and offered to run a pilot scheme.
  Mr. Dafis: Is the Minister saying that the only purpose of the pilot scheme in England is to look at procedures, not to look at the effect of the voucher scheme on existing provision? The second factor ought to be a part of the consideration for the voucher scheme. If it were the case, there would be every justification for having a pilot scheme in Wales.
  Mr. Richards: The primary purpose of the pilot scheme is to look at procedures and mechanisms for implementing the voucher scheme. Clearly, there are secondary issues, such as monitoring of the impact of the voucher scheme. That is self-evident. That gain is external to the introduction of the voucher scheme.
  I urge hon. Members to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Dafis: I am disappointed that the Minister has not been prepared to make any concessions, particularly on the pilot scheme. I trust that that issue can be proposed and discussed in another place. I hope that there is more flexibility at that time. The Government ought to listen carefully to informed public opinion in Wales and provide us with that significant concession. Having said that, and in the full confidence that the matter will be discussed in the other place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 27, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'for' to end of line 16 and insert
  'children (whether at schools or other premises)—

  (a) before their first school term starting after their fifth birthday (or, if they do not attend school, before such broadly corresponding time as may be prescribed), but

  (b) after such earlier time as may be prescribed (whether by reference to their having attained a particular age or any other circumstances).'.

  No. 28, in page 1, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
  '( ) Grants may be made under arrangements under this section—

  (a) to local education authorities in respect of nursery education provided at schools maintained by them, and

  (b) to authorities and other persons of such descriptions as may be prescribed in respect of nursery education provided by them.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 3

  REQUIREMENTS
  Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
  '(4) Such requirements shall include a duty upon an authority or other person to whom a grant is paid to publish the criteria for admission to any education provided by them by virtue of any grant under this Act, including any fees or supplementary payments relating to the admission of any child.'.
  This is a new subsection to clause 3, which relates to requirements that the Secretary of State may put on providers of the new so-called nursery education, which we know will not quite appear as it does today. Optimism was expressed time and again by the Government in

  249
  Committee as to the providers who will emerge—I will not say from the woodwork, but from the ground or from wherever—to provide all the necessary places for those who may be eligible for vouchers. At no stage have the Government told us how this will happen. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside on 15 January 1996 at column 471, they provided a table showing the large number of new places that would be necessary in addition to those that already exist in maintained nursery schools, in maintained classes and in reception classes of primary schools.
  It is true that there will be some existing private places in various areas, but the figures are extraordinary. In Norfolk—one of the counties under test, and the only one outside London—there are places for at most 40 per cent. of four-year-olds now, which means that at least half the children aged four in the county will require new places as soon as the next school year. Unless my figures—which I obtained in answers to parliamentary questions—are wrong, about 10,000 places will be required in Norfolk alone.
  8.30 pm
  There may be a deficit. Perhaps fewer providers will present themselves. In time, the number of providers may increase, but we do not know. We also do not know who they will be. They might be firms from abroad; they might be supermarkets. If Compagnie Générate des Eaux can own what was the London and Brighton Railway, I suppose that it can own Brighton and South Coast Schools plc—I do not know, but it is all within the ambit of the legislation.
  Importantly, there may well be an initial deficit of places, in which case it would be possible for certain things to happen. I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Employment:
  "what guidance she has given to accepted, or potential providers of early-years education concerning selection of children, or parents, holding vouchers relating to them, when valid applications for places exceed the capacity of the settings they are authorised, or able, to provide"—
  the settings being the various types of accommodation and teaching available to pupils. The answer—from the Minister of State, as it happens—was thus:
  "Places will be allocated according to providers' admissions criteria which they will be required to publish."—[Official Report, 7 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 348.]
  In other words, it would be possible for an admissions criterion to be a fee or an additional fee or the provision by parents of additional sums of money for this, that or the other—which, alas, happens all too often in our existing maintained schools.
  I am therefore proposing amendment No. 42, which makes the following important provision:
  "Such requirements shall include a duty upon an authority or other person to whom a grant is paid to publish the criteria for admission to any education provided by them by virtue of any grant under this Act, including any fees or supplementary payments related to the admission of any child."
  I should have thought that the amendment would appeal to the Conservative party and the Government, purely on the ground that, if those conditions are available to the
  250
  provider, as the Minister has said, and if there is a possibility—so far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent it in the Bill—of fees or supplementary payments being charged, they would want the parents to know, would they not?
  This is all about parents' choice, the choice of the different settings and the different qualifications of the teachers and all the great choices that will now be laid before us—a feast of educational choice, according to the Minister and all the apologists for the scheme. We must therefore have information as to whether there are any additional payments. I should have thought that the Government would welcome the amendment on those grounds alone—giving freedom of choice to parents who hold vouchers. Many people may be disappointed because a voucher does not mean a place. It was said in Committee that any fee or additional payment should be advertised, and there should be a provision in the Bill to show that it is a duty of the provider so to publish.
  Mr. Richards: The amendment seeks to ensure that providers covered by the grant arrangements publish their admission policy, and fees relating to admission, as a requirement of grant.
  We have already made clear our commitment, as set out in the next steps document, to make it a requirement of grant for providers to publish information for parents. I refer the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to pages 16 and 17—especially page 17—of that document. This is important, as it will enable parents to make informed decisions about their preferred choice of provider, and help to lever up standards. The document includes a list of information that providers will need to cover in their prospectuses, which includes the admission policy and, where applicable, the fee policy. Similar requirements will be applied in Wales.
  I do not think, therefore, that the amendment is necessary. We are committed to ensuring that providers publish such information for parents, but it would be inappropriate to include that type of detail about the nature of the requirements of grant on the face of the Bill.
  I urge the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Spearing: The Minister's answer is extraordinary because, in the course of very few sentences, he contradicted himself. He referred to the so-called next steps document and pages 16 and 17, where there is a heading "Information for Parents". On page 17, it does say "fees (where applicable)" but if it is so important, why is it only in those guidelines? We have heard about guidelines before. If it is so important, and if parents are so important, and all this information is so important—especially on matters of the pocket, of supplementary money—self-evidently it should be in the Bill and thus in the Act.
  I find the Minister's response so astounding that I am sure that the matter will be discussed at another time and in another place, where there is more time to go into it. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

  POWER TO BORROW
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I beg to move amendment No. 15, line 36, at end insert—
  '(3A) The Secretary of State may not give consent under subsection (6) of section 68 of the Education Act 1993 unless he is satisfied that—

  (a) the school will be able both to repay the sum borrowed and to pay interest thereon without recourse to additional grant from the funding authority for schools; and

  (b) the borrowing is not to be secured against core fixed assets
  and he shall by regulations specify the definition of core fixed assets for the purposes of this subsection.'.

  The amendment seeks to safeguard grant-maintained borrowing. That raised much raucous laughter in Committee, because members of the Government could not understand how we would wish to protect the interests of schools that may or may not have opted for grant-maintained status but necessarily remain part of the educational fabric and will shortly be integrated into a new framework of local management of schools.
  The amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill safeguards that were set out in the earlier consultation on that issue by the Department for Education and Employment, for which the Government repeated their support in Committee.
  Mr. Pawsey: May we tease the hon. Gentleman to say a little more about the way in which grant-maintained schools will be reintegrated?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: It is a very simple matter, which we have well rehearsed on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The hon. Gentleman well knows that we propose a tripartite system of schools—community schools, aided schools and foundation schools—and that grant-maintained schools will be part of that. We are great advocates of that; we are not great advocates of a status that advantages a small number of schools to the disadvantage of many.
  In Committee, while expressing support for the underlying objectives of such safeguards, Ministers argued that advice to the Funding Agency for Schools on considering applications—through a remit letter, whatever that might mean—would set out those safeguards and that it would be best to leave decisions to administrative discretion in the light of specific local circumstances rather than set out the safeguards in legislation. Indeed, we have been told several times that that will include a requirement for grant-maintained schools to prove their case first to the Funding Agency for Schools.
  Opposition Members should be forgiven if we take such assurances with a large pinch of salt. I, for one, recall the assurances that the Opposition were given that grant-maintained status in itself would not be extended to schools that were due to be closed under the surplus places proposals, but that somersault took place in the face of a decline in the number of applications for grant-maintained status at that time. While that programme continues to grind to a halt, a desperate Government are liable to do anything to encourage schools to become grant-maintained.
  252
  The amendment provides an opportunity to probe further into the nature of the remit letter and what factors the Funding Agency for Schools for England should bear in mind when considering whether assets are core assets. It will also provide an opportunity to explore the links between core assets and the new Education (School Premises) Regulations, which were approved yesterday against strong opposition from Labour Members. We argue that links between the two proposals are indissoluble.
  On the question of the relevance of inserting these safeguards into legislation, it might be sensible to stress that little should be left to chance when defining the terms under which such borrowing can take place because we are dealing with the future of education for the nation's children. Placing conditions in the Bill will help to ensure that there is no abuse of borrowing arrangements, and that the effect on children's education will be limited. At the very least, this debate will provide useful material in Hansard for hon. Members to digest and it should provide some further insight on the status of a remit letter.
  I do not mean to suggest that there will be any impropriety by schools, but some school governors might feel that they can embark on a set of proposals for which they are particularly ill-suited because they do not have the depth of experience or knowledge. We examined that possibility in great detail in the debate. I expect that the Minister will come back on that and say that that is the role of the FAS, but many Opposition Members would argue that that agency is very partial when it comes to reflecting the whims of Government policy.
  The Under-Secretary of State's contributions on core assets in the Standing Committee were less than clear. He argued that there was a proposed working definition of core assets, covering those that are
  "essential to a school's function or needed to meet statutory requirements."
  He then explained the problem of providing such a definition because circumstances in schools varied—of course they vary. The FAS should decide instead on a case-by-case basis, though he suggested two rules of thumb:
  "Is the asset essential to allow the school to meet statutory requirements? Is the asset essential to its functions in other respects?"
  Later still, he suggested:
  "The starting assumption of the Funding Agency for Schools for England is that all school buildings are core assets. It would be open to a school to argue when it submits its loan application to the FAS that particular buildings are not essential to the school's functioning".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 22 February 1996; c. 406–7.]
  Which is it to be? Who will decide—the FAS or the school itself? How will a remote body, such as the FAS, be able to assess whether a school's assertion that an asset is not essential is accurate? Should not the views and advice of parents, governors and the local education authority—which would still have an overarching responsibility in the vast majority of local education areas—be sought? Would it not be more sensible to set out in regulations a framework against which applications should be judged? Could not that include some scope for local discretion?
  We believe that it would be far better for the legislation to go further and spell out detail along the lines set out in the earlier consultation. When the Minister responds and

  253
  defines core assets, perhaps she will tell us which of the following, many of which I adumbrated in Committee, are open for use as collateral: classrooms; subject rooms such as art, drama, photography and history rooms; common areas such as assembly halls and gymnasiums; common open areas, including those that are planted with grass or landscaped, and car parks; playing fields; playgrounds; office accommodation for senior staff, which is particularly appropriate because we expect that there will be more administration, whether in grant-maintained or locally managed schools; and staff rooms and rooms made available to sixth formers or to pupils for club activities—we know that such provision was singularly lacking in the regulations passed yesterday, but there are still references to that type of provision in the guidelines.
  8.45 pm
  Could any of the following be used as collateral: accommodation for caretakers and other staff, science laboratories, technology rooms and workshops, audio-visual and theatre facilities, swimming pools or libraries? The list is endless. We would like the Minister to tell us which of those core assets will covered by the legislation.
  I should like to tell the Minister about three of my recent experiences in schools while travelling around the country. I do not expect her to comment on individual schools, and I know that she has already declined to comment on one, for very good reason, but I think that my experiences can serve as good illustrations of the problems that schools face.
  The first school was the Monk Fryston Church of England primary school, in the Selby area of Yorkshire. That school was originally built for 40 children, but it now takes in 120 children. We can argue all we like about the way in which one classroom serves as the school hall, gymnasium, dining room and storage room, or about the overcrowding of the various facilities there. Outside that school, however, encroaching on the playgrounds—which were conveniently taken out of the Education (School Premises) Regulations last night—are demountables. Are they core assets?
  As I mentioned demountables, the second example came to mind. Last Friday, I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) at Sowerby Bridge high school. I have also noted what the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) said in the debate about the time when he was education chairman for Calderdale, when that school was pleading for new demountables, some of which had been there for 40 years as temporary accommodation. The hon. Gentleman was subsequently elected as a Member of Parliament, and he has presumably failed to advance the case of that high school and its problems with its 13 demountables. Are they core assets? I doubt very much whether Sowerby Bridge high school could deliver the national curriculum without those demountables. Are they permanent features?
  The third example is probably one of the strangest I have encountered, and I have travelled to many schools. I was recently at a primary school in Gravesham, which is adjacent, on a very large site, to a grant-maintained secondary school. The peculiarity is that the primary school is on one part of an open site. After a forced route
  254
  march, one gets to the other half of the school, which is part of a quadrangle, three parts of which belong to the secondary school. That is a grant-maintained school. One has to cross the playground to get to the primary school. I wonder which is the core asset. We know that, under the minimum space regulations, schools have been allowed much latitude in terms of playgrounds, but is the playground a core asset? Is it a core asset of the secondary grant-maintained school, or is it a core asset of that primary school given that it provides access from one half of the school to the other?
  I know that the Minister wants to reply, so I shall conclude soon. We have more than 24,000 schools. We know that only a small minority of them—about 1,100—are in the grant-maintained sector, but policies affecting grant-maintained schools have a habit of being introduced for other schools. I am sure that many of the grant-maintained schools are also in difficult circumstances.
  I can foresee that, without a definition of core assets, many problems will arise when loans are taken out on the basis of core assets. I foresee at least two results. First, it will damage the provision of what we term core education and, in particular, provision of the national curriculum. Secondly, unless we are extremely careful, someone else will pick up the tab for it. In Committee, we were told that governors would not be jointly and severally liable, which I accept, but we were also told that no guarantee will be provided by the Secretary of State or the FAS. That being so, and if one cannot convince potential lenders that they have an asset that is a realisable security, why, for goodness sake, does clause 6 provide for such borrowing? We asked the same question repeatedly in Committee. A paradox seems to exist and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain it to the House.
  Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has clearly marked out the difference between the Opposition and the Government on this important matter. We are in favour of the careful and prudent use of taxpayers' money, but the Government are quite happy about the careless and imprudent use of the exceedingly limited resources for school buildings.
  The Opposition know that clause 6 is largely superfluous. I have already spoken to a number of grant-maintained school heads and their governors, who cannot conceive how they will find the money from their revenue budgets to pay back the loans envisaged under the Bill. They do not understand what part of their land or buildings they could use as collateral against such loans.
  As I said to the Minister in Committee, even a modest building in a school could cost up to £500,000 to provide. At the very minimum, a school would have to pay back about £50,000 a year out of its revenue budget to finance that building. That is approximately the cost of two and a half teachers. That repayment could go on not just for one or two years but for between 10 and 30 years. Such is the length of time that that school would have to forgo teachers in order to provide for the new building. Unfortunately, the Government are trying to treat schools rather like businesses, but very few comparisons can be properly made.

  255
  Yes, we are happy that schools should have financial autonomy, but no, schools do not have an unlimited ability to expand. Of course, schools get most of their money from the public purse.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jamieson: Time is short and the hon. Gentleman seems to have just popped in for a few minutes, so he will understand why I will not give way to him.
  The amendment would ensure, as any lender would in other circumstances, that the borrower could pay back the money. The key question is whether a borrower can pay back the loan and the interest. It seems infinitely sensible to the Opposition that that safeguard should be included in the Bill. We want to know that that borrowing can be repaid without further recourse to other funds that a school may call upon the Funding Agency for Schools to provide.
  The amendment would also ensure that the borrowing is not made against core assets. At this stage we need a clear definition of the core assets against which a school cannot borrow. No clear definition is supplied in the Bill. It is important to know that definition because, if a school defaulted on its payments, are we to assume that those assets could be repossessed? Could the bailiffs go into the science room and take the equipment out? Is that what the Minister is suggesting? If not, what is the point of using those assets as collateral? Children's education is far too important to be left to the vagaries in the Bill. We need a clear definition of the core assets.
  We are told that the Funding Agency for Schools will consider loan applications. If, once the Bill is enacted, the agency received between 100 and 200 applications, to how much scrutiny would it subject each of those bids? Will it find time to send officials to look closely at a school's buildings and assets to see whether they meet the definition of core assets? Those of us who sat on the Committee considering the Education Bill in 1993 will know that we were told that the Funding Agency for Schools would have a light touch. If it is required to scrutinise in detail loan applications, that is not equivalent to a light touch. For that reason, the Bill needs to contain a clear definition of core assets.
  What we need, and, most of all, what parents and governors need, is a yardstick against which the applications will be measured. The Opposition appreciate that the matter is too important to be left to the terms of the Bill as currently drafted. The Bill should contain a clearer definition of core assets. I invite the Minister to make that clear to us now.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The one thing that the Opposition cannot bear is the success of the Government's education policy—for example, on the national curriculum, testing and, in particular, grant-maintained schools. Those schools are successful and well run. They have demonstrated that they know how to use self-governing status wisely. We want to recognise that fact by giving them the additional freedom to borrow money on the commercial market.
  Amendment No. 15 would include in the Bill some of the Government's proposed administrative safeguards on borrowing by GM schools. We have made it clear on a
  256
  number of occasions that those schools will be allowed to borrow only if they can service any debt from their income without prejudicing their main business. I can assure the House that there is no question of the Government making additional grant available to GM schools to allow them to take out larger loans. Recurrent funding for GM schools will continue to be directly related, as it is now, to the funds received by schools maintained by local education authorities.
  The other part of the amendment relates to core assets. I can confirm that GM schools will not be allowed to offer core assets—those that are essential to their functioning—as collateral. I am pleased to see that the Opposition have taken on board those proposals and agree with us about the need for safeguards on commercial borrowing by GM schools.
  Safeguards are necessary for three main reasons: first, to protect the public interest in publicly funded assets; secondly, to ensure that schools can continue to provide education in accordance with their statutory responsibilities; and thirdly, to maintain public accountability for the use of public funds.
  Although we agree with the Opposition about the need for safeguards, we think that applying them in the form implied by the amendment will introduce unnecessary inflexibility. We resisted similar amendments in Committee. We resist amendment No. 15 because we take a sensible and consistent view about what should properly be contained in primary legislation and what should not.
  That represents the essential difference between our approach and that of the Opposition. We are in favour of choice and diversity, whereas the Labour party is in favour of uniformity and prescription from the centre. In diversifying circumstances, it is entirely inappropriate for such detail to be prescribed in legislation. We want to leave GM schools the ability to act effectively.
  I can understand that the Labour party, which seeks to prescribe a uniform system, would want to enter every small, detailed point in primary legislation. Even if we agree with the general objective, we do not want to reach it by some form of Procrustean bed.
  Opposition Members also want us to define in regulations what is a core fixed asset. That is both unnecessary and undesirable, although we understand the concerns that underlie it. Defining core assets in regulations is difficult because the circumstances of individual schools vary so widely.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) repeated word for word what we said in Committee, so he knows our two simple rules of thumb: whether the asset is essential to allow the school to meet statutory requirements and whether it is essential to its functioning in other respects. I am pleased that he appears to have listened carefully in Committee as he noticed that the starting assumption of the Funding Agency for Schools is that all buildings are core assets.
  I hope that Opposition Members recognise that, although we share their concerns about the importance of protecting publicly funded assets, such decisions are best left to administrative discretion in the light of specific local circumstances.
  In Committee, Opposition Members produced a number of powerful arguments against their own amendment. They gave us a long list of facilities—

  257
  including photographic studios, gymnasiums, information technology rooms, assembly halls, sports halls and landscaped areas—that they thought should be defined in regulations as core assets.
  We agree that such units may well be essential to a school's functioning, but whether they are or not depends on such considerations as the use to which governors wish to put them and the other facilities that are available on the school's site—in other words, on specific local circumstances. Opposition Members think that photographic studios should be core assets, but what if a school has two? Should they both be core assets? The answer will depend on local conditions and it does not make sense to anticipate all possible contingencies in regulations.
  9 pm
  I thought that the House would want to know the reason for the legislation, as Opposition Members have asked. They have often alluded to the fact that schools would not want to borrow. I am pleased to say that a school in the south-east wants to borrow funds and extend its buildings and has already, in anticipation of the Bill, had discussions with bankers in principle about a loan. Two schools in the south-east intend to borrow £500,000 each, in both cases to finance the construction of a performing arts centre. Another wants to borrow to improve its sports facilities. A school in East Anglia is currently preparing a substantial project to be financed by borrowing. Another in the south-east intends to borrow money to build a new caretaker's house.
  The grant-maintained school movement has been a great success for the Government. Opposition Members take every possible opportunity to try to scupper the grant-maintained movement. To put it into perspective, the hon. Member for Walton has said on many occasions—but it bears repetition—
  "The Minister cannot be in any doubt that we"—
  in the Labour party—
  "have made a firm commitment to abolish GM status because it is not compatible with our new arrangements for schools."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 22 February 1996; c. 373.]
  That is another Procrustean bed.
  The amendment is not necessary. It is a mischievous, dog-in-a-manager amendment. The Opposition want to get rid of grant-maintained schools, but they want to spoil them on the way. I urge all my hon. Friends to vote against this useless amendment.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Lady has evinced on many occasions her interest in all matters concerning the regions of outer space between the galaxies. She has a far more informed knowledge of the core of the galaxy than she has of core assets. It is the height of gall that she should accuse us of having stolen the Government's ideas on core assets.
  Conservative Members might argue that we explored GM borrowing ad nauseam. As for the Procrustean beds that the hon. Lady accuses us of desiring, there must be a black hole in my knowledge of Greek mythology. I put it down to the notion that working-class heroes like myself were lucky to find a potato sack on the dock road.
  258
  The proposals put forward by the hon. Lady tonight will do nothing to advance the educational interests of the vast majority of our children. More importantly from the hon. Lady's perspective, they will do absolutely nothing to encourage the grant-maintained sector. That is evidenced by its response, which was mentioned on the front page of The Times Educational Supplement several weeks ago: less than 5 per cent. of grant-maintained schools bothered to respond. Overwhelmingly, grant-maintained schools were not interested in taking on further debt.
  Given the Government's failure to make a clear commitment on what core assets ought to be, so that schools can guarantee the delivery of the national curriculum, we feel impelled to vote for the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 271.

  Division No. 83]

  [9.04 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Alton, David

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barron, Kevin

  Denham, John

  Battle, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bell, Stuart

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Benton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Etherington, Bill

  Berry, Roger

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Betts, Clive

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foulkes, George

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burden, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Byers, Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Garrett, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Chidgey, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Church, Judith

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clapham, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coffey, Ann

  Gunnell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hall, Mike

  Connarty, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cummings, John

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  259

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Olner, Bill

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mùn)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rendel, David

  Keen, Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

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

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rogers, Allan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Litherland, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Livingstone, Ken

  Short, Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Simpson, Alan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McCartney, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McKelvey, William

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  MacShane, Denis

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Alice

  Timms, Stephen

  Marek, Dr John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Touhig, Don

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Trickett Jon

  Martlew, Eric

  Turner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Meale, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Michael, Alun

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Watson, Mike

  Milburn, Alan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Miller, Andrew

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Wise, Audrey

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Peter Hain.

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ashby, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Amess, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bates, Michael

  260

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gallie, Phil

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Booth, Hartley

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boswell, Tim

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bowis, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hawksley, Warren

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cash, William

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Horam, John

  Clappison, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Couchman, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Day, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Key, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

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

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Elletson, Harold

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Faber, David

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  261

  Marland, Paul

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mates, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Merchant, Piers

  Spring, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Sproat, Iain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Stewart, Allan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sumberg, David

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sykes, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thomason, Roy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Paice, James

  Thomton, Sir Malcolm

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trend, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pickles, Eric

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walden, George

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Ward, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Richards, Rod

  Waterson, Nigel

  Riddick, Graham

  Watts, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whitney, Ray

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Willetts, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Wilshire, David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Garry Streeter and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

  ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 2, line 40, at beginning insert—
  '( ) In this Act "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
  No. 30, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
  ', and (b) may contain such incidental, supplementary, saving or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.'.—[Mr. Robin Squire.]

Schedule 1

  NURSERY EDUCATION GRANTS: INSPECTIONS ETC.
  Amendments made: No. 31, in page 5, line 5, leave out
  262
  'by regulations made by the Secretary of State'.
  No. 32, in page 6, line 6, leave out
  'the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe'
  and insert 'may be prescribed'.
  No. 33, in page 7, leave out lines 44 to 46 and insert—
  '13.—(1) Where a person has conducted an inspection under paragraph 6 he shall make his report in writing to the Chief Inspector within such period as may be prescribed, subject to any extension not exceeding three months which the Chief Inspector may consider necessary.
  (2) Once the report of an inspection has been made to the Chief Inspector under sub-paragraph (1) he shall without delay send a copy of it to such authorities and persons as may be prescribed.'.—[Mr. Robin Squire.]

Schedule 2

  NURSERY EDUCATION GRANTS: DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
  Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 8, line 26, leave out from 'Office' to end of line 29.
  The amendment, which perhaps was missed in Committee, might be described as a gentle probing amendment. It proposes the deletion of paragraph l(l)(b), which states that the schedule applies to
  "any person exercising any function by virtue of section 2 and any persons who are employed by (or are directors or other officers of) any such person or who carry out the administrative work of any such person."
  The schedule relates to the disclosure of information about social security
  Paragraph 2 of the schedule states:
  "The Secretary of State may supply to any person to whom this Schedule applies any such social security information as the person may require for or in connection with the exercise of any function relating to grants in respect of nursery education."
  The Bill is legally interesting: it is written in high legal code. In order to understand what the schedule means, we must find out what persons are involved in section 2—or clause 2, as it currently is. Clause 2 states:
  "Arrangements under section 1 may provide for grants to be made, or other functions relating to grants to be exercised, otherwise than by the Secretary of State."
  I am glad to see that the present Secretary of State is here, waiting for Third Reading, to which we shall come shortly.
  Because schedule 2 gives authorisation to "any person", the Secretary of State and her successors can ask any other person to take over any function relating to grants involving so-called nursery education. That person can be a provider; the provider could presumably be Capita or its successors, or any sub-contractor—if that is allowed in the contract—or, indeed, any number of people. The possibilities are mind-boggling.
  That person could be an employee of such a provider of education, a director of a nationwide firm, or—dare I mention it again—of an international firm, who supplies education by virtue of being a provider, whether for one school or for a large number. Schedule 2 empowers the Secretary of State to supply a whole range of people: sub-contractors, providers, some voluntary, some mutual, some, perhaps, private firms, with an unimaginable range

  263
  of information relating to social security. Later in the schedule is printed half a page of what will happen to those people if they misuse that information.
  I want to know—I think that the Minister can now tell us—why social security information must be disclosed to such a wide range of people. It is unlikely now that even the head of a school—he or she would probably not dream of doing so—has any right to go to the social security office to obtain information about the circumstances of a parent. I cannot see that happening. It may happen, but I very much doubt it. Schedule 2 gives legal effect on a whole range of people who are not professional teachers or members of a local education authority, but who instead can be in a myriad of private firms involved in the execution of this important Bill.
  Will the Minister explain why on earth that power is in the Bill? Will it go as widely as I think the Bill suggests? Should it not be cut down a great deal?
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman has impressed us throughout the Bill with his concern on many matters, but I often think that he is just a little off beam. We are all concerned to maintain the confidentiality of social security information. It is essential that we exert a great deal of care over the way in which that information is used and who has access to it. That is why schedule 2 makes it an offence to breach that confidentiality and sets out the penalties that would be incurred by anyone who did so.
  If the contractor appointed to run the scheme was unable to have access to the child benefit centre database, that would result in a poorer service for parents, the contractor would be unable to offer as much help over the parents' queries and it would take longer for voucher applications to be processed. It could result in more expensive administration. It would require the involvement of the child benefit centre in the administration of the scheme, which would add extra stages to the processing of voucher applications. Finally, it would give us a less secure system, because checks to prevent fraudulent requests for vouchers would be more difficult to carry out.
  The hon. Gentleman's amendment would place an unnecessary restriction on the supply of that information and would be detrimental to the administration of the scheme. Therefore, I hope to be able to persuade him to withdraw it.
  Mr. Spearing: I said that it was a probing amendment, and the Minister has been partly helpful. I was not deleting the penalties. Far from it; they are essential. It is clear that the administration of the scheme will be very much involved—rather like housing benefit—in the social security system. I put a big question mark over that. It might be necessary to obtain some information relating to social security to avoid fraud, but that is not one of the purposes of the Bill.
  I conclude from what the Minister said that schedule 2 is a means of integrating the administration of the scheme, which is complex in itself, with the social security machinery of the locality, or perhaps a wider region, or even a national scale. That is new, and although it may be implicit in the minds of the Department and of Whitehall, it could perhaps be done in a more expeditious and economic way. That matter will engage those concerned in further stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 34, in page 8, line 30, leave out from second 'information' to 'was' in line 33 and insert
  'of a prescribed description which'.—[Mrs. Gillan.]

Schedule 3

  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 35, in page 11, line 6, at end insert—
  '. In section 162 of that Act (provision by local education authority of goods and services in connection with special educational needs), after subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) A local education authority may supply goods or services to any authority or other person (other than a governing body within subsection (1) above) for the purpose only of assisting them in making for any child in respect of whose education grants are (or are to be) made under arrangements under section 1 of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996 any special educational provision which any learning difficulty of the child calls for.".'.
  No. 36, in page 11, line 6, at end insert—
  '. In section 305(1) of that Act (interpretation), before the definition of "financial year" insert—
  " "the Education Acts" means the Education Acts 1944 to 1996,".
  .In section 306 of that Act (index), before the entry relating to "financial year" insert—
  "the Education Acts section 305(1)".'. —[Mrs. Gillan.]

Schedule 4

  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 37, in page 11, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert—
  'In section 308(2), the words "(referred to in this Act as "the Education Acts")".'.
  [Mrs. Gillan.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.24 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill is about promoting choice, diversity and standards in education, and those have been at the heart of the Government's education reforms. I shall deal first with choice. It is parents who know what is best for their children, and it is teachers, parents and governors who know what is best for pupils at local schools. The Bill will, over time, deliver choice to parents who want to give their four-year-olds the best possible start in life, and it will extend the range of options that are open to grant-maintained school governors who want to improve the facilities that they provide for pupils.
  Secondly, I shall deal with diversity. In order to have genuine choice, there must be diversity of provision. The Bill will encourage such diversity. It will expand the provision of the good-quality nursery education that parents want in the maintained, the private and the voluntary sectors. It will help to drive up standards by providing good-quality, inspected education with agreed

  265
  outcomes for all four-year-olds, and it will allow grant-maintained schools to build on their individual strengths by acquiring appropriate new assets. In short, the Bill will help parents, teachers and governors to make their own decisions about their own affairs.
  I was pleased to note the extent of agreement in Committee and in the House today about the importance of good-quality nursery education. We want a significant expansion of nursery education. Over time, the expansion will lead to a place for every four-year-old whose parents want one, and we have no intention of compromising on quality. We already have the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's desirable learning outcomes. These goals for pre-school education resulted from extensive consultation and command widespread support among parents and professionals. The Bill contains proposals for an inspection system under Ofsted which will ensure that all providers are working towards those goals.
  I note the concerns about staff qualifications, ratios and premises. Those matters are important and nursery education providers are in no doubt about what is required of them, but it will be up to them to decide how to achieve the goals that we have set.
  Dr. Hampson: Will there be flexibility about how those standards are determined? Much of our debate on Report was about standards seemingly being related to buildings, the size of the classroom and classroom facilities and so on. In my constituency there are hardly any local authority-provided nursery facilities, and about half of them would not meet the requirements on buildings and classrooms that Opposition Members insisted upon in our earlier debate. I am talking about places that are provided by local authorities in their buildings. We have to acknowledge, do we not, that it is about standards of teaching and not—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):Order. This is an inordinately long intervention.
  Mrs. Shephard: Of course the arrangements will be interpreted flexibly, but it is important that the educational outcomes and inspections are considered and applied with great care because our quality controls are clearly focused on the outcome, which is good-quality education for four-year-olds. That is what matters most and the twin pillars of the SCAA's desirable learning outcomes and Ofsted's inspection framework will help institutions to achieve such quality. Most importantly, the introduction of nursery education vouchers will put parents in the driving seat.
  Ms Hodge: In Norfolk after 1 April, when parents, one presumes, have their £1,100 voucher, but find that they have no place, to whom will they turn—to the school, to the local education authority, to Capita or to the Government? Who is responsible for not giving that choice to those parents in April?
  Mrs. Shephard: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but 388 providers from the voluntary and private sectors are registered for the scheme and there will be 22 new nursery units. Those providers in Norfolk must provide only eight places each to ensure that every child
  266
  in Norfolk who is eligible for a place but who has no place in local education authority provision will have one provided in the private and voluntary sectors. I recognise that that is a disappointment to her, but that is how it is.
  Local authorities and other providers already do much for four-year-olds in a variety of ways. The Bill will not necessarily change the pattern or diversity of provision where that provision is good, where it meets parents' needs and where that is what they choose. Vouchers will be a stimulus to parents and providers alike. It is parents who will choose the right setting for their children. Our proposals will ensure that providers are responsive to what parents want.
  One Wandsworth head teacher said:
  "This arrangement"—
  the voucher scheme—
  "pushes me to raise standards. We cannot afford to be lax or complacent. Anything that forces me to give my utmost should be welcomed."
  Another said:
  "If private nurseries are providing a better quality of education and my parents are looking to go out there, then I want to see what they are providing, and improve my position. That's what it's about. That's what education is about."
  Parents naturally have the highest aspirations for their children. Our proposals will allow them to realise those aspirations. Unlike Opposition Members, we believe in fulfilling the aspirations of all parents. In contrast, Opposition Members would deny to other people's children the opportunities that they seize eagerly for their own. When nursery education will be extended for the first time and funded to the tune of a total of £750 million to every parent who wants it in this country, with an inspection framework and with agreed educational outcomes, I find it extraordinary that all we should hear from the Labour party is a collective whine about such education not being confined to the public sector. How well that illustrates that, despite its new designer vocabulary, which extends to knowing the word "diversity", it is still locked in the grip of institutions at the expense of individuals' interests.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State did not have the opportunity to join us in Committee, but she will have discovered from her ministerial colleagues that, throughout the deliberations in Committee, no hon. Member from either side of the Committee suggested that the state sector was the only way in which high-quality provision could be made. Does she agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that high-quality provision can be made by a mixture of state, private and voluntary sector provision?
  Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear it and pleased that, during a few short weeks, my colleagues have achieved such good conversions among Opposition Members.
  We are already beginning to see the fruits of our plans in the four authorities involved in phase 1. Interest in the scheme has been great. In the phase 1 regions, more than 600 private and voluntary sector providers have registered to join the scheme, alongside maintained schools. Of those, at least 40 have no four-year-olds now and will be providing new places. Some 200 providers have

  267
  already inquired about phase 2. The helpline has taken more than 20,000 calls from parents and others and some 95,000 copies of the information pack are in circulation.
  It gives me great satisfaction that children and parents in those regions will shortly benefit. The first vouchers are already in the hands of parents.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that North Yorkshire education authority has not joined the pilot scheme—even though it claims, rightly, that the majority of four-year-olds are provided for in nursery education? Will she confirm that local authority provision is not threatened by the Bill? Does she agree that a written answer by our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary stating that there are still some 880,000 surplus school places shows that there is plenty of capacity for expansion of nursery education in the state system?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right. I am delighted that the time draws nearer for North Yorkshire children and other children and parents throughout England and Wales to benefit from phase 2 of the scheme, under this Bill.
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: I want to ask my right hon. Friend the same question I asked on Second Reading, in common with other hon. Friends—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who spoke earlier—about the assessment of phase 1. Will she reiterate her view that there will be genuine assessment; that if there are lessons to be learnt, they will be; and that where something does not work, it will not be imposed in phase 2 without that fact being taken into account?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in these matters. I assure him that we shall evaluate exactly how the scheme works as phase 1 proceeds. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already given an assurance that we shall consider evidence from the inspections when they come on stream this autumn.
  I need to make some speedy progress, so I will not take further interventions. I shall also curtail what I had planned to say to give other hon. Members time to speak.
  The second part of the Bill concerns grant-maintained schools, which are a success story. There are now 1,100 stretching from Devon to Cumbria. They include schools large and small; primary, secondary and special. Parents from all walks of life make GM schools their first choice. Those parents include several hon. Members—indeed, some distinguished Labour Members—who obviously appreciate the freedoms that enable GM schools to produce such excellent results. It is a pity that their views are not shared by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). His plans would destroy the essence of the GM schools that some of his colleagues enjoy. We, on the other hand, have always said that self-governing status would be successful. Parents also say so when they vote for schools to become self-governing, and now Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has confirmed it.
  Since 1989, the schools have built up a well-deserved reputation for high standards, excellence of provision and popularity with parents. That is because they believe in
  268
  themselves and in what is best for pupils. It is small wonder that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and several of their colleagues are queuing up for places at GM schools for their own children. [Interruption.] GM schools quite naturally want to provide the best possible facilities for their pupils—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated interventions.
  Mrs. Shephard: Commercial borrowing will provide additional resources on top of grants already available. Controls on borrowing operated by the Funding Agency for Schools, on behalf of the holder of my office, will ensure that schools are prudent. Subject to those controls, commercial borrowing will enable more capital projects to be supported in more schools. It should also help governors to enter into partnerships with the private sector under the private finance initiative.
  Giving borrowing powers to GM governing bodies will bring them into line with other self-governing institutions, such as colleges of further and higher education. It will help them to run their own affairs. It will give them increased power to decide how they want to develop to meet the needs of their pupils and the local community.
  The Government's policies have transformed the educational scene. We have driven up standards, increased parental choice and put the power of decision making back where it belongs—with parents, teachers and governors. By contrast, Labour Members say that they support choice—they certainly support it for some. They have learnt how to pronounce the word "diversity". Yet when presented with the chance to give positive support to real choice for all parents and real diversity of school provision, they retreat to the familiar collective protection of the interests of the institution over those of parents and children.
  This Bill is about real choice, real diversity and a real increase in standards. That is what Conservative Members believe in. I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: In opposing Third Reading, I thank my hon. Friends who spoke both for England and for Wales from the Opposition Front Bench, and also my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, for the excellent way in which they have dealt with the Bill both in Committee and throughout today. They have drawn attention to the fact that where there is no place, there is no choice, and where there is no provision, there is no opportunity for parents to redeem their voucher.
  The notion that the Secretary of State has put forward tonight, that this is the first major expansion of nursery education in this country—she has just reiterated it—is a shocking observation which will be resented by parents, schools, other providers and by the local education authorities, most but not all of them Labour controlled, which have expanded the nursery education programme against the vehement opposition of the Government over 17 years.
  We have welcomed the Conservative party's conversion, at last, to the idea that nursery education is right for the children of this country and that by expanding

  269
  it we can give children a decent start in life, and build the opportunities and standards that the Opposition have been promoting. In authorities across the country, against the odds, with reductions in budgets and the abuse that we experienced 15 months ago, when authorities were held to account for daring to spend money on nursery education, we have pressed forward with that cause.
  To suggest, as the Secretary of State has done tonight, that providing a paper promise is an alternative to expanding real nursery education, is an insult to the British people. They know, as people involved with the pilot projects have discovered, that a voucher does not offer a nursery place in their locality or within their reach.
  Instead of proceeding as the Government are doing, we have offered to sit down with the Government, with the Liberal Democrats and with the private, voluntary and statutory providers to arrange for development plans to be drawn up in every local authority in England and Wales to ensure that we provide those nursery places. But the Government have rejected that suggestion, as they rejected every amendment and every effort to try to make sense of a nonsensical Bill.
  The Government rejected the proposal that special consideration and weighted provision should be given to children with special educational needs. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, expressed his interest in special needs. I accept his commitment and his belief in the importance of that area—but he of all people, as a former Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as for Education, should know the difference between standard spending assessment and grant, between a myth or a shadow and real resources.
  The Government may be able to play ducks and drakes with the British people for one more year, but they will not be able to continue to draw a veil over the eyes of those who will soon see what is being done to them. People will try to redeem their voucher and find that there is no place. As in the pilot projects, people who are already receiving a perfectly decent free place, with highly qualified staff, for their children, and who therefore understandably throw their vouchers in the bin, will not be able to understand why their local nursery school or reception class asks them to fish it out again and present it, so that it can be sent round in a bureaucratic nightmare, to redeem through a chaotic bureaucratic mechanism the same money as is already being provided.
  This is the biggest nonsense that the Government have ever invented. They have attempted to create an artificial market where none exists instead of drawing together private, voluntary and local authority providers to plan places. I have to tell the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) that the Government have not planned it in a way that would make it possible to build up places by planning them in neighbourhoods that did not have them and working with parents and teachers in schools to provide them. The idea that a market system and a piece of paper can provide something that people sitting down and working together cannot plan is nonsense. The Secretary of State knows that. It is not only that in its early stages she opposed the scheme, but that her colleagues know that she did.
  270
  In the Sunday Express last Sunday—[Interruption.] That is not exactly known as a socialist newspaper. It said:
  "Sources close to Mrs. Shephard say the voucher scheme—launched last month … has flopped.
  They say that she thinks it is Mr. Major's fault for forcing her to go ahead with the scheme despite her doubts."
  It continues:
  "'It is the same old story with the vouchers and grammar schools. Some bright spark in Downing Street has a bright idea, but doesn't think it through properly,' said a senior Tory who is close to Mrs. Shephard.
  'She warns them of the pitfalls, but they don't want to know. They go ahead and announce it, shove it on her desk, and tell her to get on with it.'"
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman is under-performing.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am apparently under-performing because I am quoting the Secretary of State's friends, who believe that she has been dropped in the mire. She was quoted as saying:
  "She did not so much want to ring Mr. Blackwell."—
  of the No. 10 policy unit—
  "She wanted to ring his neck."
  One cannot blame her for that when a right-wing Tory could be so indecent and lacking in gentlemanliness as to say that Secretary of State was
  "so sopping wet … you could shoot snipe off her."
  One must know Norfolk and the wetlands to know what a snipe is.
  Snipers from the rear, snipers from the left of her, snipers from the right of her. They are all over the place. The right hon. Lady is being shot at by people who know nothing about education and who have, on the whole, educated their children privately. That is why she is so safe. Few of her Cabinet colleagues could dare to take her place. She is pushing forward with something that she does not believe in and knows will fail, but she has been forced to accept it.
  Every scheme that the policy unit at No. 10 comes up with is another way of trying to create an ideological divide rather than caring about and investing in the needs of children. We and the British people are sick and tired of ideological experiments and laboratories.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The hon. Gentleman talks of splits and divides. Would he like to tell the House where he stands on
  "middle class left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area"?
  Does he have "no truck" with them or has that particular split been healed?
  Mr. Blunkett: The difference between me and the Secretary of State is that I stand where I have always stood. I stand for parents, for information, for decent, high-quality provision. Decent, high-quality provision requires a qualified teacher to supervise and organise nursery education.
  How can the Secretary of State suggest that she is providing nursery education and expanding the scheme, when she will not accept amendments that ensure that a qualified teacher is in charge of those nursery classes and

  271
  can supervise what takes place? I promise the Secretary of State that if the scheme goes ahead without qualified education and provides something that is less than the nursery education that the Prime Minister promised, we shall harry her now and throughout the general election.
  We shall also challenge—if necessary, in the courts—the provision of a voucher for something that is not education and should therefore be taxed. In the words of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), the cost of the scheme is the "dead-weight cost" of providing a subsidy to those already buying private care, for whom the whole of the voucher scheme has been invented. It subsidises the better-off and denies those who need nursery education. It denies those who require special needs provision and provides a shoddy and unacceptable bureaucratic scheme instead of a clear commitment to expanding nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in England and Wales. It is time to put a stop to this nonsense and, instead, join together to co-operate and do what we have offered to ensure that every parent can have the security of a free nursery place for their child.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: Choice, diversity and standards—that has now become the Government's mantra; but they should recognise that merely repeating the words does not mean that something will happen. The policies that the Government have promoted and their funding regime will not ensure choice, diversity and the raising of standards; the policies contained in the Bill certainly will not do that. Nothing has happened during the Bill's passage to reassure me on the numerous concerns that I expressed when the Secretary of State first introduced the proposals. There has been overwhelming opposition to the proposals contained in the Bill. The Government have refused to listen to any of the voices that have raised serious opposition to them.
  The Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic—a view that is understandably shared by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). As we have seen, the Bill will fail to ensure the rapid provision of the extra infrastructure needed for the high-quality nursery education that we desperately need in this country. It will not provide significant increased provision; it will not boost provision and may even harm what exists for three-year-olds. It will fail to cover the cost of full-time provision, which will mean that the less well-off, who are unable to afford the necessary top-up fees, will receive nothing.
  The Bill will fail to provide extra support for children with special educational needs. It will provide nothing for the training of the additional teachers and inspectors; it will fail to ensure that the full evaluation of the pilots takes place before the scheme starts. It will fail to encourage strategic planning and links between education and care provision. In short, the Bill will fail to provide what is desperately needed: high-quality early years education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. How bizarre of the Secretary of State to devote so much of her speech to grant-maintained schools; how bizarre to draw attention to the least successful of all the Government's education policies.
  During the Second Reading debate, I argued that the Bill should be rejected because it contained too many blanks; none of those blanks has been filled in. The hon.
  272
  Member for Meriden feared that the Bill would be another Dangerous Dogs Bill. Just like Sherlock Holmes' famous dog in the night, let us hope that this one will not bark.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friends and I have long campaigned for publicly funded, high-quality nursery education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. After years of Tory hostility towards nursery education—both here and in Tory local education authorities—the Prime Minister promised us nursery education for all four-year-olds. Every parent of a four-year-old should expect their child to obtain a nursery education which is from a qualified teacher and properly trained support staff, which will allow their individual learning needs to be met, which is in premises suitable to those needs and with sufficient teaching space, which has safe indoor and outdoor play areas and appropriate health and welfare facilities, and which has class sizes and staffing ratios that take into account both educational and child care needs.
  However, what have we got? The measures outlined in the Bill, as it stands now, will not deliver high-quality nursery education. Such a system of voucher, pupil-led funding threatens existing high-quality and full-time nursery education, will not guarantee an increase in local provision, will punish those local education authorities that are already committed to expansion and may even reduce provision in some areas. The Bill wastes public money on a private company to administer and to police the system. It also raises expectations of increased choice, which will ultimately lead to parental disillusionment.
  According to a parliamentary question that I asked recently, there are 145,000 four-year-olds in the voluntary and private sectors who will qualify for nursery vouchers in the private sector. This is a massive subsidy to the private sector. Many of the parents who are receiving the vouchers are too embarrassed to take the money. Huge sums of taxpayers' money are going into private, profit-making nursery establishments that may or may not give a quality provision.
  There is nothing for local education authorities to expand their provision. It is common sense that at the present time a local education authority has only a certain number of places for children—and whether it be many or few, the nursery voucher scheme will not allow them to expand. There is no capital to build. It is impossible to provide places without the resources to do so. In some areas, where there are no or few nursery places in the local education authority sector, this will stay the same and parents can go only to the private sector—parents will not have a choice.
  In areas such as Durham, which have good and reasonable provision, the position could be made even worse. Not only will they not be able to expand, but they may lose places. Why? Because money is to be clawed back from the local education authorities to pay for the scheme—clawed back not from those authorities that get under-fives allocations in their standard spending assessment but do not use it for the nursery provision, but from authorities that do use it to provide nursery places. That is illogical and unfair. Durham will lose £2.5 million in the deal. Authorities that provide nursery places will be penalised, and the authorities that do not provide them will be rewarded. Only this Government could be so daft or so sinister. The Bill should be defeated, and I hope that that happens this evening. We shall vote against it.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I shall plagiarise the marvellous adjective of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) for the final time: this spatchcocked piece of legislation deserves to go down for a number of reasons. In terms of inspections, it fails in relation to the premises, which seemed to exercise the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) so much, and it fails in relation to standards. It fails on the commitment—or lack of it—to qualified teachers in all institutions.
  The Bill fails in terms of the provision of places, and not only in the 200 black holes identified by the Pre-School Learning Alliance. Conversely, it will damage good providers, whether in Solihull or the majority of Labour councils that make excellent provision. The Bill also fails in terms of children with special educational needs. Despite the arguments of hon. Members, and even the support of some Conservative Members, no concession was made by the Government. Crucially, the Bill fails because it does not properly consider the need for an evaluation of phase 1 before a commitment to phase 2.
  The other half of the Bill fails in terms of the facility that is offered for borrowing to grant-maintained schools. It will do nothing to increase provision in the majority of those schools, as they showed by their lack of interest in the proposals. It does nothing to help the vast majority of our schools—the other 24,000. I shall use a fencing metaphor: the Government have approached this with a sabre while we have danced with foils. To put it in a boxing simile: the Government have used brute strength to push through unpopular proposals like a Mike Tyson, while the Muhammed Alis of the Labour party have given them a lesson in the science of dealing with it.
  I note the absence, yet again, of members of the Standing Committee. No commitment was made in Committee by members of the Committee, and no commitment has been made tonight by members of the Government, to fair provision for all our children.
  I urge the House to reject the Bill.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 238.

  Division No. 84]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Booth, Hartley

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Amess, David

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ashby, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burns, Simon

  Bates, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butler, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butterfill, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cash, William

  274

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Horam, John

  Clappison, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jack, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Couchman, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Cran, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dicks, Terry

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Bob

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

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Elletson, Harold

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evennett, David

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Faber, David

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Luff, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Malone, Gerald

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Mans, Keith

  French, Douglas

  Marland, Paul

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth South)

  Gale, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Merchant, Piers

  Garnier, Edward

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hawkins, Nick

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Pickles, Eric

  Hendry, Charles

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Higgins, Fit Hon Sir Terence

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  275

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trend, Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Ward, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Soames Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Whitney, Ray

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Wilshire, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Steen, Anthony

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan

  Yeo, Tim

  Sumberg, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sweeney, Walter

  Sykes, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Gary Streeter and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ainger, Nick

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chidgey, David

  Allen, Graham

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Alton, David

  Church, Judith

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Corston, Jean

  Bell, Stuart

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Berry, Roger

  Dafis, Cynog

  Betts, Clive

  Davidson, Ian

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boateng, Paul

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

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

  Denham, John

  Burden, Richard

  Dewar, Donald

  Byers, Stephen

  Dixon, Don

  Cabom, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  276

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  MacShane, Denis

  Etherington, Bill

  McWilliam, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Madden, Max

  Faulds, Andrew

  Maddock, Diana

  Flynn, Paul

  Mahon, Alice

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martlew, Eric

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maxton, John

  Galloway, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  George, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gerard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Milbum, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Graham, Thomas

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gunnell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hain, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Hall, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Hanson, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Henderson, Doug

  Olner, Bill

  Heppell, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hodge, Margaret

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoey, Kate

  Pendry, Tom

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L

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

  Pope, Greg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North,

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mùn)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Keen, Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

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

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Khabra, Piara S

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Short, Clare

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Simpson, Alan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

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

  Litnerland, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Soley, Clive

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spellar, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McAllion, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCartney, Ian

  Stott, Roger

  Macdonald, Calum

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McFall, John

  Straw, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Timms, Stephen

  277

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Tyler, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walley, Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watson, Mike

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. John Cummings.

  Welsh, Andrew

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 18) (Grant to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District) (House of Commons Paper No. 239), which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(l)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

CREDIT UNIONS
That the draft Deregulation (Credit Unions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved. —[Mr. Burns.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Rural Crime
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I have the honour to present a petition from my constituent, Mrs. Olive May Smith, and others to the House, arising out of an horrific armed robbery on Milborne St. Andrew post office in Dorset in my constituency on 22 December 1995, as a result of which the Smith family suffered serious injuries.
  The petitioners ask the House to urge the Home Secretary and the Government, together with the police authorities in Dorset and other rural areas, to target rural crime and to see that police manpower is increased so as to deal with the threats to our community life from violent law breaking of this kind.
  The petition has my full support and I am grateful for the opportunity to present it on behalf of my constituents.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Home and Share Ownership
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.13 pm
  Mr. David Evans: The house-owning and share-owning democracy in which we live has come about through successive Conservative Governments. Before we look at the effect that it has had on our nation and people, we must look back to the chaos of the late 1970s, after five years of Labour Government.
  The most embarrassing moment, which made a laughing stock of the whole British people, was when the then Labour Chancellor, Mr. Healey, on his way to Heathrow received a message that the International Monetary Fund was not going to trust him or the Labour Government with any more borrowed money; and that from that moment on the fund would be running the finances of our country. In other words, the country was bankrupt and the receivers had moved in. Britain was broke. The IMF asked the Chancellor to turn his car around since the ticket in his pocket was invalid, as neither he nor the Government could pay for it: "Please return to No. 11 and hand over the keys of the safe." The only thing the Chancellor ever turned around was a 747 going to New York. It certainly was not the economy.
  That was just one of the reasons why we needed a Conservative Government—to enable our people to have a stake in their own lives through home and share ownership. I could give 60 other reasons, but I shall list just six.
  First, in 1979 there were rats as big as cats running around Leicester square, because the Transport and General Workers Union said that the rubbish was not to be collected. Unfortunately, after five years of a Labour Government, the cats themselves were bedraggled, demotivated and dispirited—rather like the rest of us.
  Secondly, we could not bury our loved ones, because the TGWU said that the gravediggers could not dig the graves. Thirdly, all the hospitals were shut to new patients, and urgently needed drugs could not be delivered to other patients because the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees—now parading under the name Unison—would not let anyone cross the picket lines manned by rent-a-mob.
  I suppose that nobody will ever forget that lady dying of cancer on the pavement outside Kingston general hospital. This is not new or old Labour: it is Labour.
  Fourthly, we had a top rate of income tax not of 40, 50, 60, 70, or 90 per cent. but of 98p in the pound. No wonder nobody bought shares—anyone receiving a dividend would have had to hand it over to the IMF. People say that it will not happen again. They are right—not while we have a Tory Government. But I would not be so sure if that lot over there were ever given power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?] Not here.
  Fifthly, inflation in 1977 was running at 26.9 per cent., and over five years of Labour Government it averaged 15 per cent. No wonder the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is not prepared to say whether inflation is at the right level, or should be lower or higher. The fact is that, with inflation this low, he is totally bewildered and does not know what to say.

  279
  Sixthly, in the 1970s public utilities were losing money alongside the nationalised industries. After privatisation, British Steel leaped from making losses of £1.774 billion in 1979–80 to making profits of £733 million in 1989–90. I could go on and on, but I think that what I have said has set the scene for this debate.
  I turn first to Government policies in respect of share ownership. The Labour leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), said on 1 November 1987:
  "Public utilities like Telecom and gas and essential industries such as British Airways and Rolls Royce were sold off by the Tories in the closest thing to legalised political corruption."
  Unlike the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, the Conservative party do not consider selling off those industries the closest thing to legalised political corruption, because it enables employees to share the success of the company they work for.
  It is worth noting, too, what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Labour Chief Whip, said about the privatisation of British Steel. He called it
  "a shoddy measure … totally irrelevant to the real interests of the industry, and it is based on dogma. The Labour party is unequivocally, implacably opposed to it".—[Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 238.]
  The hon. Member also declared that, if British Airways were privatised,
  "it will be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 125.]
  It must be the only pantomime horse in history that has proved worth backing. British Airways is now the most successful world leader, with more international scheduled services than any other airline.
  Is it not remarkable that the RMT has purchased 7,500 shares in Eastern Electricity, 10,000 shares in Thames Water, and 15,000 shares in British Gas? The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), in January this year, produced a report on the alleged failure of water privatisation. He declared that his report documented
  "the full extent of the failure, waste and greed of water privatisation."
  Well, if it was such a failure, why did his union buy 10,000 shares in Thames Water?
  The hypocrisy continues. The Labour-controlled local authority pension funds have invested more than £1,000 million in privatised companies. The Leader of the Opposition will be pleased to know that the value of privatised shares held by his local authority, Islington, is more than £24 million. However, that sum pales into insignificance compared with the investment level of South Yorkshire, whose shares are valued at more than £100 million.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Good God!
  Mr. Evans: As with education reform, Labour party members throughout the country are benefiting from the policies of economic reform and privatisation, but they are resolutely sticking to the Leader of the Opposition's line, which is to say one thing and do another.
  I am sure that we would all like to know that the RMT sponsors shadow Cabinet modernisers such as the right hon. and hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras, for
  280
  Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), for Garscadden, and for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Another union, the GMB, has bought shares in Rolls-Royce, British Telecom, British Steel and British Airways. The GMB sponsors shadow Cabinet high fliers such as the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for Eccles (Miss Lestor), for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
  It is therefore not surprising that the Prime Minister has welcomed those moves—so do I—by stating:
  "I am delighted to welcome Islington, Lewisham and Southwark to the stockbroker belt, but it strikes me as odd that the Opposition opposed privatisation … and yet they buy shares in privatised companies and enjoy profits from them."—[Official Report, 1 February 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1121.]
  It is not surprising, however, that Islington has joined the stockbroker belt, since one of its residents is hot-footing it to join the toffs at the Oratory.
  As a measure of the success of privatisation, the following facts are of especial interest. One: since privatisation, British Telecom's prices have fallen in real terms by 35 per cent. on average. Two: there is now no waiting list for telephones to be installed. In 1984, there was a waiting list of 250,000. Three: domestic gas prices have fallen by 23 per cent. in real terms since privatisation in 1986. Gas prices in Great Britain are lower than those in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, and an additional 1.5 million customers have had their supply connected to the mains since 1986. Four: the average annual household gas bill, including VAT, is down by 20 per cent. since privatisation. Five: the average domestic electricity consumer will pay approximately £2 a week less in real terms in 1996 than in 1994.
  The reality is there for all to see. When Labour was thrown out of office in 1979, the nationalised industries were costing the taxpayer £50 million a week in losses—£2,600 million a year. Today, in Conservative Britain, newly privatised industries pay approximately £60 million a week in taxes on the profit they earn in the private sector—£2,000 million a year. Privatised industries, particularly the utilities, gave the public what was for many their first opportunity to be shareholders. Now 12 million people are shareholders.
  I am delighted that, in 1984, someone could buy shares in British Telecom for 130p each, and that, 11 years later, in November 1995, those shares could be sold for 414p. People began to believe again that they could have a stake in their country and their future. Had Labour had its way, none of those 12 million people would have had an opportunity to invest in the future. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield talks of a stakeholding nation. I say to him, "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Next!"
  As for home ownership, we have the lowest mortgage interest rate for 30 years. In February 1979, the minimum lending rate was 14 per cent.; in 1996, most lenders' standard rate is 7.25 per cent. Every 0.25 per cent. reduction in the interest rate, when passed on, means a saving of £6 a month on the average mortgage.
  What has home ownership done for this country? Let us start with "An Englishman's home is his castle"—and that undoubtedly goes for the rest of the United Kingdom as well. That is why we do not want Labour to give Britain away to Brussels, as it would. The difference between us and that lot over there is that we stand four square behind the union jack, while they stand four square behind Jacques Santer under the skull and crossbones of Brussels.

  281
  Notwithstanding Labour's total opposition to the right to buy, 1.3 million people who were once downtrodden tenants of the feudal barons of local authorities now own their own homes, and many are still applying to buy them—800 a week, according to the 1994 figures, which are the latest available. That is despite the scare stories from Opposition Members.
  We know that Labour fought tooth and nail—Labour-controlled councils, and Labour Members of Parliament—to stop people owning their own homes, although Labour council leaders and Members of Parliament owned their own homes, and, in some cases, had bought their council houses. That is another instance of their saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."
  Nothing says that more clearly than the 1983 Labour party manifesto, on which the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Chancellor were elected to Parliament, which stated that they would
  "End enforced council house sales, empower public landlords to repurchase homes sold under the Tories".
  Yet, for the umpteenth time, there are U-turns all over the place. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield said, on 5 March 1996:
  "I want to set out a picture of housing in which Labour supports the aspirations of the majority of the people to own their own homes."
  Do we or the British people believe him? Of course we do not. Why should we? The effect of the Government's policies on home and share ownership has been that we, the people, are once again a proud nation. The Great is back in Britain. We have transformed people's aspirations. They can and do own the houses in which they live. They can and do have a real opportunity to invest in the infrastructure and future of our country. Long may it continue.
  Today, people sit in the homes they own, and instead of watching a Labour party broadcast, they turn to the financial page on teletext to see how their shares are doing. They know that, under the Conservative Government, they will continue to prosper and be part of a great United Kingdom.
  10.30 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) for raising such important issues. Is it not noticeable that no Opposition Member cares or is sufficiently interested in this matter to attend this evening—apart from some of my hon. Friends who have decided that they want to sit on the Opposition Benches, just temporarily, for the debate?
  My hon. Friend is correct that the reason why home and share ownership is so important, why we believe that these matters are fundamental for the democracy of this country, is that they are important to all our constituents. He was right to remind us of how it used to be. He gave us six reasons. There are many more. If he will bear with me, I shall give another six.
  The first, of course, was inflation, which was running at such a rate that it wiped out my grandfather's pension, and no doubt those of many other people of whom hon. Members know. As a country, we were producing goods
  282
  that people did not want because the quality was not good enough, and at a price that was rising week by week. Taxation was high not only for individuals but for companies as well.
  Direct-grant schools, such as the one that I went to, were abolished. Mine was abolished not because it was a bad school but because it was a school that the Labour party was philosophically against allowing in this country. If someone could afford a holiday, it was, perhaps, a week or 10 days in Spain, and only a few pounds could be taken because the currency was in such a bad state.
  My hon. Friend is correct to remind us how it was. It is too easy to forget the reality of life under the Labour party. Indeed, he mentioned, in his opening remarks, British Steel, which, in some respects, is a company dear to my heart, because I was running a company whose customer was British Steel when it was a nationalised company. As a customer, it did not pay its bills. It was a poor customer. As a company, it was one of the biggest loss makers of all time in this country—when it was nationalised. As soon as it came into the private sector, we had a steel company of which we could be proud, which produced products that people wanted—an international competitor of world renown. My hon. Friend is right to remind us that that is what it is all about. That is what we stand for as a party. Those are policies that the country wants.
  I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend quote some of the tremendous contradictions in what Labour Members say—indeed, what Labour Front Benchers say on behalf of the Labour party. He quoted the rubbish they speak on so many subjects. He quoted many of their predictions that have proven entirely and utterly wrong. My hon. Friend quoted another even more important feature of Labour Members, which is that they say one thing and do another on whatever subject, whether it be education, law and order or the subject he mentioned—pension funds.
  It is correct to point out the tremendous advantages of the privatisation programme. It has enabled ordinary people not just to own shares but to take a personal interest in successful major industries. It has played a key role and has resulted in about 13 per cent. of the population owning shares in the privatised companies. Privatisation has meant that inefficient companies that were formerly propped up by the taxpayer are now contributing to the public purse. Companies that were formerly nationalised and poor have become world players. As my hon. Friend said, they are now serving better the home market and the people, whether they are gas, electricity or telephone customers.
  Privatisation has resulted in companies becoming net substantial contributors to the public purse, rather than blotting paper that soaked up public money. It has resulted in a real share-owning democracy. British Telecom, British Gas and British Airways are but part of a long list of companies that not only provide a better service but from which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, people have made money for themselves and their families out of owning shares. Customers, companies and constituents all over Britain have prospered as a consequence.
  There has been tremendous progress in wider share ownership over the past 17 years. The number of shareholders in the United Kingdom has risen dramatically. In 1979, there were about 3 million, but today there are more than 10 million. More than one in four adults own

  283
  shares. In 1993, the last year for which there is comprehensive data, almost half of all those shareholders held shares in two or more companies. These were not one-off shareholders, because they had seen the benefits of shareholding and bought shares in more and more companies. That is important, because it encourages savings, investment and enterprise. It helps people to help themselves.
  We saw the need to encourage ownership and commitment in society, and there is true participation in a variety of ways. That is a long way from the so-called stakeholding that was explained by the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] Where is he? If shareholding and a property-owning democracy were important to Labour Members, at least one of them would be here, but there is no one on the Opposition Benches to listen to this important debate.
  The Leader of the Opposition tripped around the country talking about stakeholding. We can be quite sure that the only stake in which he is interested is the big stake that his party wants in everybody's pocket. Those who want to know who will benefit from that stake in everybody's pocket should ask the unions and the single-issue pressure groups, the bizarre ones. But do not ask the great majority of the people, because they know that, while they will get nothing from so-called stakeholding, they will get everything from a shareholding and property-owning democracy under the policies that have been pursued by our party for so many years.
  We have given people the freedom to invest in personal pensions and to take out occupational pensions and other pension plans. That enables them to provide for their independence and their future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield rightly spoke about that other most basic desire that is near to so many hearts—owning one's own home. If he will forgive me, I should like to quote a few statistics. In 1979, there were 11.5 million home owners. In 1985, there were 13.5 million. In 1996, there are more than 16 million—a 40 per cent. increase since 1979.
  Every opinion poll on home ownership shows that the vast majority of people still want to own their own home, so we are helping home owners by cutting tax, leaving them with more money to spend as they choose, by reducing unemployment, and by keeping interest rates, and thus mortgage costs, as low as possible. One of the ways in which we are ensuring that more people can, if they wish, own their own home is by reducing unemployment month after month after month.
  284
  My hon. Friend is right to introduce the subject of Europe in that context. How true it is that the additional costs that so many Governments place on companies in Europe are resulting in unemployment rising, although it is falling in this country. It is no to minimum wages and to the social chapter, because it is yes to employment, to jobs, to low taxes, to interest rates as low as possible, to home ownership and to those policies that we stand for and that other parties in this country do not. Other countries in Europe have shown the way not to go.
  Since the Budget, we have had three reductions in interest rates. Mortgage costs have fallen. The average outstanding mortgage costs about £160 a month. Repayments are at their lowest levels in relation to incomes for more than a decade. Interestingly, a 0.5 per cent. reduction in mortgage rates has a greater effect on the average mortgage than a 5 per cent. increase in mortgage interest relief at source. That is an interesting connection, because it shows just how important it is that we keep interest rates as low as possible.
  National average house prices are starting to rise. They have risen for seven months in succession. The housing market is starting to turn around in all our constituencies. Mortgage rates are at their lowest levels since I was 15 years old, and inflation has not been so low since before I was born. I might not be a spring chicken, but I am not an old hen either. If I put those two figures in that context, it shows that we have an economy and we have achieved a position of which we can be proud.
  A total of 1.6 million people have bought their own homes through the right-to-buy scheme. We believe in the right to buy. The Opposition parties want to own people's homes, not let people own their own homes. Those parties believe that, if they own a home, they own the soul. We believe that people should have independence.
  In the past 17 years, we have taken significant steps to help to create a society based not on soundbites, but on sound policies of ownership, commitment and participation. Our policies on home and share ownership, savings, investment and enterprise have given millions of ordinary people what they wanted for themselves and their families in the United Kingdom in the 20th and 21st centuries. We will continue to do that for many years to come. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject on the Adjournment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Access to Government Information
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the operation of the code of practice on access to Government information during 1995. [22057]

  1993 (from 1 July 1993)

  1994

  1995

  1996 (up to 14 March 1996

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  CCC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0.07

  —

  —

  COI1

  1

  0.3

  1

  0.15

  8

  0.5

  1

  0.2

  CSC

  1

  0.3

  2

  0.3

  4

  0.25

  —

  —

  HMSO1

  2

  0.6

  10

  1.6

  13

  0.9

  8

  1.6

  OHSA

  1

  0.3

  —

  —

  5

  0.3

  1

  0.2

  RAS

  5

  1.6

  10

  1.6

  10

  0.6

  4

  0.8

  SAFE1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  0.4

  TBA2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Agencies which are Government Departments in their own right, reporting to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  2Agencies which transferred to the Office of Public Service on 1 January 1996.

  Secondly, since this Department was formed in May 1992 the number of hon. Members' questions passed to agencies for response and this figure as a percentage of the total number of letters received is shown in the table:

  Parliamentary years

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995 (up to 14 March 1996)

  Total PQs

  778

  768

  791

  477

  Agency answers

  2

  nil

  8

  6

  Percentage of total

  0.25

  nil

  1.01

  1.25

  Recruitment and Assessment Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to protect the pension entitlement of staff of Recruitment and Assessment Services; what assessment he has made of efficiency gains from privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [20663]

  Mr. Willetts
  All those bidding to acquire Recruitment and Assessment Services will have to offer its staff a pension scheme certified by the Government Actuary as offering broadly comparable benefits to those available in the principal civil service pension scheme, or to offer sufficient compensation—such as a higher rate of pay—where benefits are not comparable. Bidders not fulfilling this requirement will be disqualified.
  98
  Mr. Freeman
  I have today announced the publication of the Government's report on the operation of the code of practice during 1995, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19420]

  Mr. Willetts
  Records are not held centrally for letters received before July 1993, when computer records began. The table covers the number of hon. Members' letters passed to agencies for response and this figure as a percentage of the total number of letters from July 1993:

  Further efficiency gains can be expected after privatisation. RAS will be free to pursue new business in the private and public sectors and so will be able to spread its overheads over a wider customer base.

  HMSO (Privatisation)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what length of notice customer organisations of the HMSO agency were given regarding its proposed privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [20605]

  Mr. Freeman
  I announced a review of options for the future of HMSO, with a view to privatisation, on 27 September 1995 and confirmed the Government's intention to sell the business on 13 December. Customers have been aware of our proposals since then.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which functions of HMSO are to be sold in the course of its privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [20667]

  Mr. Freeman
  HMSO's business includes print, publishing and distribution, office supplies, business systems, office furniture and copiers. It has facilities across the UK to serve its almost exclusively public sector customers.

  As I said in the House on 13 December last year, at column 989, the Government intend to privatise the whole of HMSO, apart from a small residual body carrying out statutory and quasi-statutory functions.
  99
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what factors underlay his decision on the time scale for privatising HMSO; and if he will make a statement. [20622]

  Mr. Freeman
  My aim is to complete the privatisation as soon as possible, subject to the need to ensure that the process is fully controlled and that all relevant concerns have been addressed.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations he held with staff of HMSO prior to the announcement of its privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [20662]

  Mr. Freeman
  I gave details of my contacts with HMSO staff and unions in my answer of 4 December 1995 to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, column 33. Since then, I have had a further meeting with national and local trade union representatives.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that staff are treated fairly during the privatisation, and to ensuring that their legal rights are fully respected. I and my colleagues and officials will continue to keep HMSO staff informed, and are willing to hold further meetings as necessary.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for a public consultation in respect of the privatisation of HMSO; and if he will make a statement. [20668]

  Mr. Freeman
  I and my officials are naturally willing to discuss matters with those with an interest in HMSO. In particular, we have already been in contact with customers and suppliers of HMSO, trade associations, unions and others with a direct interest in HMSO's privatisation.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to protect the pension entitlement of staff of HMSO after privatisation; what assessments he has made of efficiency gains from the privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [20666]

  Mr. Freeman
  All those bidding to acquire HMSO will have to offer its staff a pension scheme certified by the Government Actuary as offering broadly comparable benefits to those available in the principal civil service pension scheme. Bidders not fulfilling this requirement will be disqualified.

  Privatisation should result in efficiency gains in several areas. Trading in wider markets will enable the privatised business to spread its overheads over a wider customer base, the stationery office will become free to borrow and invest without seeking prior Treasury approval, and it will be freely able to diversify as business opportunities become available. This is consistent with the experience of previous privatisations.

  By contrast, if HMSO were to remain in the public sector, it would continue to be constrained by its shrinking market and the rigours of public expenditure controls. In these circumstances, further widespread job losses would be inevitable, resulting in an added burden to the taxpayer.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the market value of the skills of HMSO staff for the purposes of privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [20725]
  100
  Mr. Freeman
  The skills of HMSO's staff contribute to its performance. HMSO's trading record, together with its prospects and the value of its physical assets, provide the basis for the benchmark valuation which will be constructed by my advisors. It is not possible to separate out a value for staff skills, nor is it desirable to make public the overall valuation, since that would damage the Government's negotiating position and their ability to secure the best deal.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what has been the total cost of answering questions to the Deputy Prime Minister; [21176]

  (2) what was the cost of answering (a) an oral and (b) a written parliamentary question to the Deputy Prime Minister from (i) Opposition and (ii) Government Members in each parliamentary Session since 1989–90. [21456]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The information as requested is not available.

TRANSPORT

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost since 29 February to the sheriffs of enforcing eviction orders against protestors camped on the route of the Newbury bypass; and how much of this cost is expected to be recovered from the protestors who have been evicted. [21270]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Rendel, dated 19 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the costs incurred by the Sheriff in evicting protestors from the route of the Newbury Bypass.

  No figures are yet available but the costs are not expected to be recovered from protestors. Costs orders awarded by the courts against defendants only cover the legal expense of bringing the action to court, not the Sheriff's costs.

  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the levels of congestion which would apply to the A34 around Newbury by(a) 2005 and (b) 2015 if the current bypass project was not constructed. [20895]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Peter Fry, dated 19 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the levels of congestion which would apply to the A34 around Newbury by (a) 2005 and (b) 2015 if the current by-pass project was not being constructed.

  The existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADF) flows on the A34 Inner Relief Road in Newbury are approximately 50,000 vehicles per day and this already results in significant congestion during weekday peaks and at times during summer weekends. Within these periods the road operates close to its maximum capacity. Conditions for long distance through traffic are generally very poor and intolerable at times. The overall level of service is very low.
  101
  The levels of congestion that would arise in the future without the bypass would be very much worse. It is difficult to quantify just how bad conditions would become because the exact level of congestion would depend on many factors including the general growth in travel demand, changing driver behaviour and the capacity of the A34.

  The ultimate carrying capacity of an urban road over a whole day depends on many factors. These include the urban nature of the road, the proportion of heavy vehicles, the effects of junctions and their capacities, the interaction of local and longer distance through traffic, the variation in traffic flows throughout the day and how traffic demand spreads from peak to off peak periods.

  The capacity also depends on the interaction of these factors which is complex. It is therefore very difficult to state a precise daily flow which represents the maximum flow the A34 could carry. In theory there is some scope for traffic flows to increase above existing levels outside the peak periods. But in practice, this would require a significant change in driver behaviour for instance travelling in the relatively less busy parts of the day.

  Any increase in flow would of course mean very much more serious congestion, for longer and longer periods than happens now, and a very poor level of service. In practice the very worst conditions that are experienced now would become a normal event; stop-start driving conditions through the town would extend over much of the working day. These conditions are likely to occur within the next five to ten years if there is significant growth in traffic levels.

  In the long term, traffic flows and congestion levels are much more difficult to assess. Our traffic forecasts go as far as 2010, the design year for the bypass. These imply very serious congestion on the A34 if nothing is done. We have not attempted to forecast the flows beyond 2010. The table below shows flows on the A34 within Newbury without the Bypass.

  Year

  A34 Inner Relief Road

  Low growth

  High growth

  2005

  61,000

  70,000

  2010

  65,000

  78,000

  The flows given are Annual Average Daily Traffic for low and high growth.

  I think it is also worth pointing out that congestion, as well as being a serious problem in terms of the delays and disruption to traffic, also leads to a significant environmental impact; heavy queuing traffic wastes fuel, causes greater air pollution and spoils the environment for the local community in Newbury.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Whittindale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to complete the privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory. [21765]

  Mr. Norris
  Negotiations with the preferred bidder, the Transport Research Foundation, are continuing. I expect the sale to be completed shortly.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has issued any further guidance to the franchising director. [21970]

  Sir George Young
  I have today written to the franchising director confirming that I am content for him to correct a minor error in the passenger service requirement for the InterCity east coast franchise. I am placing a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
  102
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned into the effects of rail privatisation on the number of passengers using the national rail network; and what was the cost of that research. [20779]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the vehicles which are currently exempt from the emissions test of the MOT; [21251]

  (2) when he plans that all vehicles over three years old will be subject to the MOT emissions test; and if he will make a statement. [21250]

  Mr. Norris
  The emissions test has been suspended simply in relation to a number of car models registered on or after 1 August 1992. Full details are contained in "Special Notice 2/96", issued to authorised testing stations by the Vehicle Inspectorate, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. This includes some or all relevant models from: Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin Lagonda, Caterham, Coleman Milne, Daihatsu, Fiat, Ford, HMC Sportscars, Isuzu, Jaguar, Lada, Lamborghini, Lancia, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, Nissan, Porshe, Renault, Rover, Saab, Subaru, Toyota, TVR, Vauxhall.

  We intend very shortly to consult on the necessary amending regulations for reintroducing the test for all affected vehicles.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what directions were given(a) by him and (b) by officials of his Department to the harbourmaster dealing with the Sea Empress on the day on which the disaster first occurred; and if he will make a statement. [21580]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the pilot on the Sea Empress had been subject to routine drug and alcohol testing before he boarded the vessel. [18584]

  Mr. Norris
  There is no statutory requirement for routine drug and alcohol testing of harbour pilots. The investigation into the incident by the marine accident investigation branch will consider whether alcohol or drugs had a bearing on the incidents.

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21515]

  Mr. Norris
  All civil servants in the Department work conditioned hours — that is, 36 hours per week net of lunch breaks in London and 37 hours elsewhere.
  103
  Staff in senior grades down to and including grade 6 are not entitled to compensation in respect of hours worked in excess of conditioned hours. The Department holds no records which would identify which individuals in these grades had worked more than their conditioned hours or how many hours had been worked.

  Staff in grades up to grade 7 are entitled to take time in lieu or to claim overtime in respect of extra hours worked. No records exist in respect of those staff who have made arrangements with their line managers to take time in lieu. Where staff have claimed overtime payments, records are held by the Chessington Computer Centre. Although an analysis of records could be undertaken by the Chessington Computer Centre, this would be at disproportionate cost.

  Airport Development
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 212, if he will make a statement on the action taken by the BAA to investigate the possibility of less environmentally damaging options for runway development. [21379]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that BAA plc is currently engaged in the first phase of this work, focusing on the technical feasibility of a close parallel runway at Gatwick.

  Institute of Advanced Motorists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to(a) publicise and (b) promote the Institute of Advanced Motorists. [21222]

  Mr. Norris
  I welcome the valuable contribution that organisations such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists make to improving road safety by raising awareness of driving standards. I would encourage all drivers to consider taking additional training throughout their driving careers.

  Oil Spills
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that adequate compensation is paid to all those who can prove loss of property or financial loss as a result of oil spills at sea; [21234]

  (2) what measures he has taken to ensure that companies which are affected indirectly from oil spills at sea are adequately compensated. [21235]

  Mr. Norris
  The 1969 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 international convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage, implemented in the United Kingdom by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, provide for compensation for pollution damage caused by spills from vessels carrying oil in bulk. The criteria for admissibility of these claims is described in the claims manual produced by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. Copies of the claims manual have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Eyesight Regulations
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that drivers of vehicles entering the United Kingdom comply with United Kingdom eyesight regulations for driving. [21658]

  Mr. Norris
  Visitors to the United Kingdom are entitled by international convention to drive for up to one year on licences issued by their national authorities. For drivers from within the EU, minimum standards of medical fitness for driving, including eyesight requirements, are set in the first and second directives on driving licences, and implemented in national legislation. If it were to become clear that the eyesight standards of any visiting drivers were unacceptable in terms of road safety, we would take the matter up, in the first instance, with the relevant national authority.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost to date of the public inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road; what is the estimated total cost of the inquiry; and what is the estimated total cost of the Birmingham northern relief road scheme. [20776]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Clare Short, dated 19 March 1996:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport about costs in respect of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road (BNRR).

  The public inquiry into the scheme closed on 4 October last year. The total cost to the Highways Agency was about £1.2 million.

  BNRR is a privately funded scheme and the total cost is a matter for Midland Expressway Ltd, the concessionaire.

  Road Schemes
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of the first three tranches of shadow toll road contracts over the period of each contract; and what would have been the cost of building these roads had they been built under the old procedures. [20781]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Clare Short, dated 19 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the cost of public funds of the first three tranches of shadow toll road contracts over the period of each contract, compared with the cost of building them under the old procedures.

  part of the process of evaluating bids for a DBFO contract, we compare those bids with an analysis of the costs of procuring the new construction and maintenance by more conventional means. This enables us to satisfy ourselves that the proposed DBFO represents genuine value for money.

  Railway Timetabling
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the proposal to invite the train operators to take lead responsibility for compiling the railway timetable. [20902]

  Mr. Watts
  No such proposal has been received.

  North West Regional Railways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects North West Regional Railways to be franchised. [21000]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 5 December 1995,Official Report, column 189.

  Vessels (Pilots)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which types of vessels are required to have a pilot on board when navigating in United Kingdom coastal waters. [20523]

  Mr. Norris
  Pilotage is compulsory only in the waters of statutory harbour authorities. Section 7 of the Pilotage Act 1987 provides for such an authority to direct that pilotage shall be compulsory if it considers that, in the interests of safety, it should do so. A pilotage direction may apply to all vessels over 20 m in length or to all ships of specified descriptions, and may relate to part or all of the harbour. Section 8 provides for pilotage exemption certificates to be granted to suitably qualified masters and first mates. There are three harbours where these are not available by virtue of an order under section 8(3) —Aberdeen, Forth and Sullom Voe.

  Labour force survey—Spring 1995 (GB)

  Age group

  All: 16–24

  All: 25–64

  Males: 16–64

  Females: 16–24

  Region of work

  Employees earning less than £58 per week (thousands)

  Percentage of total age group

  Employees earning less than £58 per week (thousands)

  Percentage of total age group

  Employees earning less than £58 per week (thousands)

  Percentage of total age group

  Employees earning less than £58 per week (thousands)

  Percentage of total age group

  South East

  222.3

  20.4

  368.6

  6.3

  128.4

  3.6

  462.5

  16.5

  East Anglia

  —

  —

  75.6

  11.2

  1—

  1—

  80.4

  26.8

  South West

  53.7

  22.8

  157.9

  10.4

  54.2

  6.4

  157.4

  22.6

  West Midlands

  77.6

  21.3

  159.0

  9.7

  1—

  1—

  157.3

  20.7

  East Midlands

  60.7

  22.4

  103.3

  8.0

  1—

  1—

  61.2

  10.2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  61.2

  25.3

  200.4

  11.8

  51.5

  5.3

  210

  29.5

  North West

  93.1

  24.7

  155.4

  7.8

  1—

  1—

  201.0

  21.3

  North

  —

  —

  109.7

  12.3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Wales

  51.1

  29.3

  73.7

  9.4

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Scotland

  59.3

  15.7

  123.6

  7.8

  1—

  1—

  116.9

  14.2

  1 Sample size too small to give reliable estimate.

  Government Bonds
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current different of yield between long United Kingdom bonds and long German bonds; and how much interest would be saved annually if these United Kingdom bonds had the same yield as their German equivalent. [21555]

  Mrs Angela Knight
  On 15 March 1996, the standardised yield differential between 10-year UK and

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people pay tax at each rate as a percentage of (i) those in work and (ii) the total available for work; and how many of those in work pay no tax on income. [19814]

  Mr. Jack
  The latest estimate is that 25.8 million individuals will pay income tax in 1996–97. Of these, 6.3 million will be lower rate taxpayers, 17.3 million basic rate taxpayers and 2.2 million higher rate taxpayers.

  The summer 1995 labour force survey shows that, in the UK, 28.8 million people are available for working, including 26.3 million who are in employment.

  It is inappropriate to calculate the number of taxpayers as a percentage of the working population because the taxpayer population includes individuals who are not in employment but pay tax on pensions and investment income.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of people, by gender and region, who earn less than £58 per week, who are aged(a) 16 to 24 years, (b) 25 to 49 years and (c) 50 to 64 years. [20783]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information at this level of detail is not readily available. Summary data from the labour force survey (spring 1995) are shown in the table.

  German Government bonds was 1.7 per cent. The average differential for the first 11 months of this financial year has been 1.5 per cent. For every £1 billion borrowed, the current yield differential would save £17.3 million per year until the bonds mature. The Government aim to issue around £31.5 billion of bonds including redemptions in 1995–96.

  Vat on Fuel (NHS)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official

  107
  Report, columns 552–53, what estimates he has made of VAT receipts in respect of expenditure on fuel from the NHS in each year 1979 to 1995. [21398]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  All supplies of fuel and power were zero-rated before 1 July 1990. Estimates of VAT receipts in respect of expenditure on fuel and power by the NHS are given for each year from 1990 to 1994. Figures are not yet available on which to base an estimate for 1995.

  £ million

  1990

  70

  1991

  180

  1992

  200

  1993

  200

  1994

  200

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19419]

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the following table.

  Year

  Passed to agencies

  Per cent. of total

  Letters

  1991

  501

  5.6

  1992

  756

  7.9

  1993

  1,104

  9.0

  1994

  1,079

  8.3

  1995

  1,416

  12.5

  PQs

  1991

  0

  n/a

  1992

  4

  0

  1993

  0

  n/a

  1994

  2

  0

  1995

  1

  0

  Company Board Members (Termination Settlements)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what statutory provisions govern challenges by shareholders to a termination settlement for a board member of a publicly quoted company; [20897]

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to require that the terms of termination agreements for board members of publicly quoted companies are made available to (a) all board members and (b) all shareholders; [20900]

  (3) what statutory provisions govern the termination agreements of board members of publicly quoted companies and the rights of all members of the board to be aware of the terms of such agreements. [20896]
  108
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Sections 312 to 316 of the Companies Act 1985 make various provisions in respect of compensation payments to directors for loss of office. They apply only in cases where the director does not have a contract with the company; they do not cover bona fide payments by way of damages for breach of contract or by way of pension in respect of past service. Under section 312 of the Act it is unlawful for a company to make a compensation payment without particulars of the proposed payment, including the amount, being disclosed to members of the company and approved by the company. Section 313 makes such payments unlawful when made in connection with the transfer of the whole or part of the undertaking or property of a company and when made by third parties, unless particulars have been disclosed to shareholders and approved by the company. Section 314 provides that where such a payment is to be made to a director of a company in connection with the transfer of all or any shares of the company resulting from an offer to shareholders, it is the duty of the director to take all reasonable steps to include particulars of the proposed payment with any notice of the offer given to shareholders.

  Under section 318 of the Companies Act 1985, where a director has a written contract of service the company must make available a copy of the contract for inspection by any member of the company without charge. Where the contract is not in writing, the company must make available for inspection a written memorandum setting out the terms of the contract. However, these requirements do not apply where the unexpired portion of the term for which the contract is to be in force is less than 12 months, or where the contract can, within the next ensuing 12 months, be terminated by the company without payment of compensation.

  I have no plans to introduce further legislation on these subjects.

  Export Licensing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to publish a consultation paper including proposals for(a) the content of new legislation in place of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 and (b) an export licensing system as recommended by Sir Richard Scott. [21298]

  Mr. Lang
  I have agreed to publish a consultation paper covering export control legislation and licensing procedures. The aim is to issue the paper by this summer.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make available for public inspection applications for military equipment export licences in advance of the licence application being considered; and if he will make a statement. [21545]

  Mr. Lang
  As a response to the recommendations of Sir Richard Scott in his report, I have agreed to publish a consultation paper covering export control legislation and licensing procedures. This will cover consideration of the extent to which details of licence applications should be published. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has agreed to a review of the convention by which replies to parliamentary questions on arms sales are refused, and an information paper on this has already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Fur Trade
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of retail businesses involved in the fur trade in each of the last five years. [21372]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Public Sector Research Establishments
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy towards public sector research establishments. [21259]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government set out their policy towards public sector research establishments in their response to the "Multi-departmental Scrutiny of Public Sector Research Establishments", published in September 1995, Cm 2991.

  This initiated a programme of prior options reviews of establishments, to allow Ministers collectively to take a strategic view of the UK's public sector research establishments. Each review is addressing the relationship of the establishment concerned to others in similar or related fields and will consider, among other things, the potential for privatisation or rationalisation.

  The results of these reviews will be considered by Ministers collectively, with the aim of completing the major part of the work by the end of 1996.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the most recent figures for inward investment into the United Kingdom over the past five years from(a) within the European Union and (b) outside the European Union; and how many jobs this investment (i) created and (ii) maintained. [21554]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau for the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95, the number of projects, new and safeguarded jobs from within and outside the European Union are as follows:

  Number of projects

  Jobs new

  Jobs safeguarded

  EU

  1990–91

  127

  5,141

  18,061

  1991–92

  136

  5,772

  14,212

  1993–93

  108

  4,550

  20,727

  1993–94

  127

  5,031

  43,492

  1994–951

  103

  6,930

  15,094

  Total

  601

  27,374

  111,586

  Non EU

  1990–91

  237

  18,679

  42,839

  1991–92

  217

  16,801

  16,891

  1992–93

  225

  13,272

  23,098

  1993–94

  306

  25,610

  26,262

  1994–95

  352

  31,421

  38,764

  Total

  1,337

  105,783

  147,854

  1 Figures do not include Austria, Finland and Sweden who joined the European Union in January 1995.

  110
  All the figures are based on numbers of projects notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau at the time of the decision to invest. Companies are under no obligation to notify their investment decisions and the figures take no account of subsequent developments.

PRIME MINISTER

  Far East (Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to the far east. [19934]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townsend) on 7 March,Official Report, columns 315–16.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [20054]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [20055]

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  House Staff (Justices of the Peace)
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what arrangements exist to give employees of the House of Commons who are appointed justices of the peace leave of absence to carry out their judicial training and duties. [21424]

  Mr. Beith
  Under the House of Commons Administration Act 1978, conditions of service of staff of the Commission are kept broadly in line with those in the home civil service. In line with this principle, such staff are allowed reasonable time off for attendance required by statutory bodies within section 29 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. This allows staff who are appointed justices of the peace leave of absence to carry out their judicial training and duties.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights Abuses
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the United Kingdom will put forward to ensure that the 52nd session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights takes consistent action on countries which commit human rights abuses. [21069]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We support a consistent approach by the UN Commission on Human Rights, but it
  111
  is not always possible to achieve the necessary majorities. Together with our EU partners, we will deliver a statement to the Commission commenting on human rights practices in over 40 countries. The EU will also table several resolutions on human rights practices in countries with exceptional bad records. We will be active in encouraging fellow members of the commission to support them.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations underlie the United Kingdom's objection to clauses in the draft declaration on human rights defenders allowing third parties to take court action against violators of human rights. [21070]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We support the concept of non-governmental organisations acting as legal representatives of those alleged to be victims of human rights violations, and are happy to work with such organisations for the achievement of an acceptable outcome. However, we and others are opposed to the notion of individuals being entitled to bring actions in the courts relating to claims in which they themselves have no direct interest.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government(a) participation in and (b) policy towards the working group on the draft optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; and what proposals he has to move the initiative forward at the 52nd session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. [21071]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have participated actively at each session of the working group. We aim to negotiate, as rapidly as possible, a protocol to the torture convention, which will create a new UN body to visit and report on places of detention in the territories of states parties. At the forthcoming session of the Commission on Human Rights, we shall endeavour to ensure that the mandate of the working group is extended to enable it to continue this work.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the United Kingdom has to ensure that the United Kingdom Commission on Human Rights implements the Beijing declaration and platform for action on women. [21072]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are fully committed to following up the recommendations of the Beijing platform for action on women. One of the main forums for discussion on this subject is the United Nations 112
  Commission on the Status of Women, currently in session in New York, but a few specific recommendations from the Beijing conference will also be discussed during the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The UK delegation is playing an active part in both forums.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the rules governing access to the Government broadcasting station on St. Helena. [21680]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The station manager has editorial discretion but operates under guidelines issued by the St. Helena Government.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure implementation of the recommendations produced by the multi-donor report on "The International Response to Conflict and Genocide: Lessons from the Rwanda Experience", published on 12 March. [21073]

  Mr. Hanley
  The circumstances that gave rise to genocide in Rwanda are worthy of a detailed international analysis. We will examine the recommendations carefully with other donors, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations, and consider ways in which lessons can be learnt.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made and are making to the Government of Sierra Leone regarding human rights abuses. [21103]

  Mr. Hanley
  We take every opportunity to urge the Sierra Leone Government to bring perpetrators of human rights abuses to justice. Any lasting improvement in the political and human rights situation depends on the restoration of accountable, civilian Government in Sierra Leone and an end to the rebel war which we fully support.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have held with the Government of Sierra Leone regarding immunity for those found guilty of human rights abuses during the civil war. [21104]

  Mr. Hanley
  No such discussions have taken place.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for the future chairmanship of the Further Education Funding Council. [21968]

  Mr. Paice
  The current chairman, Sir Robert Gunn, has accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to continue as chairman until 16 January 1998. We are very grateful to Sir Robert for his excellent contribution to the establishment and work of the council over the last four years, and for his willingness to continue to serve as chairman.

  Schools (Surplus Places)
  Mr. John Greenway
  to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the numbers and percentages of surplus places in each local authority in England. [21969]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following tables set out the numbers of surplus places, by local authority area, and the proportion that these represent of total capacity, as at January 1995. The data are drawn from the returns made during 1995 by local education authorities in respect of their schools and by the Funding Agency for Schools in respect of grant-maintained schools in stage 2 and 3 authority areas: data on surplus places in the 336 grant-maintained schools in stage 1 authorities are not available. These returns show that there were just over 880,000 surplus school places in January 1995, representing 12 per cent. of the total capacity of 7.6 million places. This represents a reduction overall of some 130,000 places between 1994 and 1995—some 2 per cent. of total capacity.

  This is encouraging, but the tables illustrate considerable variation in numerical and proportionate levels of surplus across the country. In some cases, combinations of pupil population growth and rationalisation are expected to reduce high levels of surplus to more acceptable levels. Where there is no sign of significant reduction in high levels of surplus, the Department will consult the authorities concerned about the extent to which any of that surplus is in practice removable. In the light of this consultation, my right hon. Friend will decide whether surplus place removal targets should be set for any of those authorities.

  Table 1: Surplus places by local authority area, excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities, at January 1995

  Primary1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus

  Actual surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon

  6,432

  8

  11,242

  18

  Barking

  1,392

  9

  258

  3

  Barnet

  1,293

  6

  1,418

  27

  Barnsley

  1,460

  7

  2,467

  16

  Bedfordshire

  6,909

  15

  7,752

  215

  Berkshire

  4,895

  8

  5,949

  211

  Bexley

  1,457

  7

  1,606

  310

  Birmingham

  8,693

  8

  11,718

  215

  Bolton

  2,266

  9

  1,715

  210

  Bradford

  4,225

  11

  6,482

  213

  Brent

  2,139

  11

  1,452

  310

  114

  Table 1: Surplus places by local authority area, excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities, at January 1995

  Primary1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus

  Actual surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Bromley

  1,443

  26

  608

  23

  Buckinghamshire

  8,900

  13

  3,041

  28

  Bury

  762

  5

  732

  7

  Calderdale

  2,522

  13

  1,782

  212

  Cambridgeshire

  6,420

  10

  2,048

  25

  Camden

  467

  5

  520

  25

  Cheshire

  14,601

  15

  8,233

  12

  Cleveland

  7,004

  11

  6,898

  16

  Cornwall

  3,048

  8

  1,166

  4

  Corporation of London

  15

  7

  —

  —

  Coventry

  4,357

  13

  4,060

  17

  Croydon

  2,429

  9

  1,350

  28

  Cumbria

  5,054

  12

  4,418

  213

  Derbyshire

  10,175

  12

  9,451

  214

  Devon

  8,825

  10

  3,399

  6

  Doncaster

  6,293

  20

  5,777

  21

  Dorset

  3,512

  8

  3,648

  28

  Dudley

  3,172

  11

  1,890

  210

  Durham

  8,139

  14

  6,528

  15

  Ealing

  3,991

  16

  609

  24

  East Sussex

  5,627

  10

  2,808

  8

  Enfield

  869

  4

  1,399

  27

  Essex

  13,348

  29

  16,881

  215

  Gateshead

  3,860

  19

  2,863

  20

  Gloucestershire

  5,895

  212

  2,999

  28

  Greenwich

  2,259

  11

  2,601

  16

  Hackney

  1,855

  11

  2,100

  22

  Hammersmith

  1,404

  15

  2,145

  227

  Hampshire

  18,080

  13

  5,783

  27

  Haringey

  1,043

  6

  1,119

  10

  Harrow

  985

  5

  883

  10

  Havering

  1,489

  7

  2,163

  213

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,943

  11

  6,086

  12

  Hertfordshire

  12,202

  13

  13,389

  216

  Hillingdon

  2,103

  210

  1,041

  37

  Hounslow

  1,590

  9

  773

  25

  Humberside

  10,641

  12

  10,237

  15

  Isle of Wight

  418

  6

  1,122

  10

  Isles of Scilly

  76

  30

  219

  63

  Islington

  1,706

  11

  1,512

  17

  Kensington

  731

  12

  751

  219

  Kent

  11,936

  9

  15,251

  213

  Kingston upon Thames

  83

  0

  510

  26

  Kirklees

  2,614

  7

  2,438

  9

  Knowsley

  3,247

  16

  1,208

  12

  Lambeth

  3,684

  19

  3,947

  238

  Lancashire

  11,685

  9

  9,639

  11

  Leeds

  8,839

  13

  6,167

  13

  Leicestershire

  7,348

  9

  9,426

  14

  Lewisham

  1,196

  6

  1,846

  15

  Lincolnshire

  7,218

  213

  4,680

  211

  Liverpool

  9,388

  18

  7,503

  220

  Manchester

  6,888

  14

  8,039

  27

  Merton

  928

  7

  1,164

  214

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,748

  12

  2,694

  14

  Newham

  2,123

  8

  2,131

  13

  Norfolk

  6,526

  10

  3,468

  28

  North Tyneside

  2,824

  16

  2,117

  13

  North Yorkshire

  8,279

  13

  4,990

  10

  Northamptonshire

  4,089

  8

  5,665

  211

  Northumberland

  4,960

  21

  3,231

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  10,194

  11

  17,250

  22

  115

  Table 1: Surplus places by local authority area, excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities, at January 1995

  Primary1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus

  Actual surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Oldham

  2,251

  10

  947

  6

  Oxfordshire

  5,939

  12

  6,375

  15

  Redbridge

  425

  2

  867

  6

  Richmond upon Thames

  600

  5

  181

  2

  Rochdale

  1,047

  5

  1,949

  213

  Rotherham

  2,583

  10

  2,292

  11

  Salford

  2,890

  12

  2,187

  16

  Sandwell

  1,807

  6

  2,821

  14

  Sefton

  2,775

  10

  3,532

  16

  Sheffield

  5,003

  11

  5,376

  18

  Shropshire

  4,143

  11

  2,083

  28

  Solihul

  2,089

  10

  983

  7

  Somerset

  2,222

  6

  3,010

  10

  South Tyneside

  1,733

  11

  1,823

  16

  Southwark

  3,176

  15

  1,877

  217

  St. Helens

  1,942

  11

  1,991

  15

  Staffordshire

  13,917

  14

  3,867

  6

  Stockport

  2,229

  8

  1,575

  9

  Suffolk

  4,420

  9

  5,145

  10

  Sunderland

  5,553

  17

  2,031

  9

  Surrey

  7,766

  10

  3,275

  26

  Sutton

  725

  6

  515

  24

  Table 2: Distribution of surplus between LEA and GM schools in stage 2 and 3 authorities

  LEA

  GM

  Total

  Surplus

  Per cent.

  Surplus

  Per cent.

  Surplus

  Per cent.

  Primary

  Bromley

  1,248

  6

  195

  8

  1,443

  6

  Essex

  12,120

  10

  1,228

  6

  13,348

  9

  Gloucestershire

  5,425

  12

  470

  8

  5,895

  12

  Hillingdon

  1,911

  11

  192

  7

  2,103

  10

  Lincolnshire

  6,646

  14

  572

  7

  7,218

  13

  Secondary

  Barnet

  1,006

  10

  412

  4

  1,418

  7

  Bedfordshire

  7,360

  17

  392

  4

  7,752

  15

  Berkshire

  3,621

  9

  2,328

  20

  5,949

  11

  Bexley

  1,361

  11

  245

  6

  1,606

  10

  Birmingham

  10,374

  17

  1,344

  8

  11,718

  15

  Bolton

  1,401

  9

  314

  11

  1,715

  10

  Bradford

  6,425

  14

  57

  1

  6,482

  13

  Brent

  108

  6

  1,344

  11

  1,452

  10

  Bromley

  142

  4

  466

  3

  608

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  2,671

  9

  370

  4

  3,041

  8

  Calderdale

  1,035

  15

  747

  9

  1,782

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  1,272

  5

  776

  5

  2,048

  5

  Camden

  520

  6

  0

  0

  520

  5

  Croydon

  696

  9

  654

  8

  1,350

  8

  Cumbria

  2,600

  12

  1,818

  14

  4,418

  13

  Derbyshire

  7,929

  17

  1,522

  8

  9,451

  14

  Dorset

  2,800

  8

  848

  8

  3,648

  8

  Dudley

  1,719

  11

  171

  4

  1,890

  10

  Ealing

  403

  5

  206

  3

  609

  4

  Enfield

  1,138

  8

  261

  5

  1,399

  7

  Essex

  6,664

  19

  10,217

  13

  16,881

  15

  Gloucestershire

  1,317

  12

  1,628

  7

  2,999

  8

  Hammersmith

  2,145

  31

  0

  0

  2,145

  27

  Hampshire

  4,979

  7

  804

  5

  5,783

  7

  Havering

  2,163

  16

  0

  0

  2,163

  13

  Hertfordshire

  9,809

  18

  3,580

  13

  13,389

  16

  Hillingdon

  319

  13

  722

  6

  1,041

  7

  Hounslow

  684

  5

  89

  4

  773

  5

  Kensington

  708

  22

  43

  6

  751

  19

  116

  Table 1: Surplus places by local authority area, excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities, at January 1995

  Primary1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus

  Actual surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Tameside

  1,369

  6

  1,387

  210

  Tower Hamlets

  1,635

  8

  1,826

  14

  Trafford

  1,331

  7

  1,943

  214

  Wakefield

  3,696

  12

  3,904

  16

  Walsall

  3,716

  14

  2,642

  212

  Waltham Forest

  1,420

  7

  1,200

  29

  Wandsworth

  4,270

  23

  1,919

  217

  Warwickshire

  7,387

  14

  5,816

  218

  West Sussex

  5,363

  9

  5,802

  13

  Westminster

  473

  5

  903

  11

  Wigan

  4,301

  14

  2,085

  10

  Wiltshire

  7,186

  14

  4,908

  212

  Wirral

  4,515

  13

  3,072

  14

  Wolverhampton

  4,395

  17

  3,088

  217

  Total

  477,503

  11

  405,652

  12

  1 Primary figures show surplus after taking account of any summer entry.

  2 Stage two for planning purposes.

  3 Stage three for planning purposes.

  1. Stage 1 = less than 10 per cent. of pupils in the GM sector.

  Stage 2 = between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils in the GM sector.

  Stage 3 = 75 per cent. or more pupils in the GM sector.
  117

  Table 2: Distribution of surplus between LEA and GM schools in stage 2 and 3 authorities

  LEA

  GM

  Total

  Surplus

  Per cent.

  Surplus

  Per cent.

  Surplus

  Per cent.

  Kent

  8,298

  15

  6,953

  12

  15,251

  13

  Kingston upon Thames

  260

  5

  250

  8

  510

  6

  Lambeth

  2,968

  52

  979

  21

  3,947

  38

  Lincolnshire

  2,740

  12

  1,940

  10

  4,680

  11

  Liverpool

  6,853

  20

  650

  18

  7,503

  20

  Merton

  1,156

  15

  8

  1

  1,164

  14

  Norfolk

  3,082

  9

  386

  4

  3,468

  8

  Northamptonshire

  4,342

  11

  1,323

  13

  5,665

  11

  Rochdale

  1,949

  15

  0

  0

  1,949

  13

  Shropshire

  1,962

  9

  121

  3

  2,083

  8

  Southwark

  1,678

  20

  199

  8

  1,877

  17

  Surrey

  2,488

  7

  787

  4

  3,275

  6

  Sutton

  208

  4

  307

  4

  515

  4

  Tameside

  1,377

  11

  10

  0

  1,387

  10

  Trafford

  1,703

  16

  240

  7

  1,943

  14

  Walsall

  1,850

  13

  792

  10

  2,642

  12

  Waltham Forest

  1,120

  11

  80

  4

  1,200

  9

  Wandsworth

  1,088

  31

  831

  11

  1,919

  17

  Warwickshire

  4,861

  19

  955

  16

  5,816

  18

  Wiltshire

  3,438

  14

  1,470

  10

  4,908

  12

  Wolverhampton

  2,802

  18

  286

  10

  3,088

  17

  1. The GM column includes schools which became grant-maintained on or before 1 April 1995.

  2. LEA and GM percentage columns show the actual number of surplus places as a proportion of total capacity within that sector.

  Schools Access Initiative
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the schools access initiative. [21971]

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities are today being notified of supplementary credit approvals totalling £7.8 million in 1996–97 to enable them to improve access to mainstream schools for pupils with disabilities, and are being notified that capital grant of £974,000—grant to voluntary aided schools is paid at the rate of 85 per cent. of eligible expenditure—will support work in 1996–97 at voluntary aided schools. Together with partnership funding in many cases, the total value of the projects concerned is £10.6 million.

  I am delighted that this will enable many more schools to admit pupils with disabilities. It will improve facilities in over 700 mainstream schools, not only for pupils with physical disabilities, but for those with, for example, visual or hearing impairments. The result will be greater access to the curriculum and to the social life of school for these pupils.

  LEAs and schools are planning a wide variety of projects. Just a few examples of the many worthwhile and imaginative improvements which will be made are:

  providing ramps, lifts, handrails and walkways to improve access to buildings;

  adapting accommodation for particular curriculum areas or relocating this accommodation to make it accessible;

  purchasing specialist equipment such as teaching aids for the visually handicapped—for example, Braille microcomputers— or portable transmitter/receiver systems for profoundly deaf pupils.

  To maximise the benefits of the schools access initiative, LEAs and schools have secured partnership funding totalling some £1.8 million. This has come from
  118
  private contributions, business sponsorship, voluntary aided school governors' contributions and schools' own resources. It is a marvellous achievement.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will take steps to ensure that no disabled persons in Wales are denied benefit from the access to work scheme because of cash limits on the available budget; and if she will make a statement. [20787]

  Mr. Paice
  While additional funds have been allocated to the 1995–96 budget, it has been necessary to focus support mainly on people with disabilities who have been unemployed for at least four weeks and those to whom the Employment Service has existing commitments. The Government believe that this is the most equitable way of allocating the limited resources available across Great Britain.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many blind and vision-impaired people in the United Kingdom are currently receiving assistance from the access to work scheme; [21371]

  (2) how many people in (a) Nottingham and (b) the east midlands are currently receiving assistance from the access to work scheme; and of these how many are blind or visually impaired people. [21370]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. John Heppell, dated 19 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of visually impaired people currently receiving help through the Access to Work programme;

  119
  the number of people currently being helped in Nottingham, and in the East Midlands; and the number of these who are visually impaired.

  We do not keep detailed records centrally about the characteristics of people currently being helped. However, during 1994–95 we helped 10,394 people nationally and we estimate that around 2,200 of these were visually impaired. Similar figures for 1995/96 will be available after the end of the year.

  In the East Midlands Region since Access to Work began, we have helped 1,480 people of whom 347 were visually impaired. The Nottingham Placing Assessment and Counselling Team helped 275 people, of whom 61 are visually impaired. These figures are included in the East Midlands Region total.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those areas of executive action where she has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for her decision. [20543]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested but reasons will normally be given to the individual affected either at the time the decision is communicated or, on request, afterwards.

  Schools (Special Educational Needs)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to review the powers and responsibilities of local education authorities in respect of the provision of special educational needs and education psychology services and specialist advice and support to schools; and if she will make a statement. [21082]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The powers and responsibilities of local education authorities in this regard are contained in the Education Act 1993 and associated legislation, including the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. The code came into force in September 1994, and the Department is currently monitoring its implementation by schools and LEAs, together with implementation of other aspects of the legislation. I understand that Ofsted intends shortly to publish a report on an interim survey by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools on the implementation of the code of practice in the period from September 1994 to November 1995.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many types of Government audits Barnsley and Doncaster TEC has undergone. [20989]

  Mr. Paice
  Three types of audits have been undertaken by the Department at the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council. These are in the areas of TEC quality assurance: supplier management, health and safety and financial appraisal and monitoring.

  Autistic Children
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will review funding to ensure provision for autistic children; and if she will make a statement. [20877]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The assessment of autistic children and the identification of a suitable school for them is the responsibility of the local education authority in whose area they live. It is for LEAs to decide how best to use their financial resources in order to carry out statutory duties such as these in the light of local needs and priorities.

  The Department is, however, funding a series of joint seminars, to be organised by the National Autistic Society and the Society of Education Officers, which will draw attention to the implications of autism for LEAs.

  Schools (Financial Support)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has had, and what studies she has commissioned, since 1 January 1994, with the purpose of changing the balance of financial support between primary and secondary or middle schools. [21139]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a few representations on this issue but has commissioned no studies. The distribution of funds between primary and secondary schools is determined by the decisions of each local education authority.

  Football Players (Transfer System)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy that abolition of the transfer system on out-of-contract football players should also apply to non-EU players wishing to transfer from employment in the United Kingdom to other EU countries. [21169]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. This is a matter for the football authorities which are independent of Government.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils(a) nationally and (b) in the Greater Manchester area received support under the assisted places scheme in each of the past four years. [21522]

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

  Numbers of pupils holding assisted places

  Academic year

  England

  Greater Manchester

  1992–93

  28,674

  2,813

  1993–94

  29,291

  2,800

  1994–95

  29,747

  2,794

  1995–961

  30,200

  2,800

  1 Estimated.

  Numeracy and Literacy Centres
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities have been awarded grant for education support and training grants for the establishment of the 10 numeracy and 10 literacy centres announced in January 1996. [21556]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No decisions have yet been made about which local education authorities will be selected to run the literacy and numeracy centres. I hope to make an announcement about the successful local education authorities shortly.

  School Premises
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the safeguards against overcrowding contained in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. [21306]

  Mrs Gillan
  Regulation 17(3) requires that every part of a school building shall be such that the health, safety and welfare of the occupants shall be reasonably assured. Further to this, regulation 7 requires that the buildings provided for a school shall be adequate to permit the safe and convenient passage of persons and movement of goods within the buildings.

  The new regulations will not require any school to take on more pupils: local authorities and school governors will continue to have exactly the same powers over admissions as they do now.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research she has commissioned into the impact of the private finance initiative on higher education institutions. [21310]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has set up a small expert group with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Standing Conference of Principals and others to consider the private finance initiative in higher education.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the Government's targets for the participation rate of mature students in higher education by 2000. [21312]

  Mr. Forth
  The number of mature entrants has increased by 160 per cent. since 1979 and there are now more mature than young people entering higher education. The Government welcome this increase but have not set any targets for the level of participation among mature students.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mature female students entered higher education institutions in each academic year from 1985–86 to 1995–96. [21313]

  Mr. Forth
  The available information is given in the following table:122

  Home full-time mature1 female entrants to higher education

  England

  Academic year

  Numbers

  1985–86

  20,548

  1986–87

  22,268

  1987–88

  23,723

  1988–89

  26,467

  1989–90

  29,825

  1990–91

  33,024

  1991–92

  41,936

  1992–93

  51,992

  1993–94

  56,502

  1994–95

  57,745

  1 Those aged 21 and over on an undergraduate course, and those aged 25 and over on a postgraduate course.

  Higher Education (Student to Staff Ratio)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average student to staff ratio in higher education for each year from 1985–86 to 1995–96. [21314]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the student-staff ratio in higher education institutions in England for the academic years 1990–91 to 1993–94, the latest available, are as follows:

  1990–91: 13.4

  1991–92: 14.6

  1992–93: 15.6

  1993–94: 16.5.

  Information on the same basis for earlier years is not available.

  Higher Education Funding Council for England
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many bids were received by HEFCE in response to circular 17/95; which institutions submitted bids; for what sums; and for what reasons the process was terminated in December 1995; [21316]

  (2) how many bids were received by HEFCE in response to its circular 18/94; which institutions were successful; how much funding they were allocated; and how many reader spaces were funded. [21315]

  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for the Higher Education Funding Council for England. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member with the details.

  Key Stage 2 Testing
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to publish the consultation paper on testing at key stage 2. [21304]

  Mr. Pake
  The Department published a consultation paper on the review of assessment and testing at key stages 1 to 3 on 25 January 1996. We intend to issue a separate consultation paper on key stage 2 performance tables in due course.

  School Admissions Policy
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to publish the
  123
  results of the consultation on increasing schools' flexibility to admit pupils on the basis of aptitude or ability. [21305]

  Mrs. Gillan
  A summary of comments on the draft circular on school admissions, together with an analysis of responses to the consultation note on deregulating GM schools' admission arrangements, will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Higher Education (Professors)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average salary paid to professors in higher education in each academic year from 1985–86 to 1995–96 broken down by gender. [21311]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally.

DEFENCE

  Arms and Military Equipment (Exports)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to present an annual statement to Parliament on the implementation of Government policy with regard to the export of arms and military equipment; and if he will make a statement. [21245]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have no current plans for such an annual statement but, as I informed the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 11 March, Official Report, column 451, my Department will take the lead in the review of the convention on the disclosure of information about defence exports.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas of executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20545]

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

  Works of Art
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which former Minister was presented with a reproduction of "A View of the Admiralty" in 1994; and what was the value of the reproduction. [20829]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who provided the valuation of the photographic reproduction of "A View of the Admiralty" given by his Department's staff to a Minister as a leaving gift in 1994; and what was that valuation; [20907]

  (2) how much was reimbursed to his Department by staff for the photographic reproduction "A View of the Admiralty", given to a Minister as a leaving gift in 1994. [20906]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Senior civil servants in my Department presented the reproduction "A View of the Admiralty" to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) on his departure from 124
  the post of Minister of State for the Armed Forces in 1993. The Department's registrar assessed the reproduction as having only nominal value, a judgment confirmed by the Government art collection. The officers concerned contributed £70 to the Department's funds.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to put his Department's art collection on public display. [20837]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Twenty-seven of my Department's most important works of art are on permanent display at the National Maritime Museum. My Department is receptive to requests from exhibition organisers and works have been loaned on occasions to temporary exhibitions. One work will be displayed in London in April and four will be shown in Manchester during the summer.

  Competitive Tendering (Contracts)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded in each of the last three financial years by his Department and its executive agencies after competitive tendering; and what was the total combined value of these contracts. [21031]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department publishes each year in table 1.14 of "UK Defence Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library of the House, details of numbers and values of contracts placed by headquarters contract branches broken down by procurement route and pricing mechanism. A breakdown of these details by individual agencies could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The figures in table 1.14 exclude contracts placed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the Meteorological Office since their inception and I have asked the chief executives of those agencies to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 March 1996:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence for the number and value of the contracts for goods and services awarded after competitive tendering by his Department and its agencies in the last three years. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  The details you requested are as follows:

  Year

  Total number

  Total value (£000)

  1992–93

  378

  44,822

  1993–94

  596

  66,856

  1994–95

  3,081

  109,907

  Total

  4,055

  221,585

  The figures refer to the Defence Research Agency (DRA) which was formed on 1 April 1991 and became a Trading Fund on 1 April 1993. The DRA is now part of the larger agency known as DERA which became a Trading Fund on 1 April 1995.

  I hope this is helpful.
  125
  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 March 1996.

  I am replying as Chief Executive of the Meterological Office to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of contracts let my competitive tender in each of the last three financial years.

  Unfortunately the information could only be produced at disproportionate costs, although naturally as an Agency of the Ministry of Defence we follow the Department's policy on competitive tendering. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters properties are empty(a) in Lancashire and (b) in each local authority area in the country. [21246]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department owns 417 family quarters in Lancashire, 21 of which are currently vacant. Of these, 11 are presently unallocated and 10 are awaiting repair due to flood damage, etcetera. All these properties are required to house service families.

  The local authorities are:

  Preston: 2

  The Fylde: 17

  West Lancashire: 2.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officials responsible for administration of the MOD married quarters estate had been(a) made redundant and (b) dismissed between 1 April 1992 and November 1995. [21378]

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

  RAF Personnel Management Centre
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about agency status for the Royal Air Force's personnel management centre. [21869]

  Mr. Soames
  Elements of the Royal Air Force's personnel management centre at RAF Innsworth, Gloucester, are to be considered as a candidate for agency status. The range of business being considered is the formulation and implementation of personnel management policy, the manning of posts and the career management of RAF personnel-both regular and reserves. Some 450 staff, over half civilians, are currently employed on these activities. Trade unions will be consulted on any proposals that arise from this review.

  A "prior options" study is being undertaken to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. Comments are invited from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 2 April 1996 to:

  Air Marshal D Cousins CB AFC BA RAF

  The Air Member for Personnel

  Headquarters Personnel and Training Command

  RAF Innsworth

  Gloucester

  GL3 1EZ.

  Royal Navy (Vessel Procurement)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the cost of construction of the seven Trafalgar class strategic submarines nuclear(a) at year of completion and (b) at 1996 prices; [21396]

  (2) what was the cost of construction of the five Sandown class mine counter-measures vessels presently in service (a) at the year of construction and (b) at 1996 prices; [21392]

  (3) what was the cost of construction of each of the 12 type 42 destroyers remaining in service (a) at year of completion and (b) at 1996 prices; [21394]

  (4) what was the cost of construction of the 14 type 22 frigates built for the Royal Navy (a) at year of completion and (b) at 1996 prices; [21397]

  (5) what was the cost of construction of each of the 10 type 23 frigates accepted into service (a) at year of completion and (b) at 1996 prices; [21395]

  (6) what was the total cost of construction of the 13 hunt class MCMVs (a) at year of completion and (b) at 1996 prices. [21393]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Defence procurement set out on 14 January 1988 the basis for discontinuing the practice of publishing unit production costs of selected equipments,Official Report, column 373. This remains our position. We continue to make available to the Defence Committee of the House each year on a classified basis costs for those ships currently in production.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applicants have been waiting for more than a year for a decision from his Department in respect of an appeal against a refusal of an application for asylum. [21486]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to expedite his Department's processing of appeals against a refusal of an application for asylum. [21487]

  Mr. Evans
  Additional adjudicators have been appointed and further recruitment plans are in hand. The number of hearing rooms has already been increased and further expansion plans are under consideration.
  127
  New asylum procedure rules aimed at reducing delays in the appeals process are being prepared following the recommendations in the report by KPMG Peat Marwick. The Lord Chancellor will consult interested organisations about the proposed new rules in due course.

  Northern Ireland Court Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current financial cost of the social security commissioners and child support commissioners within the Northern Ireland court service; what were the costs in each financial year from 1990 to 1995; and if he will provide a breakdown of the costs. [20520]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The estimated financial cost of the office of the social security commissioners and child support commissioners for the current financial year is as follows:

  Commissioners' salary costs £

  Staff salary costs £

  Ancillary costs £

  175,426.44

  102,290.94

  47.373.11

  Ancillary costs include postage, rent, electricity, maintenance, cleaning, service charges, telephones and travel.

  The figures for each of the financial years from 1990 to 1995 are as follows:

  Year

  Commissioners' salary costs £

  Staff salary costs £

  Ancillary costs £

  Total £

  1990–91

  119,444.79

  90,590.06

  32,396.00

  242,430.85

  1991–92

  135,786.72

  98,128.08

  45,373.65

  279,288.45

  1992–93

  153,751.28

  97,606.59

  65,960.82

  317,318.69

  1993–94

  159,295.20

  94,985.61

  68,472.05

  322,752.86

  1994–95

  168,385.91

  103,583.58

  294,284.51

  566,254.00

  The following amounts should be deducted from the overall yearly totals as they are recouped from the Department of Health and Social Services for the percentage of time spent by the commissioners and staff on cases involving non-contributory benefit:

  1990–91: £67,588.04

  1991–92: £75,578.39

  1992–93: £34,940.86

  1993–94: £99,465.27

  1994–95: £106,077.08

  1995–96: £51,359.19.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those areas of executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20538]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No areas have been identified, from readily available sources, in which there is a specific requirement to give reasons.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services Expenditure
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland further to the press statement issued on 12 February concerning health and social services expenditure for 1996–97 in respect of relative spending on health and social services in Northern Ireland and England, what is spending on health and social services per head in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) England. [20552]

  Mr. Moss
  Based on the 1995 public expenditure survey settlement, spending in 1996–97 on health and social services in Northern Ireland will be £954 per head. The comparable figure for England will be £835 per head.

  Commonwealth Day
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what celebrations, events or festivities were held in Northern Ireland to celebrate Commonwealth day; and what was the cost of those events in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [20595]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Northern Ireland Departments did not arrange any celebrations, events or festivities. However, the Department of Education encourages schools, by way of a circular which issues annually, to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the celebration of Commonwealth day to increase pupils awareness of the nature and significance of the Commonwealth and to extend the range of their knowledge and understanding of it.

  Metropolitan Transport Research Unit Report
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to the report of the metropolitan transport research unit submitted to his Department by the Balmoral residents association. [20873]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]The report has been considered and a detailed response is being prepared.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  London News Radio
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if the Radio Authority has reported to her about the implications of the takeover of London News Radio as it relates to the franchise originally awarded and the quality and source of news gathering and output; and if she will make a statement; [21019]

  (2) if the consortium purchasing London News Radio has presented a programme plan in accordance with the terms of the station's existing franchise; and if she will make a statement. [21048]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does not receive programme plans for radio services or reports on their day-to-day performances, since the award and regulation of licences for independent local radio services are solely matters for the Radio Authority.
  129
  The Broadcasting Act 1990, however, requires any person acquiring ownership of a licence to comply with the programming proposals included as conditions of the licence when it was awarded, except to the extent that the authority consents to any alteration within the parameters of section 106 of the Act. I understand that the authority has not received any recent proposals for altering the licensed programming of London News Radio and that it is content that the service is currently meeting its licence obligations.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list those areas of executive action where she has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for her decision. [20537]

  Mr. Sproat
  Comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested, but no provisions have been identified from readily available sources.

  National Lottery (Royal Opera House)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what account was taken of the absence of final planning permission for the Royal Opera house project in determining whether to allocate lottery funds; [20453]

  (2) what conditions have been imposed on the Royal Opera house in respect of the new building works before the Arts Council funding is finally committed. [20494]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: The decision whether, and under what conditions, to allocate lottery funds to the Royal Opera house was taken by the Arts Council of England, an independent lottery distribution body. I have asked the chairman of the Arts Council to write to the hon. Member placing copies of his response in the House Library.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her 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. [16826]

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 February 1996, c. 493–94]: Regrettably, the reply was incomplete.

  The full information is as follows:

  (a)

  Arts Council of England

  British Film Institute

  British Library1

  British Tourist Authority1

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission1

  Broadcasting Standards Council1

  Crafts Council

  English Heritage1

  English Tourist Board1

  Football Licensing Authority1

  Geffrye Museum1

  Horniman Museum1

  130

  Millennium Commission1

  Museum of London2

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester1

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  National Gallery2

  National Portrait Gallery2

  National Heritage Memorial Fund1

  Public Lending Right1

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  Royal Commission for Historic Monuments of England

  Sports Council.

  The following bodies are statutorily obliged to produce a triennial report:

  British Museum

  Natural History

  Museum National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  Royal Armouries

  Tate Gallery

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  Wallace Collection.

  (b)

  Arts Council for England

  British Film Institute1

  British Library1

  British Museum1

  British Tourist Authority1

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission1

  Broadcasting Standards Council1

  Crafts Council

  English Heritage1

  English Tourist Board1

  Football Licensing Authority1

  Geffrye Museum1

  Horniman Museum1

  Imperial War Museum1

  Millennium Commission1

  Museum and Galleries Commission

  Museum of London1

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester1

  National Film and Television School1

  National Gallery1

  National Heritage Memorial Fund1

  National Maritime Museum1

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside1

  National Museum of Science and Industry1

  National Portrait Gallery1

  Natural History Museum1

  Public Lending Right1

  Royal Armouries1

  Sir John Soane's Museum1

  Sports Council

  Tate Gallery1

  Victoria and Albert Museum1

  Wallace Collection1.

  131

  (c)

  British Film Institute

  Sports Council.

  (d)

  British Film Institute

  Sports Council.

  (e)

  British Film Institute

  British Library.

  All DNH's executive NDPBs are currently developing registers of members' interests. Many of these are already in place and are open to the public on request.

  1Indicates where this is a statutory requirement.

  2Indicates where an annual report is published but the organisation is only statutorily obliged to publish a triennial report.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General what factors underlay the decision not to provide the report of Gerry Olsen of the City of London police into BCCI to the lawyers acting for Mr. Imran Iman; and if a copy of the report will now be given to them. [20560]

  The Attorney-General
  Leading counsel for the prosecution advised that the report was not disclosable. Relevant underlying documents were disclosed.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those areas of executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20546]

  The Attorney-General
  No express statutory obligation to give reasons is imposed on the Attorney-General in respect of any of his functions. The extent to which it is appropriate for the Law Officers to give reasons for their decisions will vary according to the circumstances of the case.

  Leon Patterson
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects an inquest to be held into the death of Leon Patterson; and if he will make a statement. [21716]

  The Attorney-General
  As I said in my answer of 3 March 1995, column 729, the date of the further inquest is for the coroner to determine in his judicial capacity.

  Marchioness Incident
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 595, when he expects to determine whether he will initiate further criminal proceedings in respect of the Marchioness disaster. [20867]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service continues with the tasks outlined in my answer of 14 February 1996. It has also sought the advice of senior Treasury counsel. There is a substantial amount of 132
  material which requires to be given careful consideration and I am not able, at this stage, to give the indication sought.

  Parental Bindovers
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidance is given to the Crown Prosecution Service and its representatives in respect of breach of parental bindovers. [21055]

  The Attorney-General
  Section 120 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 applies to proceedings to estreat a recognisance entered into a parent or guardian under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Breach proceedings are civil proceedings initiated by complaint. They are not commenced or conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service.

ENVIRONMENT

  Education Authority Budgets
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 196–97, which local education authorities budgeted by more than £50,000 below their capping limits in the years 1992–93 and 1993–94; and in each case by how much in cash and percentage of total spending. [19967]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The local education authorities which budgeted more than £50,000 below their capping limits in 1992–93 and 1993–94 are as follows:

  £ million

  1Percentage of budget requirement

  (a) 1992–93

  City of London

  3.585

  4.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3.197

  2.4

  Wandsworth

  35.378

  15.3

  Westminster

  29.362

  14.5

  Barnet

  0.500

  0.2

  Bexley

  4.435

  3.0

  Brent

  10.131

  3.8

  Bromley

  8.765

  5.0

  Croydon

  13.361

  5.7

  Ealing

  5.289

  2.0

  Harrow

  0.137

  0.1

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.401

  0.4

  Redbridge

  2.750

  1.6

  Oldham

  3.944

  2.2

  Trafford

  3.301

  2.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0.053

  0.02

  Sunderland

  0.755

  0.3

  Solihull

  0.248

  0.2

  Wolverhampton

  0.341

  0.2

  Bedfordshire

  2.000

  0.6

  Cumbria

  0.279

  0.1

  Essex

  36.980

  3.9

  Hampshire

  38.465

  4.2

  Hertfordshire

  4.543

  0.7

  Kent

  23.358

  2.4

  North Yorkshire

  10.712

  2.6

  West Sussex

  28.066

  7.3

  Wiltshire

  2.553

  0.8

  Isles of Scilly

  0.151

  6.2

  133

  £ million

  1Percentage of budget requirement

  (b) 1993–94

  City of London

  3.146

  4.3

  Wandsworth

  7.329

  3.0

  Westminster

  17.275

  8.5

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.537

  1.4

  Bromley

  0.891

  0.5

  Ealing

  0.801

  0.3

  Hillingdon

  1.360

  0.8

  Trafford

  0.563

  0.4

  Sunderland

  0.108

  0.05

  Solihull

  0.958

  0.8

  Essex

  3.959

  0.4

  Hampshire

  36.056

  4.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  3.725

  1.0

  Leicestershire

  7.102

  1.3

  Northamptonshire

  2.848

  0.8

  Surrey

  2.390

  0.4

  West Sussex

  8.637

  2.2

  Isles of Scilly

  0.116

  4.8

  1 Budget requirement to finance services including education.

  Housing
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the funding available for new-rental housing association houses in 1996–97; and if he will estimate what funding would have been available if funding plans in the 1993 autumn statement had been maintained for each local authority in the east midlands. [19883]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The 1996–97 funding allocations made by the Housing Corporation in the east midlands for the provision of rented housing by housing associations through new build and rehabilitation are listed in the table. The Housing Corporation's estimate of what the allocations may have been for 1996–97 if funding plans in the 1993 autumn statement had been maintained are also listed. These estimates can only be hypothetical since the actual allocations depend on a series of factors including the nature of the schemes submitted by housing associations, local housing needs, local authority involvement and value for money. In any one year, activity by housing associations in a particular authority area can vary according to the schemes proposed and approved.

  £ million

  Local authority

  1996–97 allocations

  Estimate of allocations based on 1993 autumn statement

  Amber Valley

  0.71

  0.77

  Ashfield

  0.89

  0.97

  Bassetlaw

  0.66

  0.72

  Blaby

  0.28

  0.30

  Bolsover

  0.43

  0.47

  Boston

  0.18

  0.20

  Broxtowe

  0.60

  0.65

  Charnwood

  0.60

  0.65

  Chesterfield

  0.66

  0.72

  Corby

  0.21

  0.23

  Daventry

  0.19

  0.21

  Derby

  2.85

  3.10

  Derbyshire Dales

  0.49

  0.53

  East Lindsey

  0.94

  1.02

  East Northamptonshire

  0.32

  0.35

  Erewash

  0.73

  0.79

  Gedling

  0.53

  0.58

  Harborough

  0.27

  0.29

  134

  £ million

  Local authority

  1996–97 allocations

  Estimate of allocations based on 1993 autumn statement

  High Peak

  0.62

  0.67

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  0.37

  0.40

  Kettering

  0.51

  0.55

  Leicester

  3.44

  3.74

  Lincoln

  0.68

  0.74

  Mansfield

  0.64

  0.70

  Melton

  0.23

  0.25

  N/E Derbyshire

  0.48

  0.52

  N/W Leicestershire

  0.55

  0.60

  Newark and Sherwold

  0.36

  0.39

  North Kesteven

  0.40

  0.43

  Northampton

  1.13

  1.23

  Nottingham

  3.39

  3.68

  Oadby and Wigston

  0.23

  0.25

  Rushcliffe

  0.59

  0.64

  Rutland

  0.10

  0.11

  South Derbyshire

  0.39

  0.42

  South Holland

  0.37

  0.40

  South Kesteven

  0.80

  0.87

  South Northamptonshire

  0.29

  0.32

  Wellingborough

  0.26

  0.28

  West Lindsey

  0.68

  0.74

  Total

  28.05

  30.48

  In addition, the Housing Corporation also makes funding allocations for social lettings provided through: the corporation's programme of new build and rehabilitation for shared ownership; and the corporation's other home ownership initiatives which release existing social lettings for reletting to others in housing need. Local authorities may also support housing association developments with local authority housing association grant.

  Local Authority Voids
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage and number of void local authority housing properties in each of the 10 local authorities with the highest figures. [20734]

  Mr. Clappison
  The 10 local authorities in England reporting the highest percentages of management vacants, dwellings available for letting immediately or after minor repairs, on 1 April 1995 are listed in the table.

  Number of management vacants

  Management vacants as a percentage of total stock

  Redbridge

  248

  3.67

  Hackney

  1,180

  2.98

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,067

  2.72

  Lambeth

  1,114

  2.59

  Trafford

  261

  2.22

  Mansfield

  196

  2.18

  Blackburn

  245

  2.13

  Carlisle

  186

  2.04

  Arun

  83

  2.03

  Burnley

  117

  2.03

  Source:

  1995 housing investment programme (HIP1) returns.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the effects of methyl bromide on the ozone layer. [20583]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has received 21 representations, covering a range of views, on methyl bromide over the last year.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to introduce measures to reduce emissions of methyl bromide. [20584]

  Mr. Clappison
  The UK has already introduced controls on methyl bromide through EC regulation 3093/94, which is directly applicable to UK law. The regulation obliges all precautionary measures practicable to be taken to prevent leakages of methyl bromide during fumigations. It also includes a freeze on methyl bromide production and consumption at 1991 levels from January 1995 and a further 25 per cent. cut from 1998.

  The meeting in December of the parties to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer agreed to phase out methyl bromide in developed countries by 2010. The EC regulation will need to be amended in line with this decision, and the Council of Ministers has requested the Commission to come forward with appropriate proposals as soon as possible.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to establish monitoring facilities for methyl bromide levels in the atmosphere. [20585]

  Mr. Clappison
  Regular measurements of atmospheric concentrations of methyl bromide are carried out by the university of East Anglia on behalf of the Department of Environment at Macehead in the Republic of Ireland and Cape Grim in Australia in collaboration with international measurement programmes. Additional measurements have been made from time to time in urban areas, over the oceans and in the free atmosphere to investigate the sources and removal mechanisms for methyl bromide.

  Local Authority Rent Arrears
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities with the largest rent arrears together with amounts outstanding; what percentage this figure represents of the annual rent collectable; and what is the largest single sum owed by a tenant in each authority. [20733]

  Mr. Clappison
  The 10 local authorities in England with the highest cumulative rent arrears as a proportion of rent roll on 31 March 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, are as follows:

  Cumulative arrears as a percentage of 1994–95 rent roll

  Total cumulative rent arrears £000

  Haringey

  33.4

  20,318

  Hackney

  31.6

  32,675

  Brent

  29.3

  13,750

  Southwark

  20.8

  26,160

  Lambeth

  19.8

  19,491

  Greenwich

  19.6

  14,984

  Ealing

  19.1

  10,809

  136

  Cumulative arrears as a percentage of 1994–95 rent roll

  Total cumulative rent arrears £000

  Liverpool

  17.2

  12,763

  Islington

  16.0

  16,072

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  15.1

  6,553

  Source:

  Housing subsidy claim forms.

  Information about amounts owed by individual tenants is not held centrally.

  Housing Associations (Wirral and Liverpool)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the moneys available in(a) the Wirral and (b) Liverpool-based housing associations for expenditure in the Wirral. [20786]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1996–97, the Housing Corporation's funding allocation to the Wirral is £4.5 million. These funds are distributed to all housing associations whose proposed housing schemes in the Wirral were successful in this year's competition for funding irrespective of where those associations are based. Details of allocations to individual housing associations will be published in the Housing Corporation's regional allocations statements in early May.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from organisations on the extent of rural homelessness; and of the responses to this Department's White Paper on housing, what percentage expressed concern over the extent of rural homelessness. [20983]

  Mr. Clappison
  The representations we have received recently about rural housing issues, including those in response to the housing White Paper, have primarily been concerned with the proposed purchase grant proposals. My Department has commissioned research into the nature of housing need and the demand for housing in different types of rural areas. The results are expected later this year.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguards he will introduce to ensure that future provision of rural social housing meets demand. [20981]

  Mr. Clappison
  Guidance is provided by the Department to local authorities on the preparation of their housing strategies and the need to identify and prioritise rural housing needs alongside other housing needs in their areas. Their priorities guide the allocation of Housing Corporation funding for new social housing to meet housing need in each area.

  Public funding continues to support the Housing Corporation's rural housing programme which provides new social housing in small rural villages of 3,000 and fewer population. Between 1996–97 and 1998–99 this programme is expected to approve around 1,500 new rural homes a year which is over 300 more than the number being provided in 1995–96.
  137
  To safeguard the supply of affordable rented housing and ensure the continued provision of sites, the Government are proposing to exempt small rural villages of 3,000 and fewer population from the purchase grant scheme. This exemption will also apply to the voluntary scheme that is being launched in April 1996.

  A new rural housing enhancement factor will be introduced on 1 April 1996 to address the additional costs associated with developing schemes in rural areas. The effect of this multiplier will be to increase by up to a quarter the proportion of grant which schemes would otherwise receive.

  We have also recently issued for consultation a draft circular on planning and affordable housing that provides practical advice to local planning authorities and developers on the implementation of affordable housing policies and clarification of how to assess need.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the level of rural homelessness(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the national total of homeless households in each year since 1989. [20980]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information is not available centrally. The data collected from local authorities on homeless households accepted for re-housing do not differentiate between households from rural and non-rural areas.

  I have today placed in the Library a summary print showing the reported acceptances in each local authority area in England for the years 1980 to 1995.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of rural housing is unfit for human habitation. [20982]

  Mr. Clappison
  The 1991 English house condition survey found 7.6 per cent. of rural housing to be unfit under section 604 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended by schedule 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Competitive Tendering (Contracts)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded in each of the last three financial years by his Department and its executive agencies after competitive tendering; and what was the total combined value of these contracts. [21032]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Pollution Controls
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider his decision to delay the implementation of pollution controls on volatile organic compound emissions; and if he will make a decision. [20878]

  Mr. Clappison
  No. The decision, announced last June, was justified pending the review of the relevant statutory guidance notes. It avoided industry incurring what might prove to be unnecessary expenditure. We are well on 138
  course to achieving a 30 per cent. reduction in volatile organic compound emissions by 1999 in accordance with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe VOC protocol. This reduction will not be compromised by the extension to the implementation time-scale.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of changes to the home energy efficiency scheme on pensioner households. [21049]

  Mr. Clappison
  All householders aged over 60 remain entitled to grants under this successful high-quality scheme. Those on low incomes or receiving disability benefits will continue to be eligible for 100 per cent. grants for better insulation of their homes and for energy advice. From 1 April, better-off householders over 60 will be entitled to free advice, and to insulation measures at a substantial discount.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) requests for information and (b) applications for grants were made under the home energy efficiency scheme in (i) February 1995, (ii) February 1996, (iii) March 1995 and (iv) March 1996 to the latest available date. [21261]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The table shows the numbers of requests for information received by Eaga Ltd. the scheme managers, and the numbers of grants claimed.

  Month

  Inquiries handled by Eaga Ltd.

  Grant claims

  February 1995

  27,322

  42,801

  February 1996

  53,874

  58,551

  March 1995

  18,805

  32,390

  March 1996 (until 8th)

  12,605

  27,225

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many home energy efficiency scheme(a) applications and (b) grants have been made since 1 April 1995 to the latest available date; [21262]

  (2) how many households have had work carried out under the home energy efficiency scheme since 1 April 1995 to the latest available date. [21263]

  Mr. Jones
  From 1 April 1995 to 8 March 1996, 602,791 home energy efficiency scheme grant claims in respect of work completed were received by Eaga Ltd. Applications to installers for work to be done are not centrally recorded. In the same period, Eaga Ltd. received 330,000 inquiries about the scheme.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the waiting list of applications for home energy efficiency scheme grants which have been received but have yet to be processed at the latest available date. [21264]

  Mr. Jones
  I estimate that installers now have, on average, about 18 weeks, work from people who have registered an interest in the home energy efficiency scheme.
  139
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money from the 1996–97 home energy efficiency scheme budget will be used to fund work where the application was made on or before 31 March; and how many grants will be paid for in this way. [21287]

  Mr. Jones
  I estimate that up to 210,000 claimants may have registered an interest by 31 March 1995. If all of them are eligible for grants under the present rules, up to £34 million of the 1996–97 budget could be spent.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) in how many cases where applications for home energy efficiency scheme grants have been approved the work has not yet been carried out; [21265]

  (2) what proportion of households who successfully apply for home energy efficiency scheme grant in (a) the third quarter of financial year 1995–96 and (b) the fourth quarter of financial year 1995–96 will have the work carried out within financial year (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [21266]

  Mr. Jones
  I understand that over 200,000 people who have inquired about grants are waiting for work to be done. The table gives the information requested about times of inquiry and estimated payment of grant.

  Percentage

  Period of enquiry

  Work completed in 1995–96

  Work completed in 1996–97

  Third quarter of 1995–96

  95

  5

  Fourth quarter of 1995–96

  25

  75

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of home energy efficiency scheme grants made in(a) financial year 1994–95 and (b) financial year 1995–96 to the latest available date, were made to people who will no longer be eligible for a full grant after 1 April. [21267]

  Mr. Jones
  I estimate that in 1994–95, 33 per cent. of all home energy efficiency scheme grants were paid to people aged over 60 who did not also claim an income-related benefit, and the equivalent figure for 1995–96 is likely to be about 45 per cent. I expect the proportion to fall in future.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the national average waiting time for(a) processing applications for home energy efficiency scheme grants and (b) carrying out work under the home energy efficiency scheme once an application was approved, in each month of 1995 and each month of 1996 to the latest available date; [21268]

  (2) what was the average waiting time in each region of England and in Scotland and Wales for (a) processing applications for home energy efficiency scheme grants and (b) carrying out work under the home energy efficiency scheme once an application was approved in each month of 1995 and each month of 1996 to the latest date. [21269]

  Mr. Jones
  The information requested is not available on a regional basis. National data are given in the table. Average waiting times nationally, allowing for seasonal 140
  variations in demand, are not significantly longer this winter than last, despite the recent increase in demand for the scheme.

  Month

  Mean time from inquiry to work completed (weeks)

  1995

  January

  14

  February

  12

  March

  9

  April

  8

  May

  7

  June

  6

  July

  6

  August

  7

  September

  7

  October

  7

  November

  8

  December

  8

  1996

  January

  12

  February

  14

  March

  18

  Orimulsion Burning (Emissions)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the permissible daily tonnage of PM 10s which will be emitted from power stations burning orimulsion; and what monitoring procedures have been agreed. [20847]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: With reference to Pembroke power station, proposals have been received from National Power for the burning of orimulsion, and these are currently being evaluated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It is intended that releases of particulate matter would be continuously monitored.

  With regard to Ince power station, over 90 per cent. of the particulates from orimulsion combustion are removed by the electrostatic precipitators. The particulate emission limits for orimulsion are currently the most stringent of the black fossil power generation processes.

  HMIP requires continuous monitoring of particulates emissions, and specific limits have been imposed for short-term (two hours), medium-term (48 hours), and long-term (monthly) average emission levels. In addition, maximum annual tonnage limits are specified.

  The authorisation of Ince power station under EPA90 is soon to be modified, and it is expected that PowerGen will be required to assess the effect of emissions (including PM 10s) on local air quality with a view, if necessary, to reducing concentrations under adverse meteorological conditions.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the measures to be taken at power stations burning orimulsion to ensure there are no emissions of vanadium and other heavy metals as well as pentoxide fumes; and what monitoring procedures have been agreed. [20848]
  141
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: Orimulsion, in common with most heavy fuel oils, contains a small amount of vanadium and heavy metals which form part of the particulates produced in combustion.

  The one power station which is currently firing orimulsion is Ince, and this uses electrostatic precipitators which effectively reduce vanadium and heavy metal emissions levels by more than 90 per cent. as a requirement of its IPC authorisation.

  Currently, HMIP imposes an annual tonnage limit on power stations for vanadium and heavy metal emissions. In the forthcoming modified authorisation for Ince power station, this limit has been reduced by 15 per cent.

  Telecommunications Masts and Wind Turbines
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what planning restrictions there are on the number of wind turbines erected in a particular area; [21414]

  (2) what planning regulations apply to anemo meters; [21412]

  (3) what planning regulations apply to the erection of wind turbines; [21408]

  (4) what statutory protection is provided to areas on the outskirts of areas of outstanding natural beauty from wind farms; [21418]

  (5) what protection is provided to areas of outstanding natural beauty from wind farms by (a) planning regulations and (b) guidance; [21409]

  (6) what plans he has to review the section on planning policy guidance note 22 dealing with the erection of wind farms. [21411]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Wind turbines are subject to the same planning controls as other types of development, and are subject to national policies for the protection of the countryside. Planning policy guidance note 22 gives full and clear advice on the planning framework. The same planning controls apply to anemometers. If a local planning authority wishes to protect a locally important area, it should draw up a policy to do so in its development plan.

  All planning applications for wind turbines should be considered on their own merits. Local planning authorities should balance the benefits of developing a clean and renewable source of energy against any impacts on the local landscape depending upon local circumstances.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what method his Department recommends for the safe disposal of(a) mercury, (b) lead, (c) cadmium and (d) polychlorinated biphenyls. [21390]

  Mr. Clappison
  The recommended method of disposal for these substances will depend on their chemical and physical form, the quantity and the availability of disposal facilities. In general where they are not recovered,142
  mercury, lead and cadmium my be safely disposed to a suitable landfill either directly or after chemical and/or physical treatment.

  PCB wastes should be incinerated. At very low concentrations they may be landfilled. There are other specific treatments for PCB-contaminated transformer oils which destroy the PCB to an extent that allows the oil to be reused.

  Detailed guidance on methods for the safe disposal of wastes is available in waste management papers published by the Department. The relevant papers are:

  WMP No. 12 Mercury-bearing Wastes;

  WMP No. 24 Cadmium-bearing Wastes;

  WMP No. 6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls; and

  WMP No. 11 Metal Finishing Wastes which includes some lead wastes.

  In addition, WMP No. 26F co-disposal landfill, currently in preparation, will give guidance on loading rates for these and certain other wastes.

  Housing (Environmental Appraisal)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when the draft circular on planning and affordable housing consultation paper was subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", produced by the Department of the Environment; and if he will publish the appraisal; [21074]

  (2) what alternative courses of action from those listed in the draft circular on planning and affordable housing consultation paper were considered in the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [21075]

  (3) in what ways the draft circular on planning and affordable housing consultation paper was modified by the results of the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [21076]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The planning policy on affordable housing is set out in planning policy guidance note 3. Because the draft circular does not change policy, but only explains how it can best be implemented, an environmental appraisal was not necessary. However, if any comments are received from consultees on environmental impact, they will be carefully considered.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the draft circular on planning and affordable housing consultation paper. [21077]

  Mr. Jones
  There are no direct environmental impacts of the draft circular. The policy guidance on affordable housing is in PPG3 in which environmental issues are fully addressed, and which was revised following the
  143
  1990 White Paper "This Common Inheritance". The draft circular is intended not to add to the policy guidance to planning policy guidance note 3, but to advise on how that guidance might be best given effect.

  Local planning authorities, in taking account of PPG3 and other guidance notes in drawing their local plans, are already advised to carry out an environmental appraisal of these plans.

  Local Authority Contracts
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by service, the local authorities in England that have been challenged by his Department under regulations under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992 in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits. [21547]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Although we have received allegations of anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities about the arrangements for establishing a client-contractor split, none has proceeded to statutory action. Records are not available by service area of the allegations which have been received.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by authority and service area, the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour or services organisations in England that have failed to meet the rate of return requirements operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and

  Year

  Total number of complaints

  Number of authorities receiving notices

  Total number of notices

  Number of authorities given directions

  Total number of directions

  1990–91

  59

  6

  6

  3

  3

  1991–92

  41

  6

  7

  2

  2

  1992–93

  70

  8

  9

  5

  6

  1993–94

  110

  12

  13

  6

  6

  1994–95

  65

  12

  15

  8

  9

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints his Department received alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in England under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 for each financial year from 1990–91 to 1994–95; and how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19a notice or 19b direction. [21552]

  Year

  Number of complaints

  Number of authorities receiving notices

  Total number of notices

  Number of authorities given directions

  Total number of directions

  1990–91

  21

  —

  0

  —

  0

  1991–92

  15

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1992–93

  36

  2

  3

  3

  3

  1993–94

  40

  5

  6

  6

  8

  1994–95

  15

  3

  3

  2

  2

  144
  Land) Act 1980 and for the Local Government Act 1988 for each financial year from 1990–91 to 1994–95 in both cash and constant prices. [21551]

  Sir Paul Beresford

  334 (14.5 per cent.) of the 2,302 1994–95 local authority direct labour/service organisation accounts for 1994–95 received by my Department recorded a deficit.

  For 1993–94, 2,381 accounts were received, of which 307 (12.9 per cent.) recorded a deficit.

  For 1992–93, 2,409 accounts were received, of which 321 (13.3 per cent.) recorded a deficit.

  For 1991–92, 2,260 accounts were received, of which 242 (10.7 per cent.) recorded a deficit.

  Detailed lists by authority and service area for the years 1991–92 to 1994–95 have been placed in the Library of the House. A list for 1990–91 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints his Department received alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in England under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 for each financial year from 1990–91 to 1994–95; and how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19a notice or 19b direction. [21548]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table gives, for the years in question, the number of complaints received by the Department of the Environment alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities under the Local Government Act 1988. It also shows the number of authorities on which notices were served under section 13 and to which directions were given under section 14, and the total numbers of notices and directions.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table gives, for the years in question, the number of complaints received by the Department of the Environment alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It also shows the number of authorities on which notices were served under section 19A and to which directions were given under section 19B, and the total numbers of notices and directions.
  145
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority direct labour and direct service organisations in England, operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980, have achieved the required rate of return for each financial year from 1992–93 to 1994–95 and similarly under the Local Government Act 1988. [21549]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  For the financial year 1994–95, my Department recorded 2,302 local authority direct labour and direct service organisation accounts. Some 1,968 of these accounts showed that the statutory financial objective had been met.

  For 1993–94, 2,381 accounts were received, 2,057 of which met the required rate of return.

  For 1992–93, 2,409 accounts were received, 2,060 of which met the required rate of return.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last issued comprehensive guidance on the system of local authority capital finance; and if he will make it his policy to up-date this at annual intervals. [21559]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Comprehensive guidance was last issued in the Department's circular 11/90, on 2 August 1990. A replacement guide is in preparation. Once issued, it will be updated as the need arises.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the primary and subordinate legislation affecting local authority capital finance. [21558]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The primary legislation is parts IV and V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, as amended. The main subordinate legislation is as follows:

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1990 [SI 1990/432]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 [SI 1990/1273]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 [SI 1991/500]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 [SI 1992/738]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1992 [SI 1992/1618]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 1992 [SI 1992/2819]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) (No.4) Regulations 1992 [SI 1992/3257]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 [SI 1993/520]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1993 [SI 1993/2014]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 1993 [SI 1993/3054]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 [SI 1994/553]

  The Local Authorities (Companies) Order 1995 [SI 1995/849]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 [SI 1995/850]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 [SI 1995/1526]

  146

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1995 [SI 1995/1982]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 [SI 1996/568]

  The Local Authorities (Companies) (Amendment) Order 1996 [SI 1996/621].

  In addition, there are 13 sets of regulations dealing with detailed issues concerning the rate of discount, borrowing, approved investments; and two other sets of regulations dealing with capital finance implications of local government reorganisation.

  Local Authority Trading Accounts
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by authority the surplus achieved on trading accounts for each financial year from 1992–93 to 1994–95 for(a) general highways work, (b) construction and maintenance of sewers, (c) works on new construction and (d) maintenance work, delivered by local authorities' direct labour or services organisations in England by the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. [21550]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A detailed list of the surpluses achieved for these services for the years 1993–94 to 1994–95 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Similar figures for 1992–93 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total running cost to Department for the financial years 1991–92 and 1993–94 of the local government compulsory competitive tendering enforcement team. [21553]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The estimated costs of enforcing the compulsory competitive tendering provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Land Act) 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 are £250,000 in 1991–92 and £420,000 in 1993–94.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the additional costs likely to fall on local authorities as a result of the implementation of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 in respect of their statutory duties under(a) existing homelessness legislation, (b) the Children Act 1989 and (c) the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. [21705]

  Mr. Clappison
  Officials in my Department and the Department of Health have invited the local authority associations to provide information on the likely costs that authorities will face.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the special grants he is proposing to make available under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to authorities which face additional costs as a result of the withdrawal of
  147
  benefits under the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 will be subject to a threshold. [21706]

  Mr. Clappison
  Because it is reasonable for authorities to meet some costs from their own resources.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the minimum threshold of expenditure for each London local authority will be in respect of housing benefit subsidy for-gone and unavoidable additional social services expenditure for the special grants under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to authorities which face additional costs from the introduction of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996. [21595]

  Mr. Clappison
  The thresholds have not yet been determined.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make special grants available under section 88B of the Local Government Finance act 1988 to authorities which face additional costs from the introduction of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 for the current year only; and what plans he has for similar grants in subsequent years. [21596]

  Mr. Clappison
  An official in my Department wrote on 26 February to chief executives of local authorities in England explaining the basis on which the Government intend to make special grants available to authorities for 1995–96 and 1996–97. I am placing a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the primary and subordinate legislation affecting local authorities's ability to take advantage of the private finance initiative; and what plans he has to(a) consolidate this legislation and (b) provide a guide to it for those companies wishing to enter into partnerships with local authorities. [21557]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The primary legislation is parts IV and V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, as amended. Subordinate legislation aimed at assisting local authorities to take advantage of the private finance initiative is as follows:

  The Local Authorities (Companies) Order 1995 [SI 1995/849]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment) Regulation 1995 [SI 1995/850]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1995 [SI 1995/1982]

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 [SI 1996/568]

  The Local Authorities (Companies) (Amendment) Order 1996 [SI 1996/621]

  Consolidation of the capital finance regulations is in hand, as in the preparation of a guide to the capital finance system. My Department will ensure that there is adequate advice, for both local authorities and potential provider companies, on the private finance initiative in local government.

  Gun Clubs
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning advice is given to local planning authorities concerning applications for gun clubs; and if he will make a statement. [21707]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The express planning permission of the local authority is required for any development proposal to change the use of a building to use for the purposes of a gun club or to erect a new building. Other land, not in the curtilage of a building, may be used for those purposes for not more than 28 days in a calendar year without express planning permission. Planning applications must be publicised so that local views can be taken into account before decisions are taken. My Department does not issue planning advice specifically on gun clubs. Gun clubs in England and Wales are subject to a licensing regime, independent of the planning legislation, operated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many display leaflets inviting people to purchase the White Paper on Rural England were distributed to post offices in Scotland. [21488]

  Mr. Clappison
  Post Office Counters provided my Department with details of rural post offices in England to which display material on the English rural White Paper was to be sent. To the best of my knowledge, one post office in Scotland received copies of the display material in error. Post offices were under no obligation to display the material. The leaflets informed the public how to buy a copy of "Rural England" or to obtain the free summary document.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all cases since 1987 where his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19450]

  Mr. Boswell
  Since 1987, the Ministry has not bought in any computer capacity from other Government Departments but has let one outsourcing contract to the private sector company Data Sciences. The value of the contract with Data Sciences is estimated to be £1.5 million.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those areas of executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20550]

  Mr. Boswell
  Comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested. Identification of the kind of provisions referred to could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what environmental impact assessments his Department has made in respect of methyl bromide. [20581]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The stratospheric impact of Methyl Bromide was reviewed by the UK stratospheric ozone review group in its last report "Stratospheric Ozone 1993". Its next assessment will be published by the end of 1996.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines his Department has issued regarding the use of methyl bromide. [20582]

  Mrs. Browning
  My Department has not issued specific guidelines relating to the use of methyl bromide. The British Pest Control Association operates a strict system of regulation, certification and training for the use of methyl bromide which was drawn up in collaboration with my Department and the Health and Safety Executive. Industry has a good history of self-regulation and only those who obtain a BPCA certificate may be supplied with methyl bromide.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what alternative fumigants to methyl bromide are approved for use in the United Kingdom. [20586]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no single alternative to methyl bromide in all of its wide range of uses.

  Approved alternative fumigants for soil sterilisation include chloropicrin, 1,3 dichloropropene and formaldehyde. Phosphine may be used for commodity fumigation. No alternatives to methyl bromide exists for rodent control and insect elimination aboard aircraft.

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much funding the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research at Aberystwyth received from his Department in(a) 1985, (b) 1990, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, (e) 1994 and (f) 1995; how much will be allocated in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20995]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research was not established until 1989. Records of payments made to the institute by the Ministry in respect of research and deveopment projects are kept on a financial year basis only. These show:

  1990–91: £9,093,000

  1992–93: £7,164,000

  1993–94: £7,452,000

  1994–95: £7,426,000

  1995–96: £7,449,000 (estimate).

  It is too early to forecast total payments for 1996–97 but, to date, some £5,823,000 of expenditure has already been committed.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations his Department has recently received from the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research; and if he will make a statement. [20997]
  150
  Mr. Boswell
  This Department is a major funder of research at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research and, as such, maintains regular contact in the course of monitoring and reviewing its on-going research. Most recently, discussions have focused on the future scope and content of the MAFF programme on oat breeding at IGER. A formal mid-term review meeting was held on 13 March at which this issue was considered. No final decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much grant aid from the European Commission the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research received in(a) 1990, (b) 1992, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995; how much is to be allocated in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20998]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research received grant in aid from the European Commission for the respective years as follows:

  1990–91: £30,000

  1992–93: £155,000

  1994–95: £458,000

  1995–96: £383,000.

  The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, which is the Research Council responsible for IGER, estimates that in 1996–97 IGER will receive £240,000 from the European Commission.

  Merchant Shipping Act 1988
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications of the ruling by the European Court of Justice that the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 contravenes European Law. [20827]

  Mr. Baldry
  Action has already been taken to amend merchant shipping legislation following the European Court of Justice's judgments in earlier Factortame cases (C 221/89 and C 246/89) in 1991.

  In regard to the recent judgment on the latest Factortame case (C 48/93) and the steps which the Government plan to take to deal with quota hopping, I would refer to the replies which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 5 March 1996, Official Report, columns 130–31, and to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 6 March 1996, Official Report, column 345.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vessels are currently licensed to fish in British waters; and of those, how many are owned by Spanish operators. [20844]

  Mr. Baldry
  As at 1 January 1996, some 8,500 British registered vessels were licensed to fish for profit in British and Community waters, although not all of these are entitled to fish for the full range of stocks subject to quota.

  Following the introduction of the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Shipping) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993 No. 3138), the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen no

  151
  longer collects details of shareholdings in UK companies owning British-registered fishing vessels. We estimate, however, that there are more than 100 licensed UK vessels with a significant Spanish interest.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many veterinary officers and technical assistants were involved on(a) 13 February, (b) 14 February, (c) 15 February and (d) 16 February, in lairages near Dover, in inspecting animals to ensure that they were fit to travel under the Welfare of Animals During Transportation Order 1994 and to deal with other related matters; [20772]

  (2) how many consignments containing calves on 13, 14, 15 and 16 February were inspected by his veterinary officers and technical assistants; and how many hours were spent in carrying out the inspections. [20771]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 20 February 1996,Official Report, columns 136–37 and on 26 February 1996, Official Report, columns 381–82).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Women Prisoners (Drug Tests)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the procedures involved in respect of the random mandatory drug testing policy for women prisoners. [20618]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 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 Brian Landers to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 19 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 procedures involved in respect of the random mandatory drug testing policy for women prisoners.

  In most respects the procedures for the random testing of women prisoners are the same as those for men. Ten per cent. of each prison's population is randomly selected by computer at the beginning of each month. Prisoners are given no advance warning that they are to be tested and are escorted immediately to the sample collection site.

  At the sample collection site the prisoners are informed of the reason and authority for the test. All prisoners are searched before being asked to give a sample. Each prisoner is then required to wash her hands to remove any potential contaminants.

  Prisons have been advised to assess the risk of false samples being substituted and to take appropriate security measures. Male members of staff are not permitted to collect or to observe the collection of samples from women prisoners.

  If a prisoner is unable to provide a sample straight away, she may be confined at the collection site for up to five hours. She is offered a third of a pint of water each hour. If it is suspected that the prisoner is having genuine difficulty in providing a sample, the prisoner is
  152
  asked if she wishes to see a health care worker. Prisoners who refuse to provide a sample or who fail to provide a sample without a medical reason are charged with disobeying a lawful order.

  Samples are equally divided between two bottles. Screening and confirmation tests are carried out on the urine from one bottle, the second may be analysed at an independent laboratory on the prisoner's instructions. Both sample bottles are sealed with bar-coded seals and then sealed into a chain of custody bag for despatch to the laboratory. All of this takes place in the prisoner's presence.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners have been tested under the random mandatory drug testing policy; and what were the results. [20616]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 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 Brian Landers to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 19 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 women prisoners tested under random mandatory drug testing and the results of those tests.

  Between April 1995 and January 1996 586 prisoners were randomly tested for drugs in women only prisons. Of the 586 samples tested 136 (23.2 per cent.) were positive for drugs; 57 (9.7 per cent) were for cannabis, 50 (8.5 per cent.) for benzodiazepines (tranquillisers) 26 (4.4 per cent.) for opiates, two (0.3 per cent.) for cocaine, and one (o.2 per cent.) for methadone.

  Statistics from establishments which house both male and female prisoners are not yet broken down by sex.

  Prisons ("Advice to Governors")
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy relating to public access to the documents "Advice to Governors", issued to prison governors. [20617]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 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 Brian Landers to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 19 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 policy relating to public access to the documents Advice to Governors.

  In responding to requests from members of the public for access to such documents the Prison Service follows the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Each request is considered on its merits and there is a presumption in favour of disclosure.

  Charge Reductions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will advise police authorities that they should repay retrospectively reductions in charges when an error has taken place and has been admitted. [20888]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: I would expect police authorities to correct any overcharging when it came to notice, in the same way as any other organisation.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the security cameras currently operating at Buckley Hall prison are constantly monitored; and for how long the videotape recording made by the cameras are stored. [20918]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 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 Brian Landers to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 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 whether the security cameras at Buckley Hall prison are monitored constantly and for how long the video recording made by the cameras are stored.

  Security cameras at Buckley Hall are monitored constantly. Video recordings made are held for one week before being taped over, unless they are considered to be useful for future use, in which case they would be held for a longer period.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attempted escapes have been recorded at Buckley Hall prison since its opening; and what was the average number for male category C training prisons over the same period. [20920]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 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 Brian Landers to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 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 how many attempted escapes have been recorded at Buckley Hall prison since its opening; and the average number of attempted escapes for male category C training prisons for the same period.

  The number of attempted escape incidents reported from Buckley Hall prison since its opening on 14 December 1994 to 29 February 1996 is three.

  The average number of attempted escape incidents reported during that period for male category C prisons is 1.6.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) what is the average absenteeism rate among prison officers at Buckley Hall prison and (b) what is the average absenteeism rate amongst prison officers at male category C training prisons. [20923]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 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 Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 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 average absenteeism rates among prison officers at Buckley Hall and male Category C training prisons.

  Questions about staff issues at Buckley Hall prison are a matter for the contractors, Group 4, and I am unable to provide information about absenteeism at that establishment.

  You also ask about absence rates per uniformed prison officer in male Category C training prisons. Information on sick absence (which accounts for virtually all absence form work apart from
  154
  annual leave), is that, the average sick absence was eight days per officer during the period April 1995-February 1996. (These figures relate to basic grade prison officers, senior officers and principal officers).

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 445, what steps are being taken to eradicate smuggling into Buckley Hall prison through items being thrown over the prison fence. [20924]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 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 Brian Landers to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 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 steps being taken at Buckley Hall prison to eradicate smuggling through items being thrown over the prison's fence.

  Every effort is being made at Buckley Hall to eradicate smuggling through items being thrown over the prison fence, by prohibiting the access of prisoners to the most vulnerable sections and twice daily checking of these areas by staff.

  Arrangements are being made for the installation of additional fencing at the most vulnerable points of the prison fence which, it is expected, will reduce the potential for this method of smuggling by 80 per cent. There will also be more stringent policing of other areas of fencing.

  Consideration is also being given to the installation of external cameras so as to allow early warning to be given to the police in the event of any cause for concern arising.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have received authorized leave from Buckley Hall prison after protesting on the prison hospital's roof because of the denial of authorized leave. [21272]

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

  Letter from Brian Landers to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 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 prisoners who have received authorised leave from Buckley Hall prison after protesting on the prison hospital's roof because of the denial of authorised leave.

  One prisoner has been given authorised leave from Buckley Hall after a protest regarding the cancellation of a period of leave. The temporary release was granted to allow him to attend a job interview and was completed successfully.

  Prison Cells
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the statutory minimum size of prison cells; [19333]

  (2) what is the average cell size per inmate in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [19334]

  (3) what is the (a) average cell size and (b) current average number of prisoners per cell, in each prison in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [19335]
  155
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: Responsibility for these matters 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. Alex Carlile, dated 19 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about average cell size and average number of prisoners per cell in each prison in England and Wales and the statutory minimum size of prison cells.

  Information regarding the size of cells is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  With regard to the number of prisoners per cell, the position at the end of January this year was that some 8,488 prisoners were housed two to a cell which was designed for one person. There were no instances of three prisoners sharing a single cell.

  There is no statutory minimum size for existing prison cells, although Prison Service operating standards do lay down an ideal minimum size of 5.5 square metres. Section 14 of the Prisons Act 1952 requires cells to be certified as being fit as regards their size, lighting, heating, ventilation and fittings.

  Football Matches
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the financial problems for association football clubs arising from the costs imposed by police services in respect of the attendance of police officers at games; and if he will make a statement. [20872]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: The taxpayer already foots the bill for policing outside football grounds as part of the duty of the police to keep the peace and prevent crime. It is right for those who benefit—the club and the supporters attending the match—to pay for police services inside grounds.

  Featherstone Prison (Drug Parties)
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold an inquiry into the making of a video showing drug parties in Featherstone prison, near Wolverhampton; and if he will make a statement. [21681]

  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. Warren Hawksley, dated 19 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about a video purporting to show a drugs party in Featherstone.

  The governor of Featherstone will conduct a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding this incident once a copy of the video has been received. Any action to be taken will depend on the conclusions of the investigations now taking place.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost of keeping a fine defaulter in prison. [21115]
  156
  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 A. J. Pearson to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 19 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 average weekly cost of keeping a fine defaulter in prison.

  Information on the cost of prisoners according to their type of offence is not collected centrally. The average weekly net operating cost of a prison place in 1994–95 was £458.

  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently held in prison on convictions relating to fine defaults. [21113]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 19 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, how many people are currently held in prison on convictions relating to fine defaults.

  The latest available information is for 31 January 1996. On that date there were 358 persons in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of a fine.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if prisoners from Doncaster prison are eligible for unaccompanied visits to(a) Doncaster and (b) surrounding towns after good behaviour; and if he will make a statement; [21005]

  (2) what provision is available in Doncaster prison for (a) therapeutic and (b) psychological treatment when inmates receive positive results to tests for transmissible diseases; and if he will make a statement; [20991]

  (3) what regular medical checks prisoners in Doncaster prison receive; what systematic checks are carried out for transmissible diseases; and if he will make a statement; [20999]

  (4) what steps are taken to prevent discrimination against prisoners in Doncaster prison with specific health problems; and if he will make a statement; [20993]

  (5) what percentage of the annual budget for Doncaster prison is designated for health care; and if he will make a statement; [21002]

  (6) how many (a) nurses and (b) doctors are employed in Doncaster prison; and if he will make a statement; [20992]

  (7) what mechanisms exist in Doncaster prison relating to the prevention of (a) transmissible or (b) contagious diseases (i) in general and (ii) in respect of specific outbreaks; and if he will make a statement; [21001]

  (8) how many prisoners in Doncaster prison are currently recorded as being terminally ill; if he will list the illnesses diagnosed; and if he will make a statement; [20990]
  157
  (9) what provisions are made for those prisoners in Doncaster prison known to be terminally ill; and if he will make a statement; [20994]

  (10) what steps are taken to ensure the confidentiality checks on prisoners in Doncaster prison, with particular reference to cases involving transmissible diseases; and if he will make a statement; [20978]

  (11) how many prisoners have died in Doncaster prison since it opened; and if he will list the figures where the cause of death was (a) self-inflicted, (b)accidental, (c) murder, (d) disease, (e) AIDS, (f)tuberculosis, (g) cancer and (h) vascular and heart disease. [21004]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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. Martin Redmond, dated 19 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about unaccompanied visits for prisoners and medical matters at Doncaster prison.

  No prisoners from Doncaster are eligible for unaccompanied visits to Doncaster or any other towns in the area.

  Four prisoners have died within Doncaster since the prison opened. Two inquests have been held, one of which recorded a verdict of death from natural causes and one a verdict of death by suicide. In addition, two have died in outside hospital, one from natural causes and one suicide. All prisoners are given a physical and mental health check on reception. Prisoners who are identified with pre-existing conditions receive reviews as clinically indicated. All are asked about their experience of transmissible diseases. If clinically indicated, and the prisoner agrees, they undergo the appropriate tests.

  Medical confidentiality is of paramount importance at Doncaster and helps reduce the chance of discrimination against any prisoner on the grounds of health. All medical information on prisoners is kept within the Health Care Centre and is provided to nobody except authorized staff. With regard to transmissible diseases, health promotion posters and literature are displayed freely throughout the prison. Doncaster has also had a contagion control policy in preparation for the outbreak of any contagious disease. This policy allows a number of internal and external resources to be deployed in the event of specific outbreaks. The prison has registered mental nurses with counselling skills, as well as qualified counsellors and psychologists to assist prisoners who receive positive results having been tested for a transmissible disease.

  There are currently no prisoners in Doncaster who are terminally ill. Should any prisoner be so diagnosed, an application can be made to the Area manager for release on compassionate grounds.

  The contract for Doncaster prison specifies the health care requirements that the contractor is required to meet. Distinct services within the total operation are not broken down by price. The way these requirements are met and staffing details are matters for Premier Prison Service.

  Prison Officers (Training)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of training received by prison officers at(a) Buckley Hall prison and (b) other male category C training prisons. [21054]

  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.
  158
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 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 level of training received by prison officers at (a) Buckley Hall prison and (b) in other male category C training prisons.

  The contract for Buckley Hall prison specifies the level of staff training, both basic and continuing, which the contractor is required to meet.

  The detail of how these requirements are fulfilled is a matter for Group 4.

  All new prison officers joining other category C establishments will have received nine weeks training in both theoretical and practical skills.

  Prisoners (Threats to Witnesses)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last five years prisoners have telephoned or written from Her Majesty's prisons to witnesses in such a way that charges of perverting the course of justice or other charges relating to attempts to interfere with witnesses in criminal cases have resulted. [20726]

  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 Brian Landers to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 19 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 prisoners who may have telephoned or written to witnesses in such a way that charges of perverting the course of justice or other charges have resulted in criminal cases.

  Unfortunately this information is not available.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions prisoners have been disciplined in Her Majesty's prisons in each of the last five years as a result of complaints about letters or telephone calls by prisoners making threats to witnesses in their case. [20727]

  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 Brian Landers to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 19 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 prisoners who have been disciplined in the last five years as a result of complaints of threats to witnesses in their case.

  Unfortunately this information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Competitive Tendering (Contracts)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded in each of the last three financial years by his Department and its executive agencies after competitive tendering; and what was the total combined value of these contracts. [21028]
  159
  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, it is Home Office policy to buy all goods and services by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Purchases in excess of about £100,000 are subject to European Community competition procedures, as laid down in statutory instruments.

  Prison Service (Medical Staff)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what controls(a) his Department and (b) the Prison Service has over medical staff who undertake work for them and are engaged in medical research; and if he will make a statement. [19953]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 7 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 Alastair Papps to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 19 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 controls on medical staff who are engaged in medical research.

  I understand that there are no medical staff employed on medical research in the main Home Office.

  Within the Prison Service all medical and health care research requires ethical approval, the consent of the governor of the prison and the free and informed consent of the prisoner concerned.

  Such ethical approval is obtained either from the Prison Service Health Research Ethics Committee, which has an independent chairman and membership drawn from the independent Health Advisory Committee to the Prison Service and health care professionals from outside the Prison Service or the appropriate NHS committee.

  Harry Duggan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Harry Duggan, who is serving a life sentence, was allowed to attend his mother's funeral in the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [21516]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 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. Max Madden, dated 19 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 if Harry Duggan who is serving a life sentence, was allowed to attend his mother's funeral in the Republic of Ireland.

  An application by Mr. Duggan to attend the funeral of his mother in the Republic of Ireland was carefully considered but refused for security and jurisdictional reasons.

  Hewell Grange (Maintenance and Repair)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, columns 411–12, what use Hewell Grange was put to when it was under Home Office responsibility before it was used as a prison; what maintenance and
  160
  repairs were undertaken; and what condition the building was in when it was handed over to the Prison Service. [21443]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Andrew Faulds, dated 19 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the use Hewell Grange was put to when it was under Home Office responsibility before it was used as a prison; what maintenance and repairs were undertaken; and what condition the building was in when it was handed over to the Prison Service.

  Hewell Grange has been used as an open prison for male adult offenders since 1991. Prior to that change of role, it was used as a Young Offenders Institution to accommodate young offenders in open conditions.

  The building was acquired for use as a penal institution in 1947. There are no records of its condition at that time. A full range of maintenance work and repairs has been undertaken during its ownership by the Prison Service. Details are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Chief Fire Officers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a reply will be sent to the hon. Member's letter of 13 February, ref. 3185/96, concerning chief fire officers. [21229]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: My right hon. and noble Friend replied to the letter on 18 March.

  Immigration (Pakistan)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the home country report on Pakistan is to be completed and placed in the Library; what steps are taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of such reports; if such reports are normally made available to those representing appellants at immigration appeals; and if he will make a statement. [21517]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: Our aim is to finalise the report and place it in the Library quite soon. It will also be made available to those concerned with the asylum appeals system. The report, like those on Nigeria and Ghana, will draw on all available, relevant sources of information, and will be updated as necessary.

  Alcoholic Lemonade
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned regarding the consumption of alcoholic lemonades by under-age drinkers; and what representations he has received regarding(a) such studies and (b) the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic lemonades. [9462]

  Mr. Maclean
  Although no research has been commissioned by my Department into the consumption of alcoholic lemonades by under-age drinkers, concerns that these drinks may provide a temptation for children to start drinking have been expressed in letters from members of the public on general law and order issues. We welcome reports that the Portman group, set up by the eight leading
  161
  United Kingdom drinks companies to promote sensible drinking and reduce alcohol misuse, are considering a code of practice to its industry members on the use of names that include, for example, lemonade, cola or other soft drinks.

SCOTLAND

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all cases since 1987 in which his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19454]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1987, the Scottish Office has not purchased computer capacity from other Departments or the private sector to augment the Department's own computing capability. Payroll and superannuation processing services have been bought from other Departments, and these have included an element of computer processing.

  Department

  Amount £

  Her Majesty's Treasury (Chessington Computer Centre—Payroll Services)

  1,922,400

  Ministry of Defence (Superannuation services)

  115,700

  In addition, from time to time, the Scottish Office has purchased other services which may have included some computer processing as part of the work undertaken but it is not possible to identify these services except at disproportionate cost.

  Multi-storey Housing Blocks
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total number of people living in multi-storey blocks of flats in Scotland. [21118]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Local authorities in Scotland are estimated to have 51,000 dwellings in blocks of flats more than four storeys high.

  Information on the number of households, by lowest floor level of accommodation, was published in the report of the General Register Office for Scotland on the 1991 census, a copy of which is available in the House Library.

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of blocks of multi-storey flats over 10 floors high in Scotland; and where they are located. [21119]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The table provides information on the number of individual dwellings in blocks of flats of 15 or more storeys let by local authorities in Scotland.
  162

  Housing stock estimates: Super high-rise dwellings (15 or more storeys)

  Authority

  Super high rise (15 or more storeys)

  Scottish Borders Council

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway Council

  0

  Fife Council

  223

  Highland Council

  0

  Clackmannanshire Council

  0

  Falkirk Council

  0

  Stirling Council

  0

  Aberdeenshire Council

  0

  City of Aberdeen Council

  2,943

  Moray Council

  0

  City of Edinburgh Council

  2,047

  East Lothian Council

  0

  Mid-Lothian Council

  0

  West Lothian Council

  0

  Argyll and Bute Council

  0

  City of Glasgow Council

  20,273

  West Dunbartonshire Council

  1,524

  East Dunbartonshire Council

  0

  East Ayrshire Council

  0

  North Ayrshire Council

  0

  South Ayrshire Council

  0

  East Renfrewshire Council

  0

  Inverclyde Council

  1,471

  Renfrewshire Council

  1,090

  North Lanarkshire Council

  2,982

  South Lanarkshire Council

  0

  Angus Council

  0

  City of Dundee Council

  2,230

  Perthshire and Kinross Council

  0

  Orkney Islands Council

  0

  Shetland Islands Council

  0

  Western Isles Council

  0

  Scotland

  34,783

  Rented Housing
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total number of houses in the rented sector in Scotland; and what was the figure in 1979. [21117]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The estimated number of rented houses in Scotland was, at December 1979, 1,283,000; and, at December 1994, 948,000. These figures cover both private and public sectors, and include housing associations.

  Urban Environment
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is Scottish Natural Heritage's policy on the urban environment; and if he will make a statement. [21095]

  Mr. Kynoch
  On 30 November 1995, Scottish Natural Heritage published"Natural Heritage In and Around Settlements: A Framework for Action", which sets out the principles that guide SNH's activities throughout urban areas and other settlements in Scotland. I have asked for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  SNH supports many projects and initiatives in urban areas, including some £1.5 million per annum for projects in the countryside in and around towns programme.

  Permitted Development Orders
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to ensure the accountability of planning decisions taken within the areas covered by the permitted development orders. [21041]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No such measures are necessary. There is only one permitted development order, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, which covers the whole of Scotland. It grants a form of general planning permission, known as permitted development, for certain types of non-controversial development which would otherwise invariably be granted planning permission. These permitted development rights are subject to various limitations and conditions to protect amenity and the environment. Some classes of permitted development, that is for agricultural and forestry buildings, are subject to a prior approval procedure which gives planning authorities the opportunity to influence matters such as siting, design and external appearance.

  Provided a person is satisfied that a proposed development is permitted development there is no need to apply to the planning authority for consent and no basis for addressing the accountability of decisions not before the authority.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many approaches his Department has had during the last five calendar years from local authorities seeking to amend the terms of permitted development orders; and on how many occasions his Department has responded positively to these requests. [21044]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Department receives numerous approaches from local authorities, and others, suggesting changes to the permitted development order and other pieces of planning legislation. Like all planning legislation, the permitted development order is kept under regular review and any suggestions for amendment are taken into account. The Department responds to all such approaches explaining what action, if any is to be taken. No record is kept of the number of these approaches.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures are used by his Department in considering whether to renew the terms of a permitted development order. [21043]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 is a statutory instrument and so remains in force until it is amended or revoked by a subsequent statutory instrument. Thus, while there is no requirement to renew the order, it is kept under review and from time to time it is subject to amendment. Suggestions for change can arise from research, a policy change or ideas submitted by interested parties.

  Any proposals to amend the order are normally subject to public consultation with planning authorities and a wide range of individuals and organisations representing developer, business, environmental and community interests before being implemented.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement listing the permitted 164
  development orders currently in force, the facilities these orders relate to, when they were initially enacted and when they were last reviewed by his Department. [21045]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There is only one order, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992. It presently covers 71 different classes of development, which would require too much space to list here. However, a copy of the order is available in the Library. The current order came into force on 13 March 1992 and, like all planning legislation, is subject to regular review. It has been amended on several occasions since then, most recently in February 1995.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which authority will be responsible from 1 April for paying the travel costs of college students who have disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [21099]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Travel costs for college students with disabilities are paid through bursaries or the students awards scheme for those studying on higher education level courses.

  From 1 April 1996, responsibility for bursaries will transfer from local authorities to the 43 incorporated further education colleges. Bursaries for further education students studying outwith the incorporated colleges will remain the responsibility of local authorities. The student awards agency for Scotland will continue to administer the student awards scheme.

  Prisoners (Self-harm)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many self-inflicted deaths have occurred in Scottish prisons in 1996 at the latest date for which figures are available by(a) age, (b) sex and (c) prison establishment; [21015]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to collate figures on incidents of self-harm in Scottish prisons. [21016]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the questions relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Michael Connarty, dated 19 March 1996:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your questions relating to the number of self-inflicted deaths in Scottish prisons in 1996 and whether figures on incidents of self harm will be collated as a matter of policy.

  There have been three deaths in custody in 1996 to date. The table below gives the information by age, sex and prison, as you requested. The cause of death in each case is subject to the findings of Fatal Accident Inquiries.

  Age

  Sex

  Prison

  54

  Male

  Edinburgh1

  37

  Male

  Edinburgh

  20

  Male

  Greenock

  1A Fatal Accident Inquiry into this death is due to be held on 20 March 1996.

  When you raised with me last year the question of maintaining statistics on incidents of self harm, I indicated that I would need to be sure it was a practical and useful proposition and that I would

  165
  give it further thought. The Scottish Prison Service has commissioned Dr. Kevin Power and Dr. Joseph McElroy of the Department of Psychology at the University of Stirling to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of our Suicide Prevention Strategy. In addition, Professor Gunn of the Institute of Psychiatry has been commissioned to consider the appropriateness of the strategy against developments in the care of "at risk" people in other jurisdictions. Both these reports are expected in the near future and I shall consider your suggestion again in the light of these reports.

  Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenson Bypass
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current progress on the Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenson bypass. [21046]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The position has not changed significantly since my answer to the hon. Member on 24 November 1995,Official Report, column 321. The revised design work is still on-going, and will be completed soon, allowing consideration to be given to publication of new draft standing orders this summer.

  Special Needs Housing
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to increase the number of special needs houses in Scotland; and if he will make a statement; [21121]

  (2) what is the total number of special needs houses in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland. [21120]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Community care is one of four national priorities for local housing authorities. It is also a priority for Scottish Homes.

  Between 1979 and 1995, the stock of sheltered dwellings provided by public authorities and housing associations increased by more than fourfold to around 34,000. In 1995, these bodies also provided just over 7,900 dwellings for disabled people; just over 24,000 specially adapted houses; over 17,400 amenity houses; and over 23,000 dwellings with alarms. In addition, many community care users live in mainstream housing with suitable support services and a number are in private provision.

  A breakdown of the total numbers of such dwellings by parliamentary constituency is not available.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people received into prison on remand during 1994 were(a) acquitted, (b) freed at court, (c) sentenced to non-custodial sentence and (d) sentenced to a term of imprisonment (i) in total and (ii) by gender. [21017]

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

  Scottish Natural Heritage Projects
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total amounts spent by Scottish 166
  Natural Heritage in each of the last three years on projects in each constituency in Scotland. [21096]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is not held in the form required. Details of Scottish Natural Heritage's annual expenditure are set out in its annual reports, copies of which are lodged in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Competitive Tendering (Contracts)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded in each of the last three financial years by his Department and its executive agencies after competitive tendering; and what was the total combined value of these contracts. [21035]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office and its executive agencies follow Government policy that goods and services should be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Formal competitive tendering procedures are normally used for all purchases over £10,000 in value. Details of the value and numbers of all contracts placed could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce the name of the new chairperson of Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement. [21098]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement shortly.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the total numbers of people who are(a) unemployed, (b) old age pensioners, (c) in receipt of benefits, (d) under 16 years of age, (e) on low incomes, (f) living in poverty and (g) homeless in each of the new parliamentary constituencies in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [21102]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is not available.

  Roads
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was spent by the Scottish Office on(a) construction and improvement of trunk roads and (b)grants to local authorities for construction and improvement of other roads in Scotland at outturn prices in each year from 1975 to 1995. [19306]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: The information required is set out in the table for 1975–76 to 1994–95. Only expenditure on grants to local authorities for specific schemes is included. Grant aid to the majority of local authorities roads construction and improvement activity is subsumed within revenue support grant. Information for grants to local authorities for specific schemes from 1975–76 to 1983–84 for roads could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  167

  £ million

  Year

  Net capital expenditure on trunk roads1

  Grants to local authorities for roads2

  1975–76

  43

  —

  1976–77

  44

  —

  1977–78

  62

  —

  1978–79

  65

  —

  1979–80

  74

  —

  1980–81

  81

  —

  1981–82

  88

  —

  1982–83

  102

  —

  1983–84

  96

  —

  1984–85

  97

  3

  1985–86

  101

  5

  1986–87

  95

  4

  1987–88

  112

  2

  1988–89

  110

  4

  1989–90

  136

  2

  1990–91

  172

  2

  1991–92

  173

  1

  1992–93

  196

  2

  1993–94

  191

  2

  1994–95

  208

  2

  1 Includes expenditure on construction and improvement, structural repairs and other capital grants on trunk road projects. Figures taken from "Scottish Transport Statistics" Bulletins.

  2 Includes grants to assisted areas for access roads under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and specific grants under section 3 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Roads and transport capital consent allocations are excluded.

  Fox Fur Farms
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fox fur farms there are in each county of Scotland. [21375]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are no fox fur farms in operation in Scotland.

  Municipal Farms
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each current region and district council in Scotland(a) the number, (b) the size and (c) the market value of each farm owned by the council or on its behalf; and which are planned to be sold (i) before and (ii) after local government reorganisation. [21201]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences were issued for mink farms in each county of Scotland in each of the last five years. [21374]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The numbers of licensed mink farms are as set out in the table. No licences have been issued since 1993.

  Region

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Grampian

  1

  1

  1

  Strathclyde

  1

  1

  —

  Total

  2

  2

  1

  Firearms
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of gun clubs in each Scottish local government district, the total number of weapons held in each and the total membership in each for each year since 1985. [21715]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are currently 247 gun clubs in Scotland approved by the Scottish Office under section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. More detailed information about these clubs is not available centrally, but I am arranging for it to be collected and made available to the inquiry to be held by Lord Cullen.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of firearms certificates(a) which are issued for new applications, (b) which are renewals and (c) which are valid for more than one year for each year since 1985. [21708]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The information is as follows:

  New certificates

  Renewals1

  1985

  3,167

  2—

  1986

  3,391

  10,200

  1987

  3,223

  9,800

  1988

  3,307

  9,900

  1989

  2,669

  10,100

  1990

  2,697

  8,700

  1991

  1,850

  8,400

  1992

  1,851

  8,300

  1993

  1,770

  8,500

  1994

  1,991

  9,200

  1 The renewals figures have been estimated centrally to take account of forces unable to provide this information.

  2 Not collected.

  New firearm certificates granted prior to 1995 were initially made valid for three years and could be renewed after this time for further three-year periods. Since the Firearms (Period of Certificate) Order 1994 came into effect on 1 January 1995, the order has extended the life of all firearm certificates granted or renewed after that date to five years.

WALES

  Fire Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review his allocation of funds to the fire services consequent on the formation of the new local government unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement. [20649]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Unitary authorities are responsible for funding fire authorities' revenue expenditure from their unhypothecated resources. The local government revenue settlement for 1996–97 was approved by the House of Commons on 8 February. Funding of fire authorities' capital expenditure is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  School Class Sizes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what current restrictions apply in respect of class sizes in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [20729]
  169
  Mr. Richards
  Class sizes are a matter for individual school governing bodies to consider in the light of their local statutory responsibilities and their perception of educational needs and priorities.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce in Wales(a) a scheme to provide on the NHS powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs for severely disabled people and (b) a voucher scheme for the purchase of wheelchairs. [21256]

  Mr. Richards
  In the light of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health's recent announcement about the provision of powered wheelchairs and a wheelchair voucher scheme, we are currently examining the implications of introducing similar arrangements in Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce in Wales a similar scheme to that announced by the Government on 23 February for England to provide powered indoor and outdoor wheelchairs for the severely disabled and financial aid for wheelchair users; and if he will make a statement. [21302]

  Mr. Hague
  I am currently examining the implications of introducing similar arrangements in Wales.

  Nursery Vouchers Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit St. Anthony's county primary school, Saltrey Ferry and Broughton county primary school to meet teachers, parents and governors to discuss the voucher scheme; and if he will make a statement. [21131]

  Mr. Richards
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I has any plans to do so. Each primary and nursery school in Wales has had a copy of a letter from the Welsh Office giving details of the scheme and addressing some common misunderstandings. In addition, I am sending a letter to all schools in Clwyd to set right misleading comments I have seen in material from the Clwyd Federation of Primary Headteachers.

  Smoking (Children)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Wales what estimate he has made of the proportion of 15-year-old(a) girls and (b) boys who smoke regularly. [21126]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh youth health survey undertaken by Health Promotion Wales shows that, in 1994, the latest year for which it has figures, the percentages were as follows:

  Daily

  Weekly

  Girls

  20.7

  25.1

  Boys

  15.5

  17.8

  Nurses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the British Medical Association about the work load of nurses. [21122]
  170
  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend has recently discussed with representatives of the BMA the increasing work load of hospital services and its implication for staffing as a whole.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the current pupil-teacher ratios in Wales for each(a) grant-maintained and (b) non-grant-maintained primary schools; and if he will make a statement; [20985]

  (2) if he will list the current pupil-teacher ratios in Wales for each of the (a) grant-maintained and (b) non-grant-maintained secondary school; and if he will make a statement. [20984]

  Mr. Richards
  Information from which pupil-teacher ratios for individual schools may be calculated is collected centrally only for the purpose of compiling statistical aggregates. PTRs for individual schools are not estimated on a regular basis, and their accuracy is not confirmed with the schools. The calculation and checking of these ratios would therefore involve disproportionate cost.

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research
  Mr. Llywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has recently received from the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research; and if he will make a statement. [20996]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years, itemising any items valued at £5,000 or over, and indicating information technology material separately. [21087]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on 7 March 1996,Official Report, column 362.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report,column 628, if he will give the date of publication of the departmental report in each year since 1990. [21399]

  Mr. Hague
  The departmental report has been published only since 1991. Publication dates from 1991 to 1995 were as follows: 15 February 1991; 14 February 1992; 15 February 1993; 10 March 1994; 9 March 1996.

  Welsh National Opera
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received and what consultations he has undertaken on the provision of a permanent home for the Welsh National Opera company. [21428]
  171
  Mr. Hague
  I have received a number of representations on the proposed Cardiff bay opera house. While I have not instigated any consultations on the matter, the subject was raised with me at three meetings.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the outcome of the meeting convened by the Institute of Welsh Affairs on 8 March; what plans he has received for expenditure(a) by the corporation and (b) grant aided by the corporation in relation to the proposal for a large-scale lyric theatre in Cardiff bay; and if he will make a statement. [21427]

  Mr. Hague
  I have discussed with the chairman the outcome of the meeting convened by the Institute of Welsh Affairs on 8 March. I have received no plans for expenditure by Cardiff Bay development corporation on the construction of a lyric theatre in Cardiff bay.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the out-turn figure for expenditure on(a) administration and (b) the architectural design competition of the Cardiff bay opera house trust from his departments grant in aid to the Cardiff Bay development corporation in 1994–95; and what estimate he has made for the same categories for the year 1995–96. [21425]

  Mr. Hague
  Financial contributions by Cardiff Bay development corporation towards meeting the cost of administration of the Cardiff bay opera house trust and the architectural design competition are operational matters for the corporation. I have asked the chief executive of the corporation to respond and I shall arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Viticulture
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the proportion of the agricultural land area of Wales which is suitable for viticulture; and if he will make a statement. [21308]

  Mr. Hague
  No assessment has been made.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number and acreage of commercial vineyards in Wales. [21309]

  Mr. Hague
  The latest data from the Wine Standards Board show 18 commercial vineyards in Wales totalling 23 hectares.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grants are available to livestock and arable farmers in Wales to convert their holdings to viticulture. [21317]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to publish the final report by Coopers and Lybrand into the circumstances leading up to and the financial implications of the departure of the former chief executive of Pembrokeshire NHS trust. [21426]
  172
  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have him on 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 385.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he plans to make in the division of responsibilities between himself and his junior Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [21303]

  Mr. Hague
  I have overall responsibility for all policy issues within the Welsh Office. I have recently made one change to my junior Minister's duties. Mr. Jones has assumed responsibility for all rural and agricultural matters as set out in the rural White Paper.

  EstateCare (Privatisation)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report,column 559, what was the date of the item of correspondence between his Department and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority which would most accurately fit the description of a decision letter concerning the privatisation of the EstateCare Group of the authority. [21307]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials wrote to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority on 16 August 1995.

  Departmental Staff (Location)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the geographical location of the place of work of all civil servants within the Welsh Office. [21679]

  Mr. Hague
  Welsh Office—excluding Cadw—staff work from the following locations: London; Cardiff; Caernarfon; Carmarthen; Llandrindod Wells; Lampeter; Colwyn Bay; Haverfordwest; Milford Haven; Dolgellau; Swansea; Newtown; Brecon; Aberystwyth; Ruthin; Holyhead; Newport; Gwent and Conwy.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to tackle fraudulent social security claims. [19712]

  Mr. Heald
  Our strategy, including the additional measures announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Social Security on 5 March,Official Report, columns 164–68, is set to save the taxpayer £1.5 billion next year.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what incentives he is giving local authorities to combat fraud. [19716]

  Mr. Heald
  Local authorities are rewarded for successfully detecting housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud through the anti-fraud financial incentive scheme. The scheme allows authorities to earn additional cash subsidy through successful detection of fraud, as measured against their weighted share of a national threshold. I am stepping up the incentives by ear-marking £8 million for challenge funding to encourage innovation
  173
  in fighting fraud, strengthening the financial regime by providing higher rates of return for better performing authorities, and increasing the penalties for those which are failing to tackle fraud seriously.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been prosecuted as a result of Operation Rattle. [19718]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To date, there have not been any prosecutions as a result of Operation Rattle which was launched in November 1995.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a guaranteed minimum income for pensioners above the current income support levels; and if he will make a statement. [19713]

  Mr. Heald
  We have no plans to introduce a guaranteed minimum income which would have the effect of extending means-testing to all pensioners.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners who have an income of less than 20 per cent. of average male earnings. [19710]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1993, there were around 650,000 pensioner households with an income below that level.

  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners are in the least well off fifth of the population; and what the figure was in 1979. [19885]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Percentages of pensioners in the bottom 20 per cent. of the overall United Kingdom income distribution

  Percentages

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  1979

  47

  46

  1992–93

  25

  20

  1. The information in the tables is derived from the 1979 and 1992–93 households below average income datasets. 1992–93 is the latest date for which information is available. Figures for 1992–93 are for two calendar years data combined.

  2. Figures are based on the standard households below average income definition of income—weekly household disposable income adjusted for household size and composition (equivalised). These particular results are especially sensitive to the choice of equivalence scale. For example, results before housing costs vary between 32 per cent. and 54 per cent. in 1979, and 19 per cent. To 30 per cent. in 1992–93. However, results present a similar picture of changes over time, regardless of which particular equivalence scale is used. Further information on equivalisation and tests for sensitivity to choice of equivalence scale is given in Appendix 4 of households below average income 1979 to 1992–93.

  3. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Scotland(a) are dependent on income support and (b) have an income less than £10 above income support levels. [20067]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Pensioners are defined as men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over. The number of 174
  pensioners in Scotland who are dependent on income support is 176,000, as at May 1995. This figure has been rounded to the nearest thousand and it represents customers and partners over pension age who are dependent on income support.

  Information on the number of pensioners who have income less than £10 above the income support levels is not collated.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the proportion of pensioner's income taken up by(a) housing costs and (b) council tax, broken down by (i) quintile and (ii) region. [20013]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Estimated proportion of income spent on housing costs and council tax

  Percentage

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q5

  Pensioner couple

  Housing costs

  13

  15

  10

  5

  3

  Council tax

  6

  5

  4

  3

  2

  Single pensioner

  Housing costs

  17

  21

  27

  20

  7

  Council tax

  8

  5

  5

  4

  2

  All pensioners

  Housing costs

  15

  18

  21

  11

  5

  Council tax

  7

  5

  5

  4

  2

  Notes:

  1. Reliable data for a breakdown by region (using the 12 standard regions) cannot be given due to limited sample size.

  2. The data have been separated into information on single pensioners, pensioner couples and all pensioner benefit units. A pensioner benefit unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the husband, or head, is over state pension age.

  3. The figures are the estimated percentages, given to the nearest percentile, of the proportion of unequivalised net income taken up by housing costs and council tax liability for single pensioners, pensioner couples and all pensioner benefit units.

  Source:

  Pensioners' income series 1993, based on 1993 family expenditure
  survey.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the change in the mean income of pensioners in(a) the lowest and (b) the highest quintile in each region of the United Kingdom since 1979. [20218]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  For the UK as a whole, the estimated mean income of the lowest quintile of pensioner benefit units has risen by 21 per cent. in real terms since 1979. For the highest income quintile this figure is 68 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. There is no information available on a regional basis due to the limited sample size.

  2. Pensioner benefit units are defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the husband, or head, is over state pension age.

  Source:

  Pensioners' income series 1993, based on the 1993 family expenditure survey.

  Benefit Recipients (Newham)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals in the London borough of Newham are in receipt of social security benefits. [19714]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The available information on locally paid benefits is set out in the table:

  Caseloads

  Counts taken

  London borough of Newham area:

  Housing benefit

  39,640

  August 1995

  Council tax benefit

  33,460

  August 1995

  Unemployed claimants signing on

  17,368

  January 1996

  Benefits Agency Newham district area:

  Income support

  50,018

  November 1995

  Incapacity benefit

  7,311

  January 1996

  Maternity allowance

  124

  January 1996

  Severe disablement allowance

  850

  January 1996

  Notes:

  1. Information on the numbers receiving centrally paid pensions and
  benefits is not available.

  2. Some individuals will be in receipt of more than one benefit.

  3. Unemployed claimants includes those on income support, unemployment benefit and those signing on for credits only.

  Sources:

  Benefits Agency central data unit, Employment Service regional office informzttion unit and DSS HB/CTB management information system.

  Low-Income Families
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that the benefit system assists the families on the lowest incomes. [19717]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Department maintains a comprehensive system of income-related benefits which are effective in focusing help on low-income families. Some 85 per cent. of income-related benefit expenditure goes to households in the bottom 40 per cent. of the income distribution and around a fifth of all social security expenditure goes to families with children.

  Debt Recovery Scheme
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which areas have been chosen as pilots for the privatised debt recovery scheme. [19719]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The six areas are the north central and west Scotland, Wales, Merseyside, Tyne Tees, Chilterns, south London and West Sussex.

  The contractors will also deal with 600 cases for centrally administered benefits, which will be spread at random throughout Great Britain.

  Retirement Pensions (Centenarians)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of centenarians in receipt of retirement pensions breaking the figure down by sex and age, for each year after and including 100; and if he will make a statement. [19720]
  176
  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Age

  Men

  Women

  100

  530

  2,420

  101

  240

  1,800

  102

  230

  1,150

  103

  70

  850

  104

  30

  400

  105

  50

  270

  106

  10

  170

  107

  20

  80

  108

  0

  50

  109

  0

  10

  110

  0

  10

  111

  0

  0

  112

  0

  10

  Total

  1,180

  7,220

  Notes:

  1.Figures include persons residing overseas.

  2. "retirement pension" comprises contributory retirement pension, non-contributory retirement pension and graduated retirement benefit.

  Source:

  10 per cent. sample of retirement pension awards.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information will be stored on the proposed social security identity card. [19722]

  Mr. Heald
  We are looking to the successful private sector supplier to bear the risk of fraud. It is therefore up to them to propose any additional features. However, we expect the details to be held either on the face of the card or within its memory to be kept to the minimum required for the card to act as a secure key to access the payments database.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of child support collected by the Child Support Agency represents a net income increase for parents with care. [19724]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Of the total number of parents with care who currently have a full maintenance assessment, 13 per cent. are receiving family credit or disability working allowance, and 8 per cent. are non-benefit cases. Subject to the level of any previous maintenance agreement these cases represent a net income increase.

  For parents with care receiving income support, maintenance is a portable income, giving greater flexibility and choice should they wish to return to work. The child maintenance bonus, due to be introduced from April 1997, will provide additional income at the point parents do return to work.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent changes there have been in(a) the working of the Child Support Agency and (b) its performance against targets; and what factors have led to them. [15766]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Recent changes to the agency's operations include: measures to improve the accuracy of its assessments through enhanced training and better
  177
  targeted quality checks; the more efficient use of field office staff in the take-on of responsibility for pre= assessment work; improvements to the child support computer system; and the roll-out of computer support to the field offices.

  These and other measures to simplify the child support scheme have enabled the agency to make considerable progress over the past year. Accuracy rates have improved significantly and currently exceed the 75 per cent. target. Further improvements are expected in the coming year. The agency has also collected and arranged maintenance of over £230 million so far this year and is on track to meet the 1995–96 target of £300 million. In January 1996, the agency collected maintenance in excess of £14 million which is more than that collected in the whole of its first year of operations. Payments of maintenance to parents with care have been made within 10 working days in 97 per cent. of cases against a target of 90 per cent.

  The changes which have been made and the improvements in the agency's performance are the result of the Government's commitment to the success of the child support scheme and the determined efforts of staff across the agency to deliver the quality of service which the public is entitled to expect.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of staff(a) joining and (b) leaving the Child Support Agency for each of the last 24 months for which figures are available; what was the total number of employees of the agency in each month during that period; and if he will make a statement. [20619]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 18 March 1996:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency staffing.

  The total number of employees of the Agency from February 1995 to January 1996 inclusive is shown in the attached table. This also shows the fluctuations in staffing levels for each month in that period. Information on the numbers of staff leaving and joining the Agency each month during this period is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member shortly with the outstanding information.

  The figures do not include information on staff within the Belfast Child Support Agency Centre. This is because staffing issues at this centre are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Staff-in-post for the period 1 February 1994 to 31 January 1996

  Month

  1994

  1995

  1996

  January

  —

  5,799.0

  6,298.7

  February

  4,677.5

  5,830.5

  —

  March

  4,685.0

  5,965.4

  —

  April

  4,731.0

  6,055.0

  —

  May

  4,779.0

  6,047.1

  —

  June

  4,874.0

  6,045.9

  —

  July

  5,074.0

  6,029.9

  —

  August

  5,322.0

  5,989.8

  —

  September

  5,456.0

  6,064.9

  —

  October

  5,650.0

  6,146.5

  —

  November

  5,749.5

  6,139.1

  —

  December

  5,829.0

  6,220.9

  —

  178
  Staff-in-post figures up to and including February 1995 are shown as full-time equivalents. They are shown as whole-time equivalents thereafter.

  Mr Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken to complete child support assessments. [19725]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The average time for making an assessment is around 30 weeks but in straightforward cases, where both parents co-operate, the agency aims to complete the process in six to 12 weeks.

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current situation in respect of privatisation of the Benefits Agency medical service; and if he will make a statement. [19726]

  Mr. Burt
  The work of the Benefits Agency medical services with the exception of policy and adjudication functions, will be contracted out to the private sector.

  A competitive process is to be undertaken to select the most appropriate companies to provide a medical service for the Benefits Agency. The process will commence shortly with the placement of an advertisement inviting expressions of interest from private sector companies. The award of contracts is scheduled for April 1997.

  HGV Drivers (Eyesight Testing)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which social security benefits will be available for drivers of heavy good vehicles affected by the forthcoming European Community regulations on eyesight. [19886]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Many of those adversely affected by the forthcoming EC directive on driving licences will find other employment, either with their existing employer or elsewhere. Others will have opportunities for retraining. Those remaining may be entitled to social security benefits, depending upon their circumstances.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings in respect of benefits no longer paid under the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 to(a) asylum seekers with children, (b) persons housed under the homelessness legislation, and (c) other persons seeking asylum. [21597]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated savings in respect of benefits no longer paid to asylum seekers with children are £50 million in 1996–97, rising to £107 million in 1997–98. Estimated savings for those housed under the homelessness legislation are not available. Estimated savings for other persons seeking asylum are £68 million in 1996–97, rising to £147 million in 1997–98.

  Notes:

  1.Figures are based on income support and housing benefit administrative statistics for 1994, uprated in line with departmental forecasts and Home Office estimates of asylum applications.

  2. Figures relate to income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit and jobseeker's allowance combined.
  179
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the savings to his Department as a result of the implementation of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 in respect of housing benefit no longer paid. [21598]

  Mr. Evans
  The estimated savings in respect of Housing Benefit no longer paid to asylum seekers are £60 million in 1996–97, rising to £130 million in 1997–98.

  Note:

  Figures are based on housing benefit administrative statistics for 1994, uprated in line with departmental forecasts and Home Office estimates of asylum applications.

  Figure 16—Replacement ratios for the working population1

  Number with replacement ratios at or above each level2 3 4

  19855

  1992–936

  1993–947

  1994–958

  000

  Per cent.

  000

  Per cent.

  000

  Per cent.

  000

  Per cent.

  100 per cent.+

  60

  0.5

  5

  91

  10

  9—

  10

  9—

  90 per cent.+

  210

  1.5

  35

  0.3

  40

  0.3

  35

  0.3

  80 per cent.+

  730

  5.2

  160

  1.2

  175

  1.3

  190

  1.4

  70 per cent.+

  1,870

  13.4

  445

  3.2

  465

  3.5

  505

  3.8

  1 Calculated for benefit units selected from FES data where the head works 30 hours or more a week. Excludes the self-employed and pensioners. Estimates are cumulative.

  2 Caseloads are rounded to the nearest 5,000 (subject to a margin error of 20,000). Proportions are rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent., and any change of 0.5 percentage points is statistically significant.

  3 Estimates assume full receipt of benefit entitlement both in and out of work and are based on income from all sources after housing costs. Figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 incorporate the effects of the community charge benefit and the independent taxation of husbands and wives.

  4 Estimates for 1985 make arbitrary allowance for travel-to-work costs. However the use of a single figure to represent such costs is inadequate, and survey evidence suggests that up to one in three employees may have no travel to work costs. For those reasons, estimates for 1980–90 onwards make no allowance for travel to work costs.

  5 Extrapolated from the 1982, 1983 and 1984 family expenditure survey.

  6 Extrapolated from the 1987, 1988 and 1989 family expenditure survey.

  7 Extrapolated from the 1988, 1990 and 1991 family expenditure survey.

  8 Extrapolated from the 1990, 1991 and 1992 family expenditure survey.

  9 Indicates case load less than 0.1 per cent.

  This replaces the information published in the 1995 departmental report which unfortunately was in error as a result of a computer modelling problem.

  State Retirement Pension
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of allowing people to claim a full state pension from the age of 60 years. [19715]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated cost of allowing people to claim a full state pension from the age of 60 is £15 billion in 2025 and £12 billion in 2035.

  Notes

  1. These costs are based on estimates of an equal state pension age of 65 published in "Pensions Bill 1994, Report by the Government Actuary on the Financial Provisions of the Bill on the National Insurance Fund" (December 1994 Cm 2714), and on estimates of an equal state pension age of 60 published in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age" (December 1991, Cm 1723). All estimates have updated to 1995–96 prices, and do not take account of changes to invalidity benefit and contracting-out since then.

  2. The change in SPA is assumed to be implemented from 2010 to 2020.

  3.Costs assume that the proportion of men who claim basic retirement pension at age 65 at present would claim at age 60 under the proposed scheme.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the level at which age-related rebates for appropriate personal pensions should be set. [19728]

  Mr. Heald
  Representations from a range of interested parties were received in response to the Government Actuary's consultation paper issued in August 1995.

  Benefit Replacement Ratios
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he holds on benefit replacement ratios in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [22056]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table.

  4. The baseline costs assume that state pension ages are equalised at 65 in 2020 in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of paying the state retirement pension on the day when the pensioner reaches pensionable age. [13142]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 23 October 1995,Official Report, columns 485–86. Unfortunately, there was a factual error in the reply. The correct information is as follows.

  The estimated gross cost of paying state retirement pension from the day the pensioner reaches state pension age is £14 million.

  This figure includes basic and additional pension and cases who are awarded after reaching minimum pension age.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people's national insurance contributions record leaves them without entitlement to a full retirement pension; and how many of these are(a) women below retirement age and (b) women above retirement age. [20736]
  181
  Mr. Heald
  At 31 March 1995, there were 4,642,330 people over state pension age whose national insurance contributions record leaves them without entitlement to a full retirement pension. Of these, 4,449,500 were women. The information is not available for people under state pension age.

  Child Support
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent changes have been made to the system of child support; and if he will make a statement. [17007]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  A number of changes have been made to the child support scheme over the past year. These include:

  an allowance in the formula for travel-to-work costs and provision to recognise existing property and capital settlements;

  a cap on maintenance assessments which restricts the amount an absent parent is assessed to pay to a maximum of 30 per cent. of net income;

  changes to streamline administration including simplifications in the review procedures and in the definitions of housing costs and earnings for the purposes of the maintenance assessment;

  provisions paving the way for the introduction of future changes which will allow for a departure from the formula assessment in prescribed circumstances, and for the payment of a child maintenance bonus to parents with care moving off benefit into work.

  These changes have been made in the light of live running of the scheme in order to address the main areas of concern, avoid undue hardship for the parents involved and enable the Child Support Agency to operate more effectively.

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  Total

  Birmingham1

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,308

  Exams performed

  —

  31

  740

  1,775

  2,816

  4,430

  6,803

  7,658

  5,040

  6,832

  36,125

  Failures to attend2

  —

  51

  149

  316

  550

  839

  1,317

  1,671

  1,622

  1,949

  8,468

  Bootle

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,858

  Exams performed

  —

  37

  1,271

  2,521

  3,352

  3,819

  4,550

  4,777

  3,758

  4,851

  28,936

  Failures to attend

  —

  7

  57

  399

  598

  1,049

  1,189

  1,441

  1,124

  1,291

  7,155

  Bristol

  Exams schedules

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,250

  Exams performed

  —

  15

  465

  1,385

  2,383

  2,653

  2,757

  2,957

  2,394

  3,038

  18,047

  Failures to attend

  —

  7

  47

  193

  458

  575

  739

  700

  605

  589

  3,913

  Caridff

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,893

  Exams performed

  —

  0

  899

  2,724

  3,921

  4,880

  4,585

  5,747

  3,804

  5,734

  32,294

  Failures to attend

  —

  2

  75

  432

  623

  962

  948

  1,197

  895

  1,205

  6,339

  Edinburgh

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,890

  Exams performed

  —

  112

  809

  1,666

  1,819

  2,421

  2,793

  3,158

  2,301

  2,847

  17,926

  Failures to attend

  —

  4

  3

  64

  196

  413

  434

  627

  579

  704

  3,024

  Glasgow

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,460

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent to which hospitals are accumulating funds from the mobility component of the disability living allowance being received by patients. [16283]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Departmental officials had discussions with a number of NHS trusts throughout Great Britain last summer. These suggest that this was a considerable problem in the past but is now rare.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many examinations for the all-work test of capacity have been scheduled but have not yet taken place in each of the 11 medical services centres; [20165]

  (2) what proportion of people who have been examined for the all-work test since April 1995 are new claims; [20167]

  (3) how many people have (a) failed to return the IB50 all-work test questionnaire and (b) failed to attend an examination for the all-work test in each month since April 1995 for each of the 11 medical services centres; [20175]

  (4) how many people have been examined for the all-work test of incapacity (a) in total and (b) during each month since April 1995, for each of the 11 medical services centres. [20179]

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the format requested. At 31 January 1996, 319,449 incapacity benefit all-work test examinations had been performed. Available information for individual medical centres is given in the table.
  183

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 95

  January 1996

  Total

  Exams performed

  —

  435

  1,909

  2,241

  3,614

  3,911

  4,604

  5,129

  3,986

  4,423

  30,252

  Failures to attend

  —

  89

  248

  407

  938

  1,223

  1,333

  1,543

  970

  1,514

  8,265

  Leeds

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,1301

  Exams performed

  —

  62

  1,670

  2,491

  4,046

  5,874

  6,007

  6,677

  5,065

  7,205

  39,097

  Failures to attend

  —

  13

  129

  225

  595

  1,036

  1,193

  1,670

  1,416

  1,319

  7,596

  Manchester

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,757

  Exams performed

  —

  96

  1,338

  2,029

  3,820

  4,497

  4,697

  4,834

  4,008

  6,068

  31,387

  Failures to attend

  —

  4

  173

  336

  499

  1,199

  1,070

  1,395

  1,335

  1,769

  7,780

  Newcastle

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,960

  Exams performed

  —

  42

  913

  1,518

  2,724

  3,621

  3,736

  3,998

  2,886

  4,356

  23,794

  Failures to attend

  —

  21

  75

  182

  359

  649

  674

  601

  400

  532

  3,493

  Sutton

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,081

  Exams performed

  —

  32

  1,099

  2,864

  3,487

  3,715

  4,184

  5,616

  3,915

  5,845

  30,757

  Failures to attend

  —

  76

  174

  391

  622

  968

  1,153

  1,339

  848

  1,043

  6,614

  Wembley

  Exams scheduled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,262

  Exams performed

  —

  43

  741

  2,204

  4,190

  4,642

  4,822

  5,102

  3,966

  5,124

  30,834

  Failures to attend

  —

  15

  127

  199

  840

  1,041

  1,461

  1,167

  992

  1,243

  7,085

  1Figures include those for Nottingham.

  2Number of examinations scheduled but not yet taken place as at 31 January.

  1. Failures to attend relate to appointments rather than individual benefit claimants.

  Payments (Indian Sub-continent)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of the social security payments dispatched to the Indian sub-continent in each of the last 10 years. [19794]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  £

  1990

  12,076,092

  1991

  12,403,954

  1992

  13,851,020

  1993

  14,805,616

  1994

  16,107,573

  1995

  17,722,346

  1.Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  2.Figures have been rounded to nearest £1.

  3.The figures include details for Retirement Pension, Widow's Benefit and War Pensions.

  Fraud Freeline
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what analysis his Department has made of those phone calls received under the pilot fraud referral freeline service Operation Speakeasy; and if he will make a statement. [20866]

  Mr. Heald
  Analysis of calls made to the pilot freephone fraud referral lines is currently being conducted. The results of the pilot are expected to be available at the end of March 1996.

HEALTH

  Adverse Drug Reactions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the rate of reporting by general practitioners via the yellow card system since 1 October 1995. [20065]

  Mr. Malone
  Suspected adverse drug reaction reports are received through the yellow card scheme from general practitioners, hospital doctors, dentists and coroners directly and via pharmaceutical companies. Between 1 October 1995 and 29 February 1996, 4,546 reports of suspected adverse drug reactions were received from general practitioners compared with 4,866 reports over the same period in 1994–95. The difference in number of reports is a consequence of the major campaign to immunise children with measles-rubella vaccine which was carried out in November 1994.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of drugs issued on prescription by general practitioners to which patients have an adverse reaction. [20886]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency receives reports of suspected adverse reactions to licensed medicinal products via the yellow card scheme. A report of a suspected reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the medicine. As the scheme is voluntary, not all adverse reactions are reported. Therefore an estimate of the proportion of drugs issued on prescription by general practitioners to which patients have an adverse reaction can not be made from the available data.

  Pensions (Abatement Rules)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the abatement rules announced on 11 July 1991,Official Report, columns 425–26, apply to members of staff given service-related severance payments by an NHS trust and re-employed by a health authority in the same area; and if he will make a statement. [20387]

  Mr. Malone
  The abatement rules announced in 1991 generally still apply. National health service pensions are subject to abatement where an employee returns to NHS employment before age 60.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those areas of executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20540]

  Mr. Horam
  Comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested.

  Adoption Bill
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the draft Adoption Bill. [20788]

  Mr. Bowis
  A draft of the proposed Adoption Bill will be issued shortly in the form of a consultation document.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will(a) introduce a statutory disregard of capital resources for those in need of long-term social and nursing care and (b) give a higher priority to the well being of this group; and if he will make a statement. [20656]

  Mr. Bowis
  The legislation and guidance for local authorities contained in the "Charging for Residential accommodation Guide" clearly state the amount of capital that must be disregarded for charging for residential accommodation. The development of services for older people—(the majority in this group)—has been and remains one of the Government's priority areas. The new capital limits being introduced from April will enable them to retain a minimum of £10,000 of their capital assets.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for new measures on long-term care. [19727]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government will consult shortly on proposals to encourage people to make provision for long-term care, as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 28 November 1995.

  Residential Accommodation (Charges)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the final allocation in 1996–97 to Hereford and Worcester county council in respect of costs incurred as a result of the raising from 8 April of the capital limits for charges for residential accommodation. [20756]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 14 March 1996]: The final allocation for Hereford and Worcester will be £765,086.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average length of time it takes for his Department to pay pharmacists for their NHS contract work; [21111]

  (2) what plans he has to shorten the time taken by his Department when paying pharmacists for their NHS contract work. [21112]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggars) on 12 December 1995,Official Report, column 580.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many increases there have been in the cost of NHS prescriptions since 1979. [21124]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 12 March,Official Report, column 776.

  NHS Management
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued in respect of the performance-related element of the chief executives of NHS trusts, regional health authorities and district health authorities. [20856]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service trusts boards are accountable for the proper appointment, appraisal and remuneration of their senior executives and, as in all their functions, boards must have regard to the public service values of accountability, probity and openness enshrined in the codes of conduct and accountability issued to NHS boards in April 1994. The code of accountability requires all NHS boards to establish a remuneration and terms of service committee to exercise proper control of executive board member's remuneration.

  For those staff employed on the national terms and conditions for general and senior managers, guidance has been issued periodically on performance-related pay in a series of health service guidelines, health circulars and personnel memoranda, copies of which are in the Library.

  Medical Students
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the training of medical students. [20858]

  Mr. Malone
  Under the Medical Act 1983 the education committee of the General Medical Council has the statutory responsibility for determining the skills and knowledge required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of out-of-hours general practitioners co-operatives and the number of general practitioners included in these co-operatives; [20859]
  187
  (2) how many out-of-hours general practitioner co-operatives there were in each of the last five years. [20885]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners' premises are currently below minimum standards (i) by region and (ii) nationally. [20879]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) on 30 January,Official Report, column 711.

  Consultants (Accident and Emergency)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency consultants have been in post in each of the last five years. [20883]

  Mr. Malone
  The information for England is shown in the list.

  1990: 200

  1991: 220

  1992: 240

  1993: 260

  1994: 270

  (Numbers rounded to the nearest 10; latest available figures; figures were as at 30 September in the relevant year; source: Medical and Dental Workforce Census 1990 to 1994).

  Child Supervision
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce his decision following the recent consultation exercise on supervised activities and holiday play schemes used by children under eight years of age; and if he will make a statement. [20903]

  Mr Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 18 March Official Report, column 324.

  Temazepam
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what clinical guidelines have been issued on the prescribing of temazepam capsules as opposed to temazepam tablets. [21009]

  Mr. Bowis
  In October 1995, issue No. of the chief medical officer's update, issued to all doctors in England, notified a ban on the national health service prescribing by general practitioners of the capsule formulation of temazepam from 1 January 1996 and advised on measures taken to increase controls over temazepam generally. British National Formulary No. 31, March 1996, page 151, draws specific attention to the risks associated with the misuse of temazepam capsules. A copy of CMO's update and the British National Formulary have been placed in the Library. Temazepam tablets remain available to meet all clinical needs.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died in each of the last five years from abuse of temazepam capsules. [21010]
  188
  Mr. Bowis
  The number of deaths certified as due to abuse of temazepam—ICDs1 304.1, 304.7, 304.8. 305.4, 305.9—alone or with other drugs for the years 1990–94 in England and Wales is

  1990: 12

  1991: 13

  1992: 15

  1993:15

  1994: 22

  The available data do not differentiate between the different formulations of temazepam that may be available in any one year.

  Note

  1Internal Classification of Disease ninth revision.

  Generic Prescriptions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Heath what is the average percentage of generic prescriptions by(a) non-fundholding and (b) fundholding general practitioners. [20882]

  Mr. Malone
  The percentage of generic prescriptions written by non-fundholding general practitioners in England and dispensed in 1994–95 is 50.5 per cent. The equivalent figure for fundholding general practitioners is 55.3 per cent.

  Notes

  1. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England.

  2.The analyses are based on prescriptions written by GPs and dispensing doctors in England only, wherever they are dispensed

  Casualty Admissions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many admissions to casualty departments there have been in each of the last five years. [20884]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is set out in table 4 of the statistical bulletin "NHS hospital activity statistics: England 1984 to 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library. This shows the number of attendances at accident and emergency departments in NHS hospitals.

  Competitive Tendering (Contracts)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded in each of the last three financial years by his Department and its executive agencies after competitive tendering; and what was the total combined value of these contracts. [21033]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health and its agencies competitively tender for all their contracts.

  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Acute Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute psychiatric beds are available(a) in total and (b) per head of population in the North West region. [21421]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally is shown in the table.

  Average daily number of available short-stay beds—wards open 24 hours—NHS hospitals: North West region —mental illness 1994–95

  Number of beds1

  2Number of beds per 100,000

  2,011

  47.8

  1 Source of data: Department of Health KHO3 returns.

  2 Based on OPCS estimate of 4,206,500 as resident population.

  1. Definition of short-stay: an element of the component of the ward classification intensity of care (psychiatric). Facilities for the mentally ill who are intended to stay less than one year.

  2. The table excludes places in special hospitals and NHS secure wards, which are not defined in this way.

  3. "Bed availability for England", a copy of which is in the Library, contains information by individual National Health Service providers, i.e., trusts, directly managed units and the special health authorities, with summary tables for England. Data are collected by broad ward classification rather than by clinical specialty and returns are made on a financial year basis. 1994–95 is the latest year for which data are available.

  Life Expectancy
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average life expectancy for(a) women and (b) men by health authority. [21667]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 15 February,Official Report, columns 686–87.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have died while on waiting lists in each of the last three years; and if he will indicate the treatment for which they were waiting. [21675]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is collected on removals from waiting lists but does not differentiate between the various reasons, which include death. Emergencies are always treated immediately and patients who need urgent treatment are given priority.

  Residential Care (Capital Allowance)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources are being made available to local authorities to reflect the changes to the capital allowance for those in residential care. [19723]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on 5 March,Official Report, column 189.

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average annual cost of providing an intensive care bed; and if he will provide a breakdown of the main costs involved. [21163]
  190
  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inquiries his Department has held into intensive treatment unit beds in each year since 1979; and if he will indicate their date. [21502]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has commissioned three inquiries on intensive care since 1979. The "Study of Provision of Intensive Care in England, 1993" was published in January 1995.

  An inquiry called "Investigation into the Neurosurgery Patient Transfers" was published in March 1995. It was jointly commissioned by the Department.

  In addition, the Department contributed to the funding of a report of a multi-disciplinary working party on paediatric intensive care published by the British Paediatric Association in December 1993.

  Copies of the documents are available in the Library.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those organisations which were short listed for the purchase of the headquarters in Harrogate of the former regional health authority. [21525]

  Mr. Malone
  Following pre-tender qualification, the companies invited to tender for the new headquarters of the Northern and Yorkshire regional office in Durham, which also included the requirement to purchase the former headquarters of the Yorkshire regional health authority in Harrogate, were:

  Wickes Properties Ltd.

  Grantchester Group plc

  Durham County Council

  Dysart Developments Ltd.

  Doctors
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical doctors qualified in each year since 1970. [21485]

  Mr. Malone
  The information available relates to the number of degrees awarded in medicine and is collected by the higher education funding councils. This information is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to compensate local authorities for additional costs from the implementation of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 in respect of their statutory duties under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and Children Act 1989. [21594]

  Mr. Bowis
  On 11 January,Official Report, columns 331–65, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

  191
  Social Security announced that the Government proposed to assist local authorities with any unavoidable additional costs arising under the homelessness legislation or the Children Act 1989.

  The Government have since decided that a special grant under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act
  192
  1988 will cover 80 per cent. of social services authorities' unavoidable additional expenditure above a certain threshold.

  The grant will be paid in arrears on the basis of evidence submitted by authorities. Threshold levels have yet to be determined.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

MRC: Alpha-Rated Projects
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with a probable 70 per cent. rejection rate by the Medical Research Council in 1996–97 of alpha-rated projects.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the rejection rate illustrates not least the growing number of high quality applications to the Medical Research Council. Its budget increased by more than 30 per cent. in real terms during the past 10 years; but, like all organisations, the MRC must live within its means.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the Government will bear in mind the fact that alpha ratings are not easily won and that to discard so large a proportion is perhaps a short-term view and is turning our backs on the future. Will my noble friend ask his colleagues in the Treasury in particular, who are chiefly responsible, to look at the matter again?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in the world of medical research we would wish to avoid any short-term approach. However, I believe that £282 million is a substantial sum to support that valuable research. Of course, it is not the only source of funding for medical research. However, I appreciate what my noble friend said; and no doubt others heard what he said, too.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, would not the MRC and the applicants save money if the MRC were to adopt the filtration and screening practice that is followed by the Wellcome Trust, which now funds more research than the MRC? Secondly, does not the turning down of such a high proportion of alpha-rated projects suggest that perhaps the balance has swung too far away from the support of basic research towards applied research which, in the end, depends on the basic research for which this country historically has a successful record?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can draw no conclusion from the rejection rate about whether there has been a shift away from basic research. It might well be possible for the MRC to reconsider how it screens, checks or filters out applications. However, given the importance of the Haldane principle, to which we still have adherence, it would be risky for the Government to set out how they believe a better filtering system might he introduced.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is not the rating highly subjective? Does the Minister agree that all the MRC has to do is to invent a new rating called alpha double plus for those who succeed and then we are all home and dry?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that within the scientific world there is always suspicion about the subjective character of such ratings. It is not for me to suggest the rating approach that the MRC ought to adopt. I readily accept, as I did in answer to my noble friend, that a large number of worthwhile projects do not receive funding from the MRC. We have attractively a growing number of high quality research projects. What should not be underestimated are the other sources of funding which are available.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is it not the case that many of the high-rated projects which the MRC would wish to fund if it had the money available are being carried out in collaboration or partnership with some of the research charities, the universities and the NHS? It is true that the Association of Medical Research Charities is producing more money for medical research than does the MRC. However, is it not the case that the recent announcement of a 30 per cent. cutback on capital funding for the universities will seriously prejudice some of those projects with detriment to the long-term future of UK medical research?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, although it is not within the responsibility of my department, I have received a number of representations to the effect that that change will impact on the money provided through the DTI to the MRC. I understand that a number of organisations are looking at the matter, as are the vice-chancellors, to see how to ensure that items such as laboratory equipment in particular should not suffer from the change. The noble Lord is right because my figures indicate that while the MRC will be spending about £282 million in the coming year, charities, the Wellcome Trust and other bodies will be spending about £50 million; and more than £400 million is being spent on research-related activity within the NHS.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a former chairman of the Medical Research Council, and I must also confess a deep concern about the matter. Does my noble and learned friend agree that despite the inflow of funding from charities, which is most welcome, if the rejection trend persists, there is a real danger that there will be an erosion of our once dominant position in the field of basic medical research? Does my noble friend further agree that it is deeply disappointing for some of the brightest and youngest minds working in the field to see top-class applications rejected?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that within the alpha-rating there are three sub-classifications and that all those projects which achieve an alpha-plus rating are funded by the MRC. As I have indicated, over the past 10 years there has been an increase of something like 30 per cent. in real terms. That is important. But I certainly share the

1147
concern of my noble friend that those who are brightest and best in the world of medical research should not be put off. However, once again I point to what I see as being very valuable alternative sources of funding, and I believe that those sources are extremely rigorous in their selection of the best.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, did I correctly understand the Minister to say that out of the 70 per cent. rejection rate, he cannot tell us which percentage relates to pure research and which percentage relates to applied research? He also referred to the amount of money put in by industry for applied research. In view of the enormous sums of money which the pharmaceutical industry has devoted to applied research, would it not be better for the Medical Research Council to concentrate on pure research?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that it does concentrate in large measure on pure research. I shall try to ascertain the figure if there is a division between the two. But I certainly recognise the desirability to focus on pure research. Again I emphasise that there would be real concern if the department of which I am a Minister sought to lay down to the MRC, in contradiction of the Haldane principle, which research it should support and which it should not. I did not mention the amount of funding provided by industry which, in applied fashion, I understand amounted to something like £1.6 billion some two years ago.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, regarding the classification and the importance of projects which are currently being rejected, is it not true that certainly in 1995–96, some alpha-plus rated projects were rejected, as were almost all of the alpha-rated projects? Is it not a matter of grave concern that in an area which has been so spectacularly successful in the past, we should now neglect for short-term savings long-term investment in the future scientific base of this country?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I have indicated already, we have increased funding in real terms by some 30 per cent. The noble Baroness should realise that there is an increasing number of applications. I certainly understood that all the alpha-plus projects had been approved; but if I have been misled on that, I shall write to the noble Baroness to correct that understanding.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am rather lost with all this highfalutin stuff. Does the Minister agree that the wording of the Question asked by his noble friend refers to whether HMG are satisfied, which is capable of a yes or no answer? Is he aware that I have been listening to him for 10 minutes and he has not yet been able to answer yes or no? It is a very simple Question. Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied about this state of affairs?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have to look at the amount of money that we have spent. There has been an increase of something like 30 per cent. in real terms. If the noble Lord wishes to indicate that he would
1148
agree to increase it by the smallest percentage point, I have no doubt that your Lordships would be very pleased to hear that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, one of the characteristics of your Lordships' House is that I am supposed to ask the questions and the noble and learned Lord opposite is supposed to answer them. I know that that is only a temporary arrangement, but I feel that the Minister should make some effort to answer his own noble friend's Question. It is not my job to do that. I have a view; but at the moment, that is not my job.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it would clearly be very much easier for Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box to be able to say that every single application in every form which had been brought before the Medical Research Council had been funded. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that that is an unrealistic position. However, I can say that we have spent 30 per cent. more in real terms on medical research and I believe that to be a very fine record.

Overseas Aid: Debt Burden
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the implications for their overseas aid and development strategy of the deliberations on multilateral debt at the most recent IMF and World Bank meetings.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the British Government are at the forefront of discussing multilateral debt in all relevant international fora. The World Bank and the IMF have important roles in contributing to the solution. But debt relief alone is not enough. There must also be continuing economic policy reform to promote sound growth. That is essential for effective and sustainable poverty reduction strategies.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Minister join me in welcoming the recent decision by the IMF and the World Bank to recognise that many countries have a debt problem which is simply not capable of being resolved? At the forthcoming spring meeting of the IMF and the World Bank, will the Government urge those two bodies to take rapid action to reduce the burden of debt on many of the poor countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that it is very welcome that the IMF and the World Bank are both now moving in the right direction with suggestions being put to the different meetings in April and the meeting of the development committee. Some shareholders still remain to be convinced of the ideas which are being advanced. We shall continue to debate and lobby for a solution to the problem of multilateral debt at the April meeting.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, does my noble friend have any news in relation to the discussions regarding replenishment of the International Development Assistance?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am delighted to announce that today in Tokyo the negotiations on the replenishment of IDA were concluded successfully. That means that the United States will not contribute to the first year of the package, but it will clear its arrears to IDA 10 and will pledge 800 million dollars a year for the following two years. That is very good news. If we achieve the right results at the spring meetings I believe that many countries will have a much brighter future.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome the news about IDA; I believe that it will be welcomed on all sides of the House. However, the proposals in the solutions paper apply only to eight countries. Will the Minister push for more of the 41 highly indebted countries to be included in the proposals?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall be very happy if we can make progress, first, with eight and then go on to deal with the remaining 33. We need to get the principles established as regards solving the problem of multilateral debt before overloading the whole system. We have made good progress as a result of the efforts of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on bilateral debt; we have made some progress on commercial debt; and we now need to make real progress on multilateral debt.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, in the past, much of our overseas aid was misdirected and, in some recipient countries, misappropriated? Is she aware that the emphasis now on giving aid for managerial expertise is to be welcomed? Is not the increase in private investment to third world countries also to be welcomed when those countries need trade, not aid?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that Britain's development assistance has not been misdirected. Indeed, we have been at the forefront in monitoring and evaluating our aid to ensure that it was not misdirected or misapplied. We have extended our systems to other bilateral and some multilateral donors to make sure that their assistance is not misapplied. I agree with my noble friend that the wider use of managerial experience from this country and others to put right the inabilities of civil servants and politicians alike in some developing countries is most welcome. The great increase in private investment flows to developing countries means that many are now much more able to get involved in real trade, provided that the developed countries do not bar that trade with themselves.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on this side of the House congratulate her and her colleagues on the part they played in bringing about the replenishment of IDA? That is splendid news. Will the Minister also accept that we are full of goodwill for
1150
the lead which she and her colleagues are giving on debt generally? However, at the spring meetings, can she say whether the Government will give priority to ensuring that the IMF plays its part by selling some of its gold stock towards debt relief as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ago? Will the Government also ensure that meetings are held soon between multilateral and bilateral creditors to work out a meaningful strategy for the most severely affected countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first two questions is, thank you. The answer to his third question is that, of course, we are going to work away at that possibility. We have to persuade other colleagues who are not yet fully convinced of the need for the sale of the gold that that is the right way to go. So far as concerns the overall plan to reduce debt and help countries to stand on their own two feet, the noble Lord knows full well that we are 100 per cent. behind that aim.

British Fishing Fleet: Decommissioning
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are able to co-ordinate the rate of decommissioning of fishing boats under the United Kingdom's scheme with the numbers of newly built vessels being added to the British fishing fleet.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the United Kingdom operates a restrictive licensing system, which means that new vessels must acquire existing entitlements to fish. Decommissioning is a voluntary scheme, the uptake of which is determined by competitive tender within the available funding. There is no link between decommissioning and new build.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. As fishing effort must be reduced to conserve fish stocks, and, accordingly, the United Kingdom, like other countries, is operating a scheme to take boats out of commission, can the tonnage of new boats coming into service be restricted by the licensing system in order to achieve overall reduction? Further, can my noble friend comment on the statement made at the weekend by the visiting EU Commissioner, Signora Bonino, that the British fleet's tonnage has doubled in the past 10 years, given that a substantial part of that increase must have been caused by Spanish boats joining the British register?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as regards the first part of my noble friend's question, I do not believe that we have a problem in that respect. All new boats that enter the register must do so as replacements for a rather greater tonnage of boats that have left the register. Therefore, as fishermen upgrade their boats—as they continue to do in large numbers—the actual tonnage of the British fleet and its engine power will decline.

1151
So far as concerns the comments of Signora Bonino, I must disagree with the figures that she offered. She did not take account of the fact that a large number of vessels were not actively fishing at the time when the original figure that she quoted of 116,000 gross registered tonnes was compiled. If one looks at that in a more modern way—that is, that all boats are entitled to fish—that would increase the size of the fleet at that point. Signora Bonino quoted a current fleet of 239,000 gross registered tonnes. That is a figure that we do not recognise from any source. Indeed, our figure would be about 207,000 gross registered tonnes. The overall picture is of a UK fleet which is slowly declining but which has not declined at the rate required of it under the agreements into which we have entered.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the engine power of fishing vessels is taken into account in the licensing system as well as the length of the vessel and tonnage? Further, can the noble Lord say whether the engine power of foreign vessels permitted to fish in UK waters is monitored?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord's second question first. Each state monitors the engine power of its own boats. We believe that the engine power is monitored in the same way as we monitor engine power; in other words, it is controlled. However, we have no way of checking the engine power of a boat at sea. We need to do a static test when it reaches port. As regards the noble Lord's first question, I can say that, yes, there are controls on engine power. If one is replacing a boat now, one has to ensure that the replacement boat has a lower tonnage and less engine power than that specified on the surrendered licence of the other boat in order to get a licence for the new boat.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the answer he gave to the first supplementary question seems to indicate that all that is happening is that it is taking the patient longer to die? I say that because there is a progressive diminution in the tonnage available for the fishing fleet. Are the Government going to stand aside and see the fishing fleet destroyed as they have with the merchant navy?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that that analogy is apposite. Indeed, a better analogy would be a person who has been told to lose weight by his doctor but has not kept up with the weight reduction programme to which he agreed. However, he is losing weight and we do not believe that he will die yet.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I believe that I get the sense of the House that it was the turn of the Cross-Benches. We are running very short of time. I hope that the noble Lord will be patient. We must try to be as succinct as we can in order to leave enough time for the fourth Question.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in view of the importance of reducing the amount of effort in the British fleet, can the Minister say whether the Government will be willing to consider making a little more money available for decommissioning?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have increased the amount of money available for decommissioning. Indeed, that was announced some time ago. However, whether we shall do so further in the future is a matter which must await the results of the current decommissioning rounds.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if there was any rapport between Commissioner Bonino and the fishermen of Brixham and Newlyn it was indeed over quota hopping? The Commissioner appeared to believe that there was a real problem. Judging by the Minister's reply to the original Question, he appears to believe that the Commissioner was, perhaps, wrong. I hope that the noble Lord can deny that.
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords. I hope that we are talking about different aspects of what Mrs. Bonino said. We are enormously encouraged by her acknowledgement that there is a problem over quota hopping. She has said that she thinks it can be solved through various restrictive terms applied to quotas. We are not aware of any way that this can be done but we have immediately commissioned our officials, and she has commissioned hers, to work together to see what might be possible. But the recognition that something needs to be done is something that we are grateful for.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it is nice to know everyone is on my side!
Noble Lords: Oh!

Coal- and Gas-Fired Power Stations
3 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that there is fair competition between coal-fired power stations and gas-fired power stations.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, competition is the best means of ensuring that the nation has access to secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy. That is why the Government established a competitive

1153
market in electricity generation in 1990 and an independent regulatory regime to oversee and promote competition. All licensed generators, whatever their fuel source, have access to this market.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, do not the long-term gas contracts give an unfair advantage, in that the cost of producing electricity from coal-fired power stations has been reduced significantly? Does not the Minister agree that electricity from the early gas stations which, as he will know, are almost entirely owned by the 12 regional companies, is now at a level 50 per cent. higher than that produced by coal-fired stations?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the coal producers currently have contracts which in effect guarantee the sale of significant volumes of electricity from coal plant until April 1998. From that point of view they are well favoured. But, more generally, the simple proposition is that, as regards electricity consumers, it is in their best interests and in the nation's best interests that the electricity should be produced at as cheap a price as possible.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the capital costs of coal-fired stations have long since been written off for the most part, and that therefore their costs of generating electricity—as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, pointed out—are much less than for any competitive fuel source? Have those factors been fully taken into account in the present situation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords, I believe they have. In the course of the past year, something like 45 per cent. of electricity was supplied from coal-fired plant. In those circumstances it would seem to me that coal is holding its position well and will undoubtedly do so until at least 1998. At some point the volume of gas, and the price at which it is available, may well be such that it will be used more widely to generate electricity. However, if that is the position, I am bound to say that I cannot see that that is undesirable if it will be cheaper and cleaner.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in declaring an interest as a director of a company selling North Sea gas, may I ask whether my noble and learned friend is aware that coal-fired power stations are burdened by the environmental requirement of desulphurisation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords, that is why I indicated that in some circumstances considerably more electricity may be generated from gas-fired plant. I have no doubt that a number of people would consider that to be highly desirable given the lesser impact it has on the environment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that during the cold spell there was widely reported to be a crisis in electricity supply, is the Minister sure that relying on private industry to build for profit will ensure the supply of electricity?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords. We have had a difficult winter—as the noble Lord will know was
1154
the case where he lives—in terms of some extreme weather. However, where there have ten interruptions to the electricity supply that was not—as I have indicated on previous occasions—because there was any significant mismatch between demand and capacity but because of extreme weather. Any circumstances where there might have been any threat to supply have been satisfactorily averted. I know There was some anxiety that in the case of gas-fired power stations with interruptible gas contracts there might be a problem, but they hold in reserve a considerable stock of gas oil. I understand there were a number of technical problems but the industry regulators are at this very moment looking into that matter to ensure that the technical problems, rather than the volumes of gas, will not be a problem in the future.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that before and after privatisation questions have been asked in this House about the interruption of power supply and that the replies given have indicated that there have been fewer interruptions since privatisation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for recollecting a reply that I have given on previous occasions. I have done so more than once and I decided on this occasion that it would not be necessary to repeat the point as it was so well known. Nevertheless I am grateful to my noble friend for making the point so well on my behalf.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that there are only two forms of energy mentioned in the Question, have the Government any proposals in the long term on what action to take since one of those sources may fail, as supplies of gas are known to be finite? What other alternatives have the Government in mind, having dismantled our coal industry?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the long-term availability of both fuels is clearly guaranteed. In the course of the past week there has been a significant and satisfactory uprating of the reserves of both oil and gas within the United Kingdom continental shelf and in terms of gas reservoirs to which we would have access beyond our continental shelf. I do not believe that there is any risk, for a long time, of either coal or gas drying up.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister just referred to a guarantee. What is the nature of the guarantee that he is talking about as regards the future use of coal in generating power?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the future of coal as a source for generating electricity will clearly depend not only on its availability but also on the price at which it is made available to those who produce electricity. I cannot believe that anyone would want to see anything other than the cheapest form of fuel being used to generate electricity for consumers in this country.

Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-term Breaks) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for assessments of health and social needs of disabled persons to include assessments of the need for short-term breaks for the disabled person and any carer. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Rix.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, yesterday the noble Viscount the Leader of the House staged what he described as a pre-emptive strike against his noble friends who traditionally hoped to discuss economic affairs under the heading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. I hope I may bring some solace to his noble friends by assuring them that they will have ample opportunity to expose the deficiencies of the Government's economic policies by participating in the debate which is in my name for tomorrow afternoon.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Committee negatived; then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Certain events not to be shown solely on pay-per-view or subscription terms]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood) moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I indicated at Report stage that the Government proposed to introduce amendments to guarantee the availability of live coverage of listed events to terrestrial free-to-air television and to provide for a number of associated
1156
measures to secure the best deal for sports bodies, broadcasters and the public. The amendments which I am now presenting aim to do that.
The Government's amendments go fully with the grain of the amendment passed by your Lordships' House which now stands as Clause 1 of the Bill. They build on the thinking underlying the amendment and seek to put right some specific deficiencies to which I drew attention in Committee.
In place of Clause 1, the Government propose a series of clauses to protect television coverage of listed events. Our intention is that a terrestrial free-to-air service of universal coverage should be able to broadcast a listed event live, subject only to rights being available to a non-universal broadcaster, and vice versa. Inevitably the clauses are somewhat complex. That is, I fear, inevitable if one takes action in this area. It may be helpful to the House if I briefly summarise the purpose of each amendment in turn.
Amendment No. 1 leaves out Clause 1, to be replaced by a series of clauses designed to put its general intentions into effect. We propose that these amendments constitute a new Part IVA of the Bill to follow that part which comprises amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Amendment No. 20 rolls over the provision in the 1990 Act to draw up the list of listed events as a prerequisite to the protection of television coverage. Amendment No. 21 establishes two categories of television services. The first effectively comprises terrestrial free-to-air broadcasters with universal reach. The second covers all other broadcasters. There is a power to vary the composition of each category by order, for example, to reflect the development of digital broadcasting.
Amendment No. 23 sets an absolute prohibition on any broadcaster in either category acquiring exclusive rights to show a listed event live. Amendment No. 24 provides that a contract between broadcaster and a sports rights holder must specify the category of service on which a listed event is to be televised. Both these amendments are designed to ensure compliance with the main provisions.
Amendment No. 25 is the key clause. It obliges a non-universal broadcaster not to broadcast live coverage of a listed event unless the same rights have been acquired by a universal broadcaster, and vice versa. There is a provision for the Independent Television Commission to pre-clear broadcasts which do not comply with the terms of this provision—for example, if no non-universal broadcaster is interested in acquiring relevant rights.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 allow the ITC to impose penalties on their licensees who act in breach of the provisions, with maximum fine levels set by the Secretary of State by order, and to report any breaches by the BBC or S4C to the Secretary of State. In practice the ITC pre-clearance procedure makes any such action extremely unlikely.
Amendment No. 28 provides for the ITC to draw up a code to specify the criteria which it will apply in exercising its functions in this area and to cover definitional issues. Other amendments with which these are grouped are consequential.
These amendments safeguard listed events for terrestrial television. They help in various ways to safeguard the position of broadcasters, sports bodies and viewers. As indicated at Report stage, the Government will keep the operation of the controls under review to reflect the need for flexibility in the fast-moving broadcasting sector. We believe that the amendments strike a fair balance between the reasonable interests of all concerned, and I hope that they will commend themselves to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Howell: My Lords, the House will recall that at the start of our deliberations on these matters a significant majority was in favour of maintaining the listed events. With his normal helpfulness and courtesy, the Minister indicated that the Government would seek to honour that decision and produce a suitable amendment. That is what they have done today. I express my appreciation and that not only of colleagues but of the millions of people outside this Chamber who are grateful for what the House has done to protect their interest.
The new part is five pages long. I calculate that it contains more than 3,500 words. It replaces some 50 words in the 1990 Act and the provision of about equal length that we put into the Bill at an earlier stage. I do not know what conclusion to draw from this extraordinary verbosity. I can only assume that every dot and comma, nook and cranny, has been explored and that the new part is therefore totally waterproof. No doubt the Minister will tell us why we have such a lengthy amendment.
I express appreciation that the excellence of British sport is to be retained in the shop window of British sport—terrestrial television broadcasting. In view of that, we shall, of course, support the amendment moved by the Minister.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment goes slightly further than the amendment moved at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. My noble friend's amendment also refers to the list, and the revised list, and the power which the Secretary of State will have to include or omit various sporting events from that list.
When the Minister replies, will he state the Government's thinking as regards the list? How often will it be reviewed? Once a year? Or every five years? To what decisions have the Government come? It is important that we establish what the Government are providing in their amendment. It will certainly affect opinion as regards the later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asks a pertinent question. We await with interest the answer from the Minister. In the meantime, from these Benches I join with the
1158
noble Lord, Lord Howell, in expressing our thanks to the Minister for accepting the will of your Lordships' House when we voted on the matter by ensuring that your Lordships' House and not another place put the consequences of that vote into proper statutory form.
Like the noble Lord and the noble Viscount, I have not mastered all the small print of the rather long series of new clauses, but I am sure that it is necessary. It is, however, the principle which matters. We are grateful to the Minister for enabling the House to come to a conclusion on the issue before Third Reading is completed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, having had some part in the amendment moved in Committee, I should like to say more than a word of conventional thanks to my noble friend. I express genuine admiration and regard for the way in which the Minister listens to what is said here and produces something sensible to carry it forward.
I regarded the original amendment as not very good but as a useful way of nudging the Government into action. That is exactly how my noble friend has responded. For that I am most grateful.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is a little unkind, I think, in referring to the verbosity of the amendment. For once, I accept willingly that the step the Government have now taken demands a quite complicated series of arrangements in order to make it work. I willingly forgive my noble friend for the volume of the provision.
I should like to say how much I welcome the role that is given to the ITC under the amendment, so far as I understand it. In the rapidly changing technology of the industry, there is a great need for constant oversight by people who are detached and neutral but well informed on what is going on. My noble friend deserves the full thanks of the House and he certainly gets mine.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords,I support the Government's new amendments. It is good that we have reached such an understanding. I was in favour of the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but the more I examined it the more I came to the conclusion that in both Houses flexibility is badly needed. Everything is changing in technology, in habits and in sport. Amateur sports are becoming professional, altering the amount of money that is available. The money available from the promoters of sport is important for the training of the new and young people both in our schools and in our classes.
I support the amendment, but I wonder whether we can keep the flexibility long enough to find that voluntary agreement which the various sporting authorities are now considering. It is important to have a voluntary agreement about how many highlights can be promoted. I also wonder whether primary legislation will be necessary if we need to change whatever agreement is reached, supposing the voluntary agreement does not work. If we need to change it, would it mean legislation on the highlights starting in another place? I note that the other place has changed the date of the Second Reading debate from just before Easter,

1159
on 2nd April, to 16th April. I hope that that will give them a fortnight in which to come to a voluntary agreement which we can all support.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we wish to join in the thanks and congratulations to the Minister for providing such a positive response. The whole process has shown the House at its best, with an excellent debate, a good vote and a positive ministerial response. I look forward to another place having to read the Bill. I wonder whether the reason for the delay is that they must read five pages of new clauses which might need a little more time.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, perhaps I may interject a few remarks about my personal support and that of many people in the educational world for the Government's decision. I admit to an interest in the British Universities Sports Association, of which I have the privilege and honour to be chairman. Our patron is Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal. We are most anxious that at no time should television squeeze sport and similar activities off the screen. It is important that young people are given encouragement, not only to carry on their intellectual work, but also to keep fit and pursue the lions, the heroes who lead them.
At the moment the association has a remarkable hero in Jonathan Edwards who last year snatched the world triple jump record during sporting events organised by students. It is important to bear in mind that not only must the young be kept interested in their intellectual life and physical development, but also that their spiritual development is encouraged. In that respect, in Jonathan Edwards we have a modest young man who proclaimed his Christianity and on one occasion made it clear that he was not prepared to compete on the Lord's Day. If we can encourage that kind of hero through the proper use of television, it will be for the general good.
I wish to make one other remark. A gentleman in the University of Pittsburg in America, Digby Baltzell, may be known indirectly to noble Lords. He is a social philosopher in America and in his thesis he invented the great word "WASP", white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. He visited the United Kingdom while I was Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University. I know him; he asked to talk to me and we had a chat. I was rather alarmed by the main theme that he wanted to put to me. He said that he was concerned because, returning to Britain, he found that the students were short of explicit role models. The role model that can come through the programmes that we can now see on sports and in other spheres will help British youth.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin by saying how pleased we are that the clauses that I have just proposed have met with your Lordships' approval. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, we have had a good debate on the subject. Noble Lords were ahead of the Government in that respect, but we can now see a congruence in our thinking and I trust that it reflects well on both sides of the equation.
1160
We have been asked why what we propose is so wordy. The simple answer is that when the problem was looked at in detail, the technical complications entailed in bringing about what, on the face of it, is quite a simple concept mean that in order to draft a nearly watertight, rather than "waterproof', solution, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, sought, requires a great deal of text. That is why we have come forward with proposals which are so long. I dare say that if it had not been for the skill of parliamentary counsel, they would have been longer still.
Finally, I was asked about our thinking on what is included in the list. I wish to emphasise at this stage that what we have focused on is establishing an appropriate framework for dealing with listed events. Getting that satisfactorily in place must logically precede consideration of what the content of the list should be. After all, we must not forget that any consideration of the contents of the list must involve a process of consultation, as set out in the 1990 Act, which is a precondition of any change which can be made administratively at any one time. It is the case that the contents of the list have been both expanded and contracted in the course of its history.
One point that has been raised is that we should establish criteria to act as a reference point for future decisions. I have made it clear that it is a useful suggestion and we shall consider it further. Clearly, that has a bearing on what might or might not be included in the list.
The Government's position on the matter is quite straightforward. We believe that it would be inappropriate to consider any proposals to add to or subtract from the list until one has finalised the framework within which the list should be drawn up.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Howell Lord Howell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"UNBUNDLING" OF SPORTS BROADCASTING RIGHTS
(".—(1) This section applies where a person acquires the exclusive rights for the live television broadcast of any sporting event to be included in any service provided by—

(a) any holder of a licence under Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1990;

(b) any holder of a digital programme licence under Part II of this Act;

(c) the BBC; or

(d) the Welsh Authority.

(2) The Independent Television Commission ("the Commission") shall ensure that no broadcast to which subsection (1) applies shall be included in any service to which subsection (1)(a) or (b) applies unless—

(a) in the case of a subscription or pay-per-view service, the right to broadcast television highlights of that event, at a reasonable time after the conclusion of the event on the same day as the event taking place, has been offered on reasonable terms to a universal broadcaster (whether or not the same person as the provider of the subscription or pay-per-view service), or

(b) in the case of a universal broadcasting service, the right to broadcast television highlights of that event, at a reasonable time after the conclusion of the event on the

1161
same day as the event taking place, has been offered on reasonable terms to a person offering a pay-per-view or subscription service (whether or not the same person as the universal broadcaster).

(3) The BBC and the Welsh Authority shall ensure that no broadcast to which subsection (1) refers shall be included in any television service broadcast by them unless—

(a) in the case of a subscription or pay-per-view service, the right to broadcast television highlights of that event, at a reasonable time after the conclusion of the event on the same day as the event taking place, has been offered on reasonable terms to a universal broadcaster (whether or not the same person as the provider of the subscription or pay-per-view service), or

(b) in the case of a universal broadcast service, the right to broadcast television highlights of that event, at a reasonable time after the conclusion of the event on the same day as the event taking place, has been offered on reasonable terms to a person offering a pay-per-view or subscription service (whether or not the same person as the universal broadcaster).

(4) If the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) are not complied with any person referred to in subsection (1)(a) to (d) may refer the matter to the Director General of Fair Trading who shall determine the terms on which the rights referred to in subsection (1) or any of them are to be licensed.
(5) The Commission, the BBC and the Welsh Authority, as the case may be, shall ensure that no person referred to in subsection (1)(a) to (d)—

(a) acquires rights to sporting events which he cannot exercise, or

(b) retains rights to such events which he does not intend to exercise.

(6) In this section—
"television highlights" means recorded extracts of the coverage of a whole sporting event, such selection to be by the universal broadcaster for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) and (3)(a) and by the person offering a subscription or a pay-per-view service for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) and (3)(b);
"universal broadcasting service" means a service received or delivered to more than 90 per cent. in aggregate of all households in the area appropriate to the sporting event, and "universal broadcaster" shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the reasons which I shall give in moving Amendment No. 3, I shall not move Amendment No. 2.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
BROADCASTING SPORTS RIGHTS: SPORTS COUNCIL CODE
(" .—(1) It shall be the duty of the Sports Council to draw up and keep under review a code giving guidance to the Commission, the BBC and the Welsh Authority as to the carrying out of their duties under section ("Unbundling" of sports broadcasting rights).
(2) In carrying out their duties under section ("Unbundling" of sports broadcasting rights) the Commission, the BBC and the Welsh Authority shall have regard to the code mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) The Sports Council shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the extent to which the code has been complied with.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 deals with the difficult subject of whatever is left, the other sports not included on the list of events. Those sports are important. They include such events as the Rugby Union Five Nations Championship, motor
1162
racing, open golf, Ryder Cup golf, Royal Ascot, Cheltenham racing and so on. We have to consider the rights of the public to see those events should the governing bodies of those sports wish to dispose of them exclusively to one television channel, which might not, as is the case with Sky, be happy to provide highlights to other channels.
No doubt, like me, noble Lords are a little weary with the constant cross-communications we have all received in recent times, from the sports bodies on the one hand and the television authorities on the other. They show the importance of the subject. This amendment is an alternative means of tackling the problem, as distinct from the purely statutory manner in which we have dealt with listed events.
Subsection (1) of the amendment states that it will be the duty of the Sports Council to draw up a voluntary code of conduct on the question of highlights. Secondly, the amendment requires the relevant regulating bodies to have regard to that code when performing their duties under the Act. Thirdly, it requires the Sports Council to report annually on how far the code has been complied with.
I have had the advantage of seeing the proposals which I believe the Sports Council has delivered to the Government by way of a first draft of its code. It seems to me that they go a long way—if it is possible to bring them off—towards meeting some of our fears. The draft does not go the whole way, for reasons I shall return to in a moment, but it certainly goes a long way.
I am told that the television companies have indicated to the Sports Council the likelihood that they will support such a code. I know that some sports—including, as I particularly appreciate, my own sport, football—have tried to be extremely helpful. The Sports Council is confident that it can, in a reasonable time, get all the major sports we refer to to sign up to the code.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, made a point a moment ago with which I entirely agree. We cannot have a voluntary code of conduct if we believe it might be undermined in any way. That is one of the reasons we seek to have statutory backup in this amendment: to say, for example, that the Sports Council has to report annually to Parliament, in case anyone wishes to break the code having once entered into it, be it sport or television, and also to call upon the regulatory bodies to have regard to the code when issuing licences.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is quite right. There are effectively four to six weeks, perhaps more, before the Committee stage of this Bill is taken in another place. My judgment is that the Sports Council ought to be able to produce a code by then. We have to take that on trust. I take it on trust. I know that the council will do its utmost. The chairman and director of the Sports Council and their senior officers have worked ceaselessly, especially in the past seven days, to try to bring us to this situation and avoid further confrontation. The House may therefore feel that they should he supported and be allowed to produce a voluntary code if they can do so. That is certainly the view to which I am inclined.
However, there are difficulties in this area. Hardly a day goes by when I am not told one thing by some of those parties which is contradicted the next. That makes it very difficult to reach agreement with anybody. For example, last week I was told that the copyright provision which would allow access to highlights from the Bruno/Tyson fight had all been settled and solved and there would be no difficulty at all; they would all appear. But the very day after I was told that by the appropriate television company, it issued another statement saying that it would not allow the BBC to show the actual knock-out if one occurred. That seemed odd to me, since in my judgment there almost certainly would be a knock-out. There are difficulties. People say one thing one day, no doubt in good faith, and then are under all sorts of pressures to change their stance the next. I concede that that makes it very difficult for the Government, as well as for us and for the Sports Council.
I am glad that the Minister mentioned in his earlier remarks the question of extended listed events. There is not the slightest doubt that, unless we can get some sensible agreement about highlights and the right of the public to see them, there will be a great demand to extend the number of listed events. We cannot have a situation in which 33 million households, or even more, may suddenly be deprived of any sight of the major sporting events in this country outside the listed events. That would cause enormous difficulties and problems throughout the land. So one of the reasons for supporting our approach today is to prevent the need to add to the listed events. There would certainly be a movement towards that in another place if the code of conduct has not come into operation. I hope that the voluntary sports bodies will remember that.
I shall deal with two of the objections with which we have all been flooded. The major spectator sports division of the Central Council for Physical Recreation—spectator sports are the great sports of our nation—wrote to me, and I suspect to other noble Lords, in terms which suggest to me that its intellectual capacity seems to be withering. It says, for example, that we have to have regard to the effect of our measures on husky racing, sheepdog trials and darts—none of which I regard as sports, and so far as I know they are not affiliated to the Central Council for Physical Recreation.
Mr. David Elstein, of Sky, has gone even further. He says, that we have to have regard to topless darts. I do not think that sport is affiliated to the CCPR, but if it does become affiliated, since I attend all the conferences, I look forward to exhibitions of what is involved in that activity. The mind boggles. When representatives of major sports and Sky Television tell us that we have to have regard to husky racing, sheepdog trials and topless darts, I wonder where on earth we are, and whether these protagonists are all quite right in the mind.
I turn to the competition argument, which is important. It has to be met and dealt with in just a moment or two. The major spectator sports tell us that sport has a right to sell its wares to the highest bidder.
1164
So it does, and we have protected that right in our amendments and in our legislation. We are not trying to undermine the right of sport to sell what it can.
Perhaps I may illustrate the position by reference to one sport. If it wants to sell its products to Sky Television for exclusive use, under these proposals it must separate the negotiations for the highlights. That means in practice that if the rights are sold to Sky the governing bodies of important spectator sports will then have to negotiate the highlights with the BBC, Independent Television or Channel 5. If that is opposed, it seems to me that what the spectator sports are saying is, "We don't have any confidence in our ability as negotiators in the marketplace to get a fair deal, even though there are three television companies with which to negotiate".
Let me illustrate the effect. The House will recall, when we discussed earlier the world cricket championships (we congratulate Sri Lanka on its astonishing victory in that competition), at the start, no highlights were to be made available to the BBC. After discussion in this House, highlights were made available and the BBC paid £1 million for them. It is quite ludicrous that the BBC should pay £1 million for the highlights of world cricket when it could have paid £1 million to the cricket authorities themselves. As suggested in the amendment, the cricket authorities could negotiate directly with the BBC and the other two companies. I wish that the marketing men would have confidence in their ability to negotiate properly.
I say again to the governing bodies of sport that not once in any of the letters that I have received this week have they answered the point that we repeatedly made; namely, that they should face up to their social responsibilities as sports bodies. As well as earning as much money as they can for the sport, quite rightly, they have a duty to millions of sports lovers who cannot afford to watch Sky, especially those in infirmity or old age. They should be allowed to watch excellence in their living rooms, as indeed should the young. The sports bodies will undermine their own future if they acquiesce in taking out of the living rooms of most houses in this country excellence in sport through the terrestrial broadcasting which is currently available to them.
There is another financial argument to consider. At the moment the Test and County Cricket Board feels aggrieved because it has 30 days of test cricket. It feels that it can get more money from Mr. Murdoch, if it negotiates with him, than out of the BBC. I myself heard the chairman of the Institute of Sports Sponsorship say, "Don't think that if you go to the minority audience on Sky you will take our sponsorship with you. The value of our sponsorship and the value of all the perimeter boards around the grounds when seen on BBC for 30 days is something that money cannot buy". That is the other part of the economic and financial argument and it is often left out of the equation by the sporting bodies. It is our duty to remind them of that.
I regret their repeated silence in not answering the question: how do you intend to fulfil your social responsibilities? How do you intend to look after those who cannot receive the television programmes in their home? There is great silence on those matters.
There is silence in other quarters. We rightly pay tribute to the Minister in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. Perhaps noble Lords, like me, have felt it extraordinary that over the months of argument about this matter, which is probably the most important matter concerning sport that is before Parliament or the nation, not one word has been heard from the Minister for Sport, Mr. Iain Sproat. There has not been one word from him during all the months that we have been conducting the negotiations. Where is that mystery Minister? Is he about anywhere? Will he emerge at any time to give us the benefit of his leadership? He should have been doing that a long time ago.
I am prepared to take the Sports Council's voluntary code on trust, if the Minister intends to give us reasonable news, as I hope he might do; namely, the assurances that the Sports Council will be given every encouragement to produce such a code. I hope we can be assured that the sports bodies will play their part, as will the television companies. It is now time for the Sports Council to produce such a voluntary code. This amendment is designed to allow the Minister to encourage it and tell us in detail how it will work. It also takes regard of the fact that, when we have a voluntary code, should any of the participants wish to withdraw after Parliament has given the code its blessing, then the other place, having taken careful note of that, might have no alternative but recourse to further statutory measures. That ought not to be necessary with the good will of the major voluntary sports bodies in this country, supported by the Government and by the Sports Council. I hope so.
I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty in speaking to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is a doughty champion of the interests of the general public in British sport. I have always been content to defer to his judgment. At his request, mine is the second name on his two amendments on the Marshalled List. I did not learn from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that he proposed not to move the first amendment. I knew that he had reservations as to whether it was wise to ask your Lordships' House to come to a view on it. I feel that there should have been rather more adequate consultation on these matters.
We are now asked by the noble Lord to abandon any idea of having some statutory back-up for so-called "unbundling", enabling the general public to have the right to see the highlights of sporting events when the exclusive live rights have been bought for subscription. He prefers to go for a voluntary code. At this moment I do not quite know what the noble Lord means by a voluntary code. I have glanced at a piece of paper that I found just now on this Bench. It seems a rather vapid arid general document. For my part, I prefer to stick to the views on which the amendments were formed; namely, the need for some kind of statutory underpinning and then, no doubt, the advantage of an effective voluntary code.
1166
There is here a matter of procedure which I do not quite understand. Amendment No. 3 on the Marshalled List asks the Sports Council:
"to … keep under review a code giving guidance to the Commission, the BBC and the Welsh Authority as to the carrying out of their duties under section (`Unbundling' of sports broadcasting rights)".
There is no such section now. The amendment goes on to say:
"In carrying out their duties under [this] section … the Commission, the BBC and the Welsh Authority shall have regard to the code".
The amendment is meaningless as argued by the noble Lord. I do not know what the Opposition generally or the Labour Front Bench will do, but I propose to argue our considered case on this matter. We remain of the view that there should be some statutory underpinning, even though it may be reinforced by a voluntary code of conduct. If duties are to be placed on the Independent Television Commission and the BBC, they ought to be spelt out in legislation and not put forward in this rather curious way in terms of a proposed voluntary code that none of us have had the opportunity to study.
Behind the amendments as they stand is an underlying situation of legitimate conflicting interests in the sporting field. Those interests are in many ways locked in a conflict as dramatic as the Bruno-Tyson fight. Mr. David Elstein of Sky Sport and Will Wyatt of the BBC are more evenly matched than Bruno and Tyson; but they are in conflict with each other.
I do not take sides one way or the other. The reason we on these Benches feel that a statutory power is required is that our interests—they should also be the Government's interests—are those of the ordinary viewer and listener. I fully recognise that even the interests Of the ordinary viewer and listener in regard to sporting events beyond the listed events are not straightforward. There is an important minority of viewers—of whom I am one—who want much more sport than is practical on the four terrestrial channels and are prepared to pay for it, even at 3 o'clock in the morning, although my sporting enthusiasm does not extend that far. There is probably a bigger minority of viewers who feel that there is too much sport on public service channels and believe that more should be shunted onto subscription.
However, we are concerned with what I believe to be the middle mass of viewers, some of whom are not able to pay a subscription and who feel that they should have a fair share of the most interesting sporting events; that they should be able to enjoy live coverage of the special national occasions which come under the listed events—we welcome the Government's decision in that respect—but who feel also that they should enjoy a decent view on the day of the highlights of other important events. That seems to us to be a public interest that the Government should try to secure. What the debate in your Lordships' House has done is to provide evidence that the market place is not enough. I remain to be convinced that a code of conduct of the kind described in the amendment will be enough.
There has been the rather farcical wrangle over whether ordinary terrestrial viewers should he allowed by Sky Television, which was in total control, to see the

1167
final punch of the Bruno-Tyson fight; and at what time they should see it, the next morning or 48 hours later. An operator like Sky has a powerful financial incentive right up to the last minute to persuade viewers that the only way they can obtain even a glimpse of the great sporting event is to sign up and pay for it. Some holders of sporting rights are tempted to take the short-term view that more money and fewer viewers is in their best interests. There seems therefore to be a need for some degree of public control in the interests of viewers and, although I am a strong supporter in general of self-regulation, there are cases where it needs to be reinforced by some statutory backing.
We have talked mainly about viewers. What about listeners? They tend to be overlooked. There is not and cannot be—thank goodness! —subscription radio. Nobody can operate a "pay-per-listen" service on the old steam radio. But a satellite operator like Sky, without radio facilities of its own, can and does buy up the exclusive radio rights as part of a total package. It is then in a position to hold the public service radio channels to ransom for the live radio rights. BBC's Radio 5 Live, which does so well in providing live radio commentary of sporting events, finds itself from time to time in that situation. For instance, with only three months to go to the start of the cricket World Cup, the BBC discovered that the full broadcast rights, including radio rights, were held by Sky. It had been in negotiations with the original holders of the rights in India for over a year and it was not until the deal was closed with Sky that the BBC was informed that the whole package, radio as well as television rights, was being sold to Sky. Over the three months of negotiations with Sky, the rights holders did not volunteer the knowledge that they were in negotiation with Sky and the price was going up and up. It was only the extreme pressure of the debate in your Lordships' House and impending legislative change that finally forced Sky to agree a deal just one week in advance of commencement and at a price double that paid for the last cricket World Cup.
There is a question looming over Rugby Union. I understand that the BBC is currently negotiating with the RFU for the radio rights for the 1997–98 tour. But there is a possibility that Sky will again go for full broadcast rights, including radio that it does not itself operate, so making radio suffer in terms of obtaining the rights agreed. That is extremely unsatisfactory from the public interest point of view. A satellite broadcaster like Sky can delay a deal until the last minute to prevent the radio channel giving advance publicity and thereby create the impression to the rest of us that if we are anxious to partake of the live broadcast in one form or another of a specific sporting event the only way we can do so will be on subscription TV. That is an abuse of a dominating situation. Until this afternoon, on the basis of the amendments tabled on the Marshalled List, I assumed that that was the general view of the Opposition. We felt that it was necessary, along with a code of conduct, to have reinforcement of statutory rights. I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord,
1168
Lord Howell, to whose judgment in these matters I normally defer, that I remain unconvinced by what he said; that is, that a code of conduct by itself is adequate.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, made a powerful speech in favour of statutory regulation. But that is not what the amendment is about. The noble Lord's speech related to the previous amendment; we must be clear on that.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am not sure what the rules of order are in this situation, but perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt. If I had dreamt for one moment that the first amendment was being withdrawn without consultation, I would have objected.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. All I am seeking to do is to put the argument in context. It is important that we look at the amendment as it stands. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that it does not stand on its own.
The amendment talks about the Sports Council drawing up and keeping a code for the,
"'Unbundling' of sports broadcasting rights".
That is what the amendment says. The problem with the amendment, very simply, is that the Sports Council does not represent all sports. After all, we can all discuss what is sport. To me, racing is sport and I regard most of the rest as games. Of course, I accept that not all of your Lordships might agree with that scenario, but what is entirely clear is that the Sports Council does not represent racing and it does not represent motor racing. Those are both sports and they would be affected. The amendment cannot be right because it will bring the Sports Council into areas of which it has absolutely no experience and with which it has had absolutely nothing to do. That must be wrong.
There has been, I understand, a voluntary code which is either agreed or is about to be agreed. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have something to say on that. We should listen very carefully. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said. In particular, I agree that the amendment cannot stand on its own. I believe that the amendment would be damaging to sport.
4 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he can help many of us who have a great interest in this particular subject. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, believes that the amendment is imperfect, but so was the very important amendment which we all agreed in Committee. Because the Government have responded, in the end the House has obtained what it had been looking for, despite the imperfections of the amendment.
I understand in this respect that there is a question of whether there is a statutory code of practice or a voluntary code of practice. My noble friend has moved an amendment proposing a statutory code of practice, but I gather that there were rumours floating around the House during the morning that the

1169
Government were able to make a statement which may be helpful to those who have anxieties. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister—since he has a right to speak, and also, if necessary at the conclusion of our debate, to wind up—can tell us what, in fact, the Government have in mind. I see no point in having a great debate only to find that what we are talking about has already been considered and acceded to by the Government. I suggest to the Minister, if that is the wish of the House, that he should tell us what offering, big or small, the Government are willing to make in regard to the issue raised by my noble friend. It is far better to have a debate on a subject we know something about, rather than having a debate that could be largely airy-fairy. So, if the noble Lord is willing to take my words as the spirit of the House, perhaps he will enlighten us as to what is the Government's position.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall willingly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Without wishing to give the entire remarks that I had intended to deliver at the conclusion of this part of the debate, it may be helpful to spell out where I believe we are on this subject now.
The Sports Council has advocated a voluntary code of conduct for governing bodies on unbundling and is discussing this with sports' governing bodies. The Government, along with other noble Lords, have welcomed that idea in principle, because we believe that a voluntary code offers to provide greater access to sport for the public on television and is the best way forward in this particular area.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, intimated in his remarks, good progress is being made in preparing the voluntary code which the Sports Council has proposed and which has already been referred to. A draft for discussion has been issued and I understand that the main governing bodies of sport are already discussing what it might say with the Sports Council. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred rather by his absence earlier in this afternoon's proceedings, has had a meeting about it with the Central Council for Physical Recreation and with the major sports' governing bodies.
The Government's view is that a voluntary code is the right way to proceed with this matter. We are encouraging the various parties involved to draw up such a code, and meetings are currently taking place to that end although at the moment no conclusion has been reached. However, that process is still under way and I am advised that there is no reason to suppose that a successful outcome will not be achieved.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder if he would care to mention to your Lordships the purely technical point that Amendment No. 3 cannot possibly be accepted. It makes a nonsense without Amendment No. 2 having been moved, because subsection (1) of Amendment No. 3 refers, in effect, to Amendment No. 2.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may make this one point. It was suggested that this is a voluntary code but, as I read the amendment, if it is accepted by the Minister, it would be a statutory duty written into the Act, would it not? It is a statutory duty of the Sports Council to draw up and keep under review a code. That must be, in the legislation, a statutory duty. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may respond to those two points. First, with respect to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton, of course, my noble friend is right. On the other hand, I was anxious that we discuss the substance behind the amendment because that is a matter of wide interest to your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is absolutely correct that the amendment which is being discussed refers to a code which is enshrined in statute. That is a proposition which the Government do not consider to be the right way forward, because we believe that the right way is to have a voluntary code agreed by the various parties concerned. I hope that that clarifies the position.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the substance of the debate. I, like many of your Lordships, have received an enormous amount of briefings at every stage of this Bill, but more on this one amendment than on any other aspect. I have read them with great care, as it is an extremely complicated subject, especially for the layman.
I have no declaration of interest to make, and hold no brief for either side of the debate. My nearest interest would be my great admiration for many years for the BBC World Service, but I feel that sports—or, as my noble friend Lord Astor, calls them, sport and games—play an important role in many people's lives.
The amendment, on the face of it, looks very attractive, yet it has many anomalies. It would be wrong to take into account only the viewers and listeners and not all the people who are involved in sport. We have a fine tradition of the highest class in all sports and in sportsmanship in Britain. Alas, today, we are no longer the major winners, but merely showing more sport on television is not instantly going to produce gold medallists or cup winners. We all know that there is much more to world class winners than that.
I have always believed that sport is vital for youth. It encourages a good, healthy, competitive spirit and, more often than not, keeps the mind and the body out of trouble. I would encourage more sport in schools as part of the curriculum, with more funds made available for facilities.
In Raising the Game, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that sport enriches the lives of thousands and millions of people of all ages around the world, who know and enjoy it. It cannot be true that if we continue to have some major events on satellite or cable the vast majority of viewers could soon be unable to see any coverage of sporting events that are able to inspire and unite the nation.

1171
The amendment, as it stands, is muddled and will, as a result, only bring unhappiness. Differences between sports are not provided for. Surely, there would be very few people who would pay extra for highlights when they could see the live broadcast for only the annual TV licence. After all, if you cannot watch it live you can always video it.
The current situation where broadcasters are freely able to bid for rights of both live coverage and highlights is in the best interests of both viewers and sports bodies. There are many programmes covering sport on both terrestrial and satellite, but let us get this into the right perspective. Perhaps I may quote a few figures. The top three television programmes last week were: "Coronation Street", "Coronation Street" and "Coronation Street". The viewing figures were 19.57 million, 18.55 million and 18.44 million. The top sporting programme, "The Match Live", came 36th on the list with 9.11 million.
Many of us would ideally like sport to be all amateur again with the great gamesmanship that was shown in the past and broadcast regularly on our BBC. This might even attract those 19 million viewers. We were perhaps the last to have the great amateur sportsmen in the Olympics with those outstanding skiers like the Palmer-Tomkinsons and Gina Hawthorne. Those days are over. We must face reality. Today a great amount of money is involved. The amendment has potentially disastrous financial consequences for all sport in Britain. What right do we have as legislators to deny people the right to sell a legitimate product? I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his broadminded approach to this highly complex Bill. The system that we have at the moment, which is freely negotiated, with a voluntary code of practice and with no statutory interference, is surely right. I would urge your Lordships not to support the amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, before the Minister replies, this issue of unbundling is of importance, as I am sure the whole House agrees. Can he say what will happen if the voluntary code of practice—in general, I am in favour of voluntary codes—seems to be unsatisfactory and is not working? Will it then be possible, without more primary legislation, to come to a statutory code? What is the position on that?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, much the same thought has been worrying me. Under Amendment No. 3 there is no code having legal efficacy. It is a code of guidance. The only statutory duty is on the Sports Council to draw it up. As my noble friend Lord Astor has pointed out, the Sports Council does not have a remit over many things which my noble friend and I consider sport. But I shall leave that aside for a moment. If this code is a code of guidance—this amendment says that it is—it will have no legal efficacy at all. That was the point being made by my noble friend Lord Caldecote. If it does not work, what will happen? This is an experiment and all that can happen is that one will have to come back to primary legislation.
Lord McNally: My Lords, there is an old saying that sometimes you can be so sharp that you will cut yourself. I have the feeling that having got one part right—the protected list—by a full debate of this House and considered thoughts by the Minister and then amendments to the Bill, we have not done very well with the unbundled list. There is a great danger, as the noble Lord has just said, that the unbundling of television rights will be botched as the House has not had proper time to consider the full implications of what has been put before it in this last minute way.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, one does not get that many bites at legislation. If we take this pig in a poke of a voluntary scheme and it does not work, what will be the protection for sports and viewers? Who is putting this together for us? —sports bodies, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, have shown themselves to be failures in accepting their social responsibilities in guarding their sport and negotiating on television rights, and the television companies. If one reads Mr. Elstein in the Guardian and elsewhere one sees that he is still bent on all-out war with the rest of television so far as concerns sporting rights. Who will bring these bodies together with the wisdom of Solomon? —none other than Mr. Iain Sproat, the Minister of whom the noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke so warmly. It does not fill me with the same confidence as the procedure we followed when we had that magnificent debate on the protected list. The Minister went away and came back with considered amendments and wrote protection into the statute. This House would he well advised to go no further with this because we are heading for a botch-up.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I find myself becoming a trifle confused about where we are. The House has certainly had the opportunity to have a full debate on this issue and I do not think we can run away with the excuse that we have not. There was certainly no objection when the noble Lord, Lord Howell, decided not to move his amendment. Therefore, it seems to me that the speech we have just heard and the one that we had from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—I hope he will forgive me for saying this—are what I would call the equivalent of the highlights of rounds four to 12 of the Bruno-Tyson fight, because they are after the event and are therefore best left.
Perhaps I may come back to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. During the course of his remarks he said that he was prepared to leave the matter to voluntary agreement. If he is prepared so to do, it seems to me that we do not need the amendment anyway. We have heard from the Minister that he is well disposed to the issue of voluntary agreement and that this is in fact the proper way to decide it. I would rather like to hear what the Minister has to say in winding up and I hope very much that after that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will find it possible to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we find ourselves in a slight procedural pickle because it is clear that Amendment No. 3 depends on Amendment No. 2 and

1173
Amendment No. 2 is not moved. So perhaps I may at the beginning apologise—I know that my noble friend Lord Howell would like to apologise—to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and in a way to the House. However, we can clear things up. We on this side shall not be voting on this amendment because that would add confusion to wherever we are. But I should point out to those opposite who are smiling that this is not the end of the story.
The Bill now goes to another place and today there is still an opportunity for this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has done and as my noble friend did, to make the arguments to the Minister as we move towards the conclusion of this story. The case for protecting highlights, as has already been put and as is secured in the amendments on paper, remains overwhelming. It is a logical extension of Clause 1 which was based on the overwhelming view of this House. The Government have commendably accepted that clause and so logically should accept the spirit and thrust of what is being said on the highlights.
What we have before us, although it is of a rather ill-defined shape, is the Government's compromise proposal—the voluntary code. That is fine. The amendment on paper supports that principle. However, there are problems. Will it actually happen? Will it stick? We know that the problem with voluntary codes is that participants can voluntarily leave them.
This code, so far as I have studied it, involves some sports bodies who are clearly reluctant to be part of it; they prefer the short-term money, as they see it. It involves at least one broadcaster who is not enthusiastic about it. So this is not a secure vessel. At this stage we have to—if we do—take it on trust. I am not sure we can do that. My noble friend Lord Howell, who is always a much more trusting man than I am, inclines to that.
Perhaps I may tell the House what our fear is. It is that those who are part of this voluntary code and who do not really want it will use it as a device to divert us from today's vote—although they do not need to do so because we have our own devices—and to delay it until the threat of statutory backing is past and then, when what they see as the parliamentary danger is over, pull out.
The code is based on the Sports Council. As an ex-member I am very sympathetic towards that body. But we must bear in mind that it is a fragile one. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, it does not represent all sports and has little power over many, and none over television. I suspect that knowing that it is a fragile vessel the Sports Council, or some of its more responsible members, will welcome the kind of statutory backing suggested in Amendment No. 3 because it gives them clout over the constituent members. That is our thinking on the amendment. It is not an amendment of government interference but leaves the negotiations and the detail to the sports industry and gives the Sports Council statutory backing.
The Government have been a main engine of the voluntary compromise. The Minister has said and, I am sure, will say again, that as far as he and the Government are concerned the voluntary code is going
1174
to happen. I hope that that is true. If it falls apart responsibility will lie with the Government as well as with the Sports Council and the sporting bodies because it would have been perfectly possible for us to sit down with the Government and agree a clause of the kind set out in Amendment No. 3, based on a voluntary code but with statutory backing. I believe that we could have achieved that together and that the House would have accepted it and been happy with it.
Amendment No. 3 would have secured that statutory backing and I believe that a majority of the House would have supported it. Now we shall not have it. I say to the Government and to the sporting bodies that they must make sure that the voluntary code happens and sticks before the Committee stage in the other place because I believe that Parliament will not tolerate it not happening. The public want the highlights protected. I believe that a majority of this House also want that and indeed the majority of Parliament. If anyone disrupts the voluntary code and treats it cynically as a way of bypassing Parliament, there is one logical conclusion to be drawn.
If we do not have highlights we must have a longer protected list. That is the reality which the sports bodies have to face. And it is why they really must work as enthusiastically as possible to get it in place. The alternative in due course will not be that choice but a longer protected list. We sincerely hope that the sports bodies and the Government will produce a voluntary code that sticks. It is on that basis that I shall listen very seriously to what the Minister has to say about how this whole business goes forward.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying that we believe that television should provide widespread access to different sports. It is an aspiration of policy that we have. But we differ from those on the Benches opposite over whether that aspiration should be given effect by statutory or voluntary means.
I explained where the Government stand on the issue and the position I believe the negotiations have reached. In that context I pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Caldecote and echoed by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Donoughue. In bringing forward a voluntary code we cannot wait indefinitely. It is important that what is agreed is available for Parliament to look at.
The approach that we have adopted I wish to explain in some detail. We believe that our approach is consistent with the basic policy which is wanted on all sides of your Lordships' House. There is an issue about highlights of major national and other events, which are not listed and quite properly so. It is desirable that coverage should be made available but it should he done in a sensible and practical way which works with the market and does not cut across it. It should be done in a way which recognises that there is only a limited amount of time available for sports programmes on terrestrial television. It should be done in a way which recognises that there are limits to the public interest argument, perhaps even to the public wish to watch sports which would be covered by the amendment we

1175
are considering. Above all, it must be done in a way which allows a balance to be struck between revenue, coverage and investment in the future of the game in question.
We believe—and I think many noble Lords share this view—that the sports should be given the opportunity to show, through a voluntary code, how they will strike a balance and how they will invest television revenues in improved performance and greater spectator safety and comfort.
We believe that the approach which lies behind the amendment is likely to hinder rather than assist the Sports Council in its present efforts. The strength of the voluntary approach is that it is freely and willingly entered into and does not require the sort of unparalleled and novel intrusion into property rights which we believe is unjustified in the present circumstances. This is an important point when considering how everybody must work together to give effect to the ideas that we are debating. It is the Government's belief that to oblige the Sports Council through statute to draw up a statutory code is unhelpful. We also believe that the approach inherent in the amendment is likely to confuse rather than clarify responsibilities. That point was touched on by my noble friend Lord Astor. Essentially, we are being asked to agree that one public body should have no choice but to draw up guidance for another public body on how to regulate the broadcasting industry on unbundling sports rights. The rights holders themselves seem to be left somewhere outside all this advice and guidance although, after all, at the end of the day it is their rights which are under consideration.
The Sports Council was never intended or equipped by its charter, or at any subsequent stage in its history, to be a body responsible for giving guidance to broadcasting regulators. The Sports Council undertakes a central role in promoting sport in this country. We believe that it can effectively, sympathetically and appropriately encourage and guide co-operation among sports governing bodies. But having a quite different duty of this kind imposed on it would entirely change its nature which would only weaken its ability to carry out its core remit and its relationship with government.
Furthermore, it seems to us that the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his amendment perhaps paradoxically risks the perverse effect of actually prejudicing the prospect of securing a voluntary code which, as I have explained, is the approach that we believe to be right. It would inevitably lead to sports bodies focusing their energies on campaigning against those draconian provisions rather than working constructively with the Sports Council and the broadcasters on an agreement to secure their mutual interests and to provide benefits for viewers. I accept the remarks that have been made about the need for clarity in this respect and that there must be no potential for obfuscation and brinkmanship in the arrangements that emerge.
I think that all concerned have taken careful note of the interests of Parliament in this issue, not least in the comments made in your Lordships' House today. Indeed, they echo some remarks made by my noble friend Lord
1176
Harrowby at Report stage which I sense conveyed the sentiments of the whole House. No doubt the other place will keep the progress of negotiations under close scrutiny. I can assure your Lordships that I shall. We believe that we should let those concerned now proceed with the process and, for the reasons which I have given, I am glad that those opposite have explained that they will not now pursue proposals for a statutory code.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may make just a few short points. First, I must express my profuse apologies to my old colleague the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I must accept full responsibility for what has happened, and I do. In my defence I can say only that the news about the negotiations between the Minister and the Sports Council did not reach me until mid-morning with the result that I did not have the required time to consult that I would have wished for. In addition, I had been told—I had expected—that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would be taken together. Obviously, I was not quick enough on my feet to be able to object to their being considered separately—nor was anyone else—but that was the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is right. There was an attempt on my part to give statutory backing to what we are seeking to do in terms of a voluntary code of conduct, and for the very good reasons which my noble friend Lord Donoughue outlined. For the remainder of this debate I can do no better than adopt all the arguments advanced by my noble friend who put them extremely well.
This matter is now passed over to the Commons. I hope that my sporting colleagues there, some of whom are listening to this debate, will take note of the mood of this House. If I withdraw the amendment, as I intend to do, we shall be trusting to a voluntary code of conduct. We expect that trust to be honoured. We expect the spirit of this debate to be honoured. If that does not happen in the four or five weeks now available, we expect that the matter will be more firmly dealt with in another place. However, in the belief that the voluntary code of conduct will work and can be backed up by the constant vigil of the Sports Council and the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICE: CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING FUTURE LICENCES
(" .—(1) The Commission shall ensure that any licence granted after the coming into force of this section to a person for the provision of a local delivery service under section 73 of the 1990 Act contains conditions which require that person to include, by the reception and immediate re-transmission of the broadcasts, each of the relevant television broadcasting services for reception in the area for which the local delivery service licence is granted or for reception within the United Kingdom as a whole.
(2) For the purposes of this section "relevant television broadcasting services" means

(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC which are funded from the licence fee; and

(b) the Channel 3 service, the Channel 4 service and, in Wales, the S4C service.

1177
(3) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the appropriate regulatory authority, by order make such transitional arrangements for existing local delivery services in respect of the requirement in subsection (1) above as he considers appropriate.
(4) In exercising the power in subsection (3) the Secretary of State shall have regard to whether or not the local delivery service is delivered by analogue or digital means.
(5) The copyright in any broadcast is not infringed by reason only of the compliance by any person providing a local delivery service with the requirements of this section or any regulations made under it and it shall not be an infringement of copyright for any other person who is statutorily obliged to provide a relevant television broadcasting service as described in subsection (2) to broadcast those services whether encrypted or not.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in this amendment I return again to an issue of great significance for our public service broadcasters as we enter the new age of digital broadcasting. My noble friend the Minister has progressively recognised, as the weeks have passed, that protecting quality public service broadcasting is fundamental to guaranteeing that the digital opportunities created by the Bill are not frittered away on disappointing and low-level programming which could dominate a multi-channel future.
As we know, in Britain we have a uniquely successful broadcasting system. Viewers have the option to see programmes such as "Pride and Prejudice", "People's Century", "The House", "Inspector Morse" and "Correspondent" on BBC2, bringing exceptional current affairs to TV as well as radio and an endless host of other entertainments, arts and educational programmes which the public relish and which, by and large, reflect our greatly valued culture.
Just last week the nation was united in common grief following the horrific events in Dunblane. We rely on our public service broadcasters to express our common anguish as much as our common joy. Our commemorations of VE Day and VJ Day are still very much in our minds. But all that comes with a price: the availability of quality public service broadcasting to all—I stress "to all"—supported by a licence fee which allows unique investment in programmes of outstanding quality. That investment depends on universal reach and availability. That is the nub of the amendment.
The amendment relates to "must carry". "Must carry" regulations are essential to protect viewers who pay a licence fee for television services and so that they can continue to receive those services which they value and want. Increasingly, viewers may choose to access their television services from cable providers. Indeed, industry predictions suggest that something like 40 per cent. of all homes will be linked to cable by 2005. The cable companies currently carry mainstream terrestrial public service broadcasting services; namely, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4 and S4C, where relevant. It is a good deal. Cable subscribers want those services and the cable providers know that viewers' access to mainstream services is an essential component for securing subscriptions—the carrot, in effect, to encourage investment in what the cable providers are offering.
However, there is no requirement for that situation to continue and with an increased number of digital cable services, each pressing providers for priority space on
1178
the cable networks, commercial considerations could and will increasingly threaten the position of existing mainstream services once a significant number of the population have selected cable as their sole means of receiving television.
Let us face it: people do not like roof-top aerials. I always call them an "aesthetic nightmare". Increasingly, not just in flats but on new housing estates, cable is seen as the delivery system not only for television and radio, but also for phone calls, with interactive shopping potential, and games. If there is no requirement to carry any public service broadcasting, the public could find that the services for which they pay through the licence fee are not easily available to them. Amendment No. 4 seeks to correct that anomaly.
It is a commonsense amendment, which takes account of the realities of how commercial pressures could threaten public service channels. The regulatory authorities could, of course, challenge the cable operators if there were complaints from viewers denied access to the mainstream services of BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4 and S4C, but viewers are unlikely to be happy with either the hassle or the delay that such a challenge would involve. Resolving the situation now secures viewer access well into the digital future.
The Government's response to date has not been wholly satisfactory, despite the fact that my noble friend the Minister has been more than willing to listen to my advocacy. However, the Government have not given the cable industry the guarantee that it will be able to carry new public service channels without charge, nor have they given the viewers the guarantee that they will always be able to receive public service channels on cable systems.
Consumers cannot rely on the Government's argument on Report that:
"any such case of a monopoly franchisee abusing its dominant position to deprive customers of services they want to receive … having attracted custom on the basis that it would offer those services, would swiftly attract the attention of the fair trading authorities".— [Official Report, 5/3/96; col. 203.]
Although welcome in principle, that statement is not correct in practice. The terms of a typical cable contract state that the cable company is able to change the services it offers to the consumer. Indeed, on two occasions a satellite company changed the terms of my contract, reducing the service but not the price.
It is possible that a large number of viewers might sign on to cable knowing that the BBC is available. Eventually that analogue terrestrial will be switched off and if the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or S4C are withdrawn viewers will have no other way of obtaining those services.
I believe that viewers will always want to watch public service channels. The question is whether cable companies will always want their viewers to be able to do so. The greater popularity of a public service channel could be seen by some cable service operators as a threat to the greater profitability of pay channels, particularly if those cable operators are in turn owned by pay-TV companies.
Nor is it true that the amendment would be unnecessary regulation. At present in negotiations between public service broadcasters and cable companies one party's right to contract is regulated but the other's is not. I stress that the BBC cannot refuse to provide its service to cable companies but cable companies can refuse to carry the BBC services. There is already regulation on carriage of public service channels on cable. All the amendment will do is to ensure that that regulation is fair and even-handed.
Perhaps I may explain briefly what the amendment does. The aim of the amendment is to guarantee viewers access to public service channels in the digital age by ensuring that cable companies must carry public service channels. There are at present two types of cable licence; those granted under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 and those granted under the Broadcasting Act 1990. As I stated previously, holders of 1984 licences had to carry the BBC's publicly funded services and the ITV and Channel 4 services, but the 1990 Act removed that obligation. Eventually, all cable franchisees will have to apply for a 1990 Act licence; in other words, all cable franchisees could stop distributing the public service channels, even those which currently have a licence under the 1984 Act.
The amendment would extend the "must carry" obligation to the 1990 Act licences, ensuring that all cable companies carry the publicly funded services and public service broadcasting. Of course, there is a difference. In return for that "must carry" obligation, the cable companies get "free carry". The Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 gives the cable companies an exemption from copyright law when retransmitting public service channels which are neither encrypted nor broadcast by satellite. With digital broadcasting, encryption would be more common.
The amendment as worded would ensure that the exemption would not apply to many future public service channels, thereby eliminating the fear that, if the amendment were accepted, public service broadcasting could overload the systems. The response of the Cable Communications Association to the White Paper on digital broadcasting specifically requested that the Copyright, Design and Patents Act should be amended to allow the free carriage of new digital public service channels whether or not they are encrypted. Subsection (5) of the amendment grants the cable companies an exemption from copyright when carrying out their "must carry" obligations.
Your Lordships will have noticed that although the amendment deals with local delivery services, which would encompass both cable and satellite, I have in the main referred to cable. Under conditional access it seems that satellite would be covered; but if it is not, I would wish it to be covered. I must also ask why, if satellite is covered, cable is not covered.
In conclusion, the provisions in the amendment, which carry support from all sides of the House, are fair and just and are a simple guarantee that, in the uncertain future of digital broadcasting, we can be sure that our quality public service channels are available to all
1180
without discrimination. Failure to bring this measure into the Bill could undermine the entire concept of a universal licence fee and cut away the benchmark of quality that we have become used to as the standard-bearer in world broadcasting. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support the amendment so clearly moved by the noble Baroness. She has dealt fully with the arguments and I have nothing to add beyond emphasising the fact that probably this is the last major broadcasting Bill before the turn of the century. It will take us into the digital age, as it is meant to. While it is now possible to rely on the self-interest of cable operators to carry the public service channels, once we get into pay-to-view television there may well be situations in which the companies decide that it is in their financial interest to go for those rather than carrying the public service channels. It is important to return to the provision of the 1984 Act in order to create certainty that the cable operators have an obligation to carry the public service channels.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I too support the amendment most strongly. The "must carry" provisions are an essential component in guaranteeing viewers access to public service broadcasting. Unfortunately, the Minister appears to believe that viewers have that access guaranteed for a long time. He gave that impression during the Committee and Report stages. However, I believe that he is deceived by appearances.
I am sure that some people who will be using cable television in the digital age will not wish to have additional aerials. They are unsightly, they can be expensive and they must be erected. There is a great deal of trouble and bother to which some people—not all and not even the majority—will not attend. As regards aerials, there is a risk that public service broadcasting will be lost to some people.
The problem which may arise does not stem from the decisions of the viewers but from the decisions of the cable companies. As has been indicated, they are willing to transmit public service broadcasting because it is in their interests to do so. They are trying to attract viewers. However, it would be unwise to assume that that will always be the case. In fact, the reverse may be the case and they will not want such viewers in the future. There is an increasing risk that as competition grows cable companies will be tempted to exclude public service broadcasters. Therefore, viewers who falsely assumed that they had perpetual access to the BBC and ITV channels could find themselves deprived. If that is the case, and I believe that it will be the case, the consequences for viewers will be regrettable. However, the consequences for the BBC and ITV companies will be catastrophic. Therefore, I must decide whether to accept the Minister's assurance that the fair trading authorities can deal with such a manoeuvre if it happens or after it has happened, or whether we should prevent it by legislation. Obviously, prevention is better than cure. Therefore, I hope that the principle of prevention can be accepted by the House and the Minister.

1181
I have no doubt that it is a tribute to the Minister's good nature that he regards me as cynical. In fact, on Report he called me cynical for suggesting that cable companies could act in that way by excluding the BBC and ITV. I believe that I am being realistic and that that is how the cable companies will operate. If the Minister cannot accept the detail of the amendment, I hope that he will accept the fundamental principle behind it and take steps to ensure that the BBC and ITV have guaranteed access on those wavelengths.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I support the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I wish to emphasise one point. Everyone who owns a television set must pay a licence fee to finance public service broadcasting. It would be extremely inequitable and it would be resented if people who had paid that licence fee could not receive public service broadcast programmes. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my noble friend gave, but I wished to emphasise that point in particular.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, without wishing to make the noble Baroness too big-headed, I must say that I agree with almost everything that she said at the beginning of this debate and I shall not add very much to that. The case that she made was overwhelming. Knowing the good nature of the Minister and his willingness to accept sensible amendments, I am sure that he will accept this one because the idea of this "must carry" amendment is so overwhelmingly sensible that it could only have been put forward by the noble Baroness.
I hope that in his customary manner, the Minister will agree that that is the case. The noble Baroness said so much that seemed to me to be so strongly in favour of the amendment that I have nothing more to add except to say that I hope the Minister will accept it.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, first, I endorse all the compliments which have been paid to my noble friend. But I wish to introduce another reason as to why the use of roof aerials is not always appropriate. When I served in another place, my constituency was very close to Heathrow. However good the aerial on the roof, when aircraft passed over, if they were passing on the sightline between the roof aerial and the transmitting aerial, there were wild fluctuations in the pictures. Therefore, to people in that area cable has brought the enormous benefit of the reception of steady, high-quality pictures.
Indeed, I live in a geographical dip where, however high the aerial was placed, one tended to encounter difficulties. If the wind began to blow or pigeons decided to alight on one's tall aerial, that had devastating effects. Therefore, when cable television came to my area, for the first time in 20 years or more we enjoyed clear pictures on all four channels. Therefore, I believe that the arguments which my noble friend has adduced are extremely powerful and I hope that the Minister will respond in a constructive and positive manner.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hold no brief for the cable companies. Apart from anything else, like most people who live in London, I have been infuriated by the traffic and parking chaos caused by their cable-laying activities.
1182
Against that, I recently received a circular letter from the BBC urging me to support this amendment. It contained no fewer than three glaring spelling mistakes and any number of grammatical errors. That does not make me feel very well disposed to the BBC either. However, when the noble Baroness responds, perhaps she will explain how Channels 3 and 4, as distinct from the BBC, can possibly be described as public service broadcasters in view of the fact that they are financed through advertising and not the licence fee.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have already covered in detail in Committee and on Report the issue of introducing a requirement on cable operators to carry the channels provided by public service broadcasters. I have also had extensive and very constructive discussions with my noble friend Lady O'Cathain.
The Government have made it clear throughout that they are reluctant to move the regulatory goalposts by rescinding provisions made in the 1990 Act regarding the conditions of local delivery licences. As I have said both in this context and particularly during our debates on conditional access, we must give a message to industry that the regulatory environment will be stable.
However, as my noble friend and other noble Lords have made clear, their concern is with the digital future rather than with the analogue present. We have said throughout that we are in full agreement with aspirations behind the amendment. We want the services of existing public service broadcasters and, when it comes on stream, Channel 5 to continue to be available throughout the United Kingdom. That is why we are offering them guaranteed places on digital terrestrial television. We continue to believe that that is likely to be sufficient to ensure universal availability in the digital future, given that over 99 per cent. of the population has access to terrestrial television. It seems very unlikely that they will abandon terrestrially transmitted television for that exclusively delivered by cable unless they are sure that they will continue to receive the public service channels. That will give cable companies an enormous incentive, regardless of any regulation, to carry the channels concerned.
Nevertheless, as I have said myself many times during the passage of this Bill, it is very difficult to be absolutely sure of the way in which digital technology will develop, and the effect that will have on the market. The Government are, therefore, prepared to look again at how they might provide safeguards on the face of the Bill which would meet the principal concerns so lucidly explained by my noble friend and other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this matter.
I should stress that that will not mean reimposing requirements on cable operators using analogue technology. Neither will it mean allowing the public service broadcasters an unfair competitive advantage by requiring cable operators to carry any new commercial services which they may provide on digital terrestrial television. And naturally, cable operators would not he required to pay to carry existing services. Finally,

1183
I make it clear that none of that signals any weakening of the Government's commitment to ensuring that digital terrestrial television is given the best possible chance in the market. Of course, the offer of guaranteed places to existing broadcasters is an important part of that.
Within those parameters, the Secretary of State and I shall be discussing further with our colleagues in government the details of how we might move forward to a solution satisfactory to all concerned. I promise to keep my noble friend Lady O'Cathain closely in touch with our thinking. Given that assurance, I hope that she will be satisfied by that explanation and will agree not to press this amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who supported the principle of the amendment, because we are talking about a principle.
Just as an aside, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is a difference between publicly-funded broadcasting—that is, BBC 1 and BBC 2—and public service broadcasting which is BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV, Channel 4 and S4C. That is the distinction. The word "funded" is in one and "service" is in the other.
I am most grateful to the Minister. We have had a great deal of discussion about this matter. He has been 100 per cent. courteous and has been a listening and understanding Minister. It has been a delight to deal with him. I am grateful to him for the trouble that he has taken to meet me on this amendment. I am delighted that the Secretary of State and the Minister have decided to work out details regarding how it may be possible to move forward. I presume that the Government will bring forward in the other place a concrete way of ensuring that the concerns expressed so eloquently by Members of this House will be met.
Of course I can give my noble friend the Minister the assurance that the amendment does not deal with analogue; it is only for digital. We would certainly not expect public service broadcasting to have an unfair advantage. If at any time in the future—and, as we all know, the future is extremely uncertain in this area—public service broadcasting actually produced a commercial service, there would he absolutely no requirement under the amendment for the cable companies or satellite companies to carry such services. Again, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate, and particularly my noble friend the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Clause 19 [Duration and conditions of digital programme licence]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 19, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) that by the eighth anniversary of the commencement date of the digital programme licence not less than 95 per cent. of the programmes to be broadcast in the service are subtitled to such technical standard as is specified by the Commission,
1184
( ) that by the eighth anniversary of the commencement date of the digital programme licence not less than 10 per cent. of the programmes to be broadcast in the service are presented or interpreted into sign language, and
( ) that by the tenth anniversary of the commencement date of the digital programme licence not less than 50 per cent. of the programme hours to be broadcast are audio-described.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall refer briefly to the amendment once again for three reasons. First, as the Minister said in a recent letter to me, there was insufficient time to discuss the matter on Report. Secondly, I do so because it is a matter of profound importance to those who are deaf and hard of hearing and people who are sight impaired; and, thirdly, because I believe that the Minister has genuinely misunderstood the situation. In his letter to me he said that a code would have a greater impact than specifying targets for subtitling, signing and audio-description. After all the discussion that we have had this afternoon on the effect of a code, I cannot believe that the Minister still holds that belief.
The Minister has given the impression that he believes that the levels of targets required in the amendment could be achieved by the code which has already been mentioned. In his letter to me the Minister said that the code would allow,
"for the amount of subtitling to be increased as the market takes off and broadcasters move into profit [and that it] could make clear that those entering the market in a strong position might be expected to provide subtitles ֵ from the start".
The point about subtitles on television is that they enable totally deaf people to follow television programmes. When I lost my hearing completely about 28 years ago I could not watch television because there were no subtitles. That meant, apart from just watching sport and perhaps activities like snooker, I could not follow the dialogue on television. It is incredible, but television did not exist for me 20 or so years ago; indeed, it did not exist for me for 25 years until I had my cochlea implant.
Many deaf people today are reliant upon the subtitles on television and those who use sign language are similarly dependent upon that. If they do not have those services, television in 1996 does not exist. It is a staggering fact but it is true. Blind people or those who are very heavily sight impaired cannot follow television programmes. However, if they have access to audio-description where someone explains to them what, say, the criminal is doing racing down the street in a car being followed by a policeman, they can then understand the dialogue. Indeed, with audio-description, those blind people or those whose sight is impaired can follow such programmes. That is why the amendment is so profoundly important.
I support the plaudits offered to the Minister. I believe that his conduct has been great on the proceedings of the Bill. I endorse all the tributes that have been paid to him. I know that he cannot accept my amendment on this occasion, but I hope that he will accept the principle behind it. If he does not do so, it means that those very severely handicapped people, those sight-impaired people who cannot regain their sight and those without the implant to which I referred—andthere are many

1185
thousands of people without such implants—will be seriously deprived of digital television. When that comes it will be a great shame to leave those people without access to it.
Finally, I should like to turn to the code, to which my noble friend Lord Donoughue spoke with great eloquence on the last amendment. He spoke about the impact and effect of a code. It does nothing compared with legislation. If the Minister does not accept that, all I can say is that he will be letting down all those people who are relying upon him. At the end of the day, I hope that the Minister will be able to do something for the people to whom I referred. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, I have already written to him setting out in detail the Government's position on the provision for disabled people by digital terrestrial broadcasters. Therefore, I shall attempt to be as brief as possible. However, at the same time, I believe it is important for the whole House to have the opportunity to hear the arguments involved.
It may appear at first sight unreasonable to object to the proposition that virtually all digital terrestrial programmes should be subtitled and that a large proportion should be available with sign-language interpretation and audio-description. I accept that, without those services, television is inaccessible to significant numbers of people and that where it is practicable they should be provided. I think it is fair to say that the Government have, with the full co-operation of existing broadcasters, demonstrated their commitment in the area, and a large proportion of programmes shown now has subtitles. That was achieved gradually and further progress is being made under the provisions in the 1990 Act. The advent of digital technology may well facilitate the provision of subtitles by allowing them to be provided as separate streams of information on the same frequency channel as well as via text services. It may also facilitate both audio-description and sign-language interpretation, as it will be possible to make them available to those who wish to access them without their being received by all viewers indiscriminately. I hope that full advantage will be taken of those possibilities. But let us be clear that none of those services can be provided without a great deal of effort and without the involvement of a large number of skilled people.
I shall concentrate here on subtitling. On Report, the noble Lord referred to the,
"seemingly miraculous simultaneous presentation of words on a screen as they are spoken".—[Official Report, 5/3/96; col. 222.]
There is no miracle involved, merely a great deal of hard work. Even subtitling for pre-recorded programmes, the easiest and cheapest sort to provide, involves a great deal of work by highly trained staff using sophisticated and expensive video and computer equipment. The text of most programmes has to he edited down by about 40 per cent. The captions must be synchronised with changes of camera shot. It takes a year to train a subtitler to operate at what is regarded as a good speed, about 30 minutes of screen time subtitled per working
1186
day. The skills required are very much akin to those of a modern newspaper sub-editor in terms of both linguistic and technical skill.
As the noble Lord said on Report, that might cost about £600 per programme hour. If a broadcaster is spending £600,000 on an hour of high quality original drama, I agree with the noble Lord that he should be able to afford an extra 0.1 per cent. for the subtitling. Equally, if someone is providing a movie channel, spending large sums on film rights, attracting large numbers of subscription viewers and repeating films on several occasions, he, too, should be able to afford to subtitle a high percentage of output. I am sure that the ITC's code, which we have provided for in the Bill, would reflect that. The government amendment that I shall shortly move reinforces the ability of that code to respond flexibly to the practical needs of disabled people by requiring the ITC to consult them before drawing up the code.
However, let me be very clear. In 1990 we were dealing with a situation which is very different from that which we have now in that analogue terrestrial braadcasting was an extremely stable market dominated by very large and established organisations which have very large programme budgets. But most new digital terrestrial broadcasters will not have £600,000 to spend on one hour of programming. Nor are they going to have large numbers of viewers; indeed, every broadcaster will start off with an audience of nil and some will be providing specialised services that will only ever attract a minority. Many new services could be working to budgets of as little as £2,000 per hour, as I understand some satellite and cable stations already do. What is more, some of those are likely to be live services. Subtitling live programmes is considerably more difficult and requires more expensive equipment and the efforts of very fast stenographers with levels of skill similar to those of the people who serve us so well in this House. It also requires substantial extra studio space. It is quite possible that for some new broadcasters subtitling could represent as much as a 50 per cent. increase in programme budgets. That clearly would be enough to endanger their survival in the market. If they do not survive, there will be no programmes for anyone, including disabled people.
In these circumstances we believe it would in the long run help no one to impose on new digital broadcasters, within eight years of launching their services, requirements considerably more onerous than those asked of existing broadcasters who have been established for decades and have almost every citizen of the United Kingdom as customers. As I explained on Report, each existing terrestrial broadcaster, unlike many new digital ones, also provides a heterogeneous service, some parts of which are easy to subtitle and some more difficult and costly, leading to an overall balance. But even then, the provisions in the 1990 Act do not, as this amendment would, remove the scope for account to be taken of differing circumstances between broadcasters. Once the proportion of programmes subtitled by existing

1187
broadcasters exceeds 50 per cent., as it is scheduled to do by 1998, the Act allows the ITC to require broadcasters, through licence conditions, to subtitle,
"the greatest number of hours in a week that appears to the Commission to be reasonably practicable".
The noble Lord said in Committee that it would be quite unfair for some television businesses to bear the cost of subtitling and others to evade it. I suggest that it would not be fair to treat the whale the same as the minnow. Given that there are not unlimited numbers of subtitlers, it seems to me important to ensure that efforts are concentrated on programmes with the widest appeal. The Government therefore remain in favour of a code. The use of a code will allow for distinctions to be made between different types of broadcasters; for example, those spending £600,000 an hour on programmes and those spending a tiny fraction of that. It will also allow for the amount of subtitling to be increased as the market takes off and broadcasters move into profit.
If digital terrestrial television takes off in the way we hope and believe it will, and becomes the primary mode of transmission, the medium-term outcome might be that subtitles are provided for a similar proportion of new digital programmes as for programmes transmitted on existing analogue channels. Simulcasts, of course, will be subject to the same requirements as analogue services. In absolute terms that would mean a vast increase in the number of programmes accessible to deaf viewers, although the percentage might be higher on profitable digital services with wide audiences—in other words, the ones that most people want to watch—than on more specialist channels. I should stress also that the code could make clear that those entering the market in a strong position might be expected to provide subtitles and the other services referred to in the noble Lord's amendment at an earlier stage rather than after eight years.
I have already made clear to the noble Lord that I am concerned to ensure that we do the best we reasonably can in this Bill for people who would benefit from subtitling, signing and audio description and that I am prepared to discuss this issue further. That consideration might, of course, now feed through into deliberations in another place. However, I believe the arguments I have just set out are strong. The Government remain convinced that a code is the right approach, as opposed to the inflexibility of setting percentages on the face of the Bill. As I have already made clear in previous debates, the House has already accepted, by giving its approval to the Disability Discrimination Act, that this approach should apply to other industries and services. Under that Act, what it is reasonable to expect service providers to do to make their services accessible is to be determined by detailed regulations allowing for different circumstances and drawn up after due consultation and reflection, including with disabled people. We believe that we should be consistent with that. I fully understand that the noble Lord may feel disappointed at my remarks but at least I hope that he will understand the basis of my thinking.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I genuinely thank the Minister for the few concessions that he has been able to make. He referred
1188
to the whale and the minnow not being treated alike. That is a colourful phrase but I hope that he will be careful about encouraging companies into the market and absolving them from the costs of providing services for deaf and blind people, because if those companies cannot afford to pay those legitimate costs they should not enter the market. They have a clear duty to provide those services. The Minister has been helpful and I am grateful for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Code relating to provision for deaf and visually impaired]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 20, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Before drawing up the code or reviewing it in pursuance of subsection (1) the Commission shall consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to represent the interests of the persons referred to in subsection (1)(a) as the Commission think fit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 7. I have tabled these amendments in response to an amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, during the Committee stage. As your Lordships will recall, the Bill as drafted provides that the ITC should draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance on the extent to which digital programme services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted and on the means to be used for that purpose.
The first of these two amendments provides that the ITC should consult bodies representing the deaf, hard of hearing, blind and partially sighted before drawing up this code: the second provides that the ITC should publish the code in forms that are accessible to the blind or partially sighted and deaf or hard of hearing. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, those provisions will be warmly welcomed by the people concerned. I am grateful for them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 20, line 24, at end insert ("and in determining the manner of publication, the Commission shall have regard to the need to make the code or revision accessible to persons who are blind or partially sighted and persons who are deaf or hard of hearing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Promotion of equal opportunities]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 26, line 3, after ("groups,") insert—
("( ) to make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment by him, the fair treatment of disabled persons,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. These amendments take on hoard an issue raised during the Committee stage by the noble

1189
Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. The amendments extend the existing clauses on promotion of equal opportunities in relation to employment to require that holders of television multiplex and digital programme licences, national radio multiplex and national sound programme licences should make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment by them, the fair treatment of disabled persons. These amendments also bring our provisions in line with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, giving "disabled person" the same meaning as in that legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, these provisions again will be warmly welcomed. I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 26, line 6, at end insert ("and "disabled person" has the same meaning as in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Promotion of equal opportunities]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 56, line 3, after ("groups,") insert—
("( ) to make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment by him, the fair treatment of disabled persons,").
Page 56, line 6, at end insert ("and "disabled person" has the same meaning as in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 12:
Before Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENT OF THE BROADCASTING (RESTRICTIONS ON THE HOLDING OF LICENCES) ORDER 1991
(".—(1) The Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991 is amended as follows—
(2) In article 12(3) for "two" there is substituted "three".
(3) In article 13(1)—

(a) for "hold a licence" there is substituted" hold more than one other licence"; and

(b) for "holder of a licence" there is substituted "holder of more than one other licence".

(4) In article 13(2)(a) for "for which the service" there is substituted "for which a service".
(5) In article 13(2)(b) there is inserted "and
(c) provided as a local radio service falling into category A or B".
(6) After article 13 there is inserted—
"Radio services licences.
13A—(1) Subject to paragraph (5), a person who holds a licence to provide a local radio service shall not at any time hold a licence to provide a local radio service to which this article applies; and, subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), such a person shall not be a participant with more than 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide a local radio service to which this article applies.
(2) This article applies to a local radio service which is—

(a) provided for an area which is substantially the same as that for which the service provided by the person mentioned in paragraph (1) is provided; and

1190

(b) provided on the same frequency band as that service; and

(c) provided as a local radio service falling into category C or D.

(3) A person who holds a licence to provide a local radio service may be a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide such a local radio service as is described in paragraph (2) if the number of persons over the age of 15 resident in the smaller area does not exceed 10 per cent. of the number of such persons resident in the larger area.
(4) Where such a person as is described in paragraph (3) is a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide such a local radio service as is described in that paragraph he may not be a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in any other such body corporate.
(5) Nothing in this article shall prevent a person from holding licences to provide local radio services if—

(a) that person was, immediately before the grant of the licences, a local radio contractor for an area which was substantially the same as the area in respect of which those licensed services are provided; and

(b) he provided two or more different programme services on different frequencies pursuant to his contract.

(6) For the purposes of this article two areas are to be regarded as substantially the same if at least 50 per cent. of the persons over the age of 15 resident in the smaller area are also resident in the larger area.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will not be necessary to occupy the time of the House for too long on this rather wordy amendment which deals with the small matter of making it possible for an independent local radio station to operate a second FM channel in areas where there is likely to be a strongly competitive market. There seems to be no problem about the BBC operating four FM channels in the same location. If I understand its new Charter correctly, it may even have the possibility of operating a commercial transmission channel, which may well give it a fifth FM frequency, again in the same area. However, the regulations as at present constructed prevent an independent local radio station from operating a second channel. I hope that we might be able to move a little further forward on this matter. At Report stage my noble friend the Minister was what I would call damply encouraging—if I may use such a euphemism—on this matter. I hope that the additional time that has passed since then will enable him to be rather more encouraging today. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, at the end of the debate in Committee I indicated that the Government have not a firmly closed mind on this issue. That remains the case. However, rather than rehearsing all the arguments again tonight, it may be helpful if I highlight the paradox which lies at the heart of our discussions.
The aim of our Bill is to allow greater concentrations within the media while at the same time seeking to preserve plurality and diversity. All of the restrictions in Schedule 2 should be viewed in that light. When considering radio ownership, we are essentially dealing with two quite different states of affairs. First there are urban areas offering a wide

1191
choice to the listener, and, secondly, there are rural areas where a single local radio station may be dominant. The amendment tabled by my noble friend seeks to relax the two licence limit in urban areas while retaining it elsewhere.
It has been argued that where there is already choice we should not constrain successful companies from further growth. Yet it is in just these areas that fears of excessive concentration of power are greatest because, conversely, it has been argued that allowing a dominant, established broadcaster to have a second licence in a shire area would be more likely to lead to a lasting new service, because of the economies of scale which would be unavailable to, and thus discourage, any other potential bidders. Any detrimental effect on plurality of the same ownership would be more than offset by the wider range of services provided.
My noble friend's amendment allows greater concentration of ownership where there is already a multiplicity of choice, while ignoring the possibly greater benefits from a wider variety of services to listeners in shire areas that a relaxation in ownership might bring. The Government's view is that any relaxation should apply generally, but should incorporate safeguards both for plurality of ownership and for diversity of output.
Let us he under no illusions. This is a difficult area. I undertook at Report to consult the Radio Authority to see whether the current arrangements can be improved. I met Sir Peter Gibbings last week for a preliminary discussion. I believe that there may be some scope for movement, but we have not yet defined possible improvements. I assure the House that in our further considerations the interests of the listener will be to the fore. But the Government will also bear in mind that the continued development of strong and successful companies within the radio market can be of great benefit to the industry and the public alike.
I hope that the further assurances I have given this evening will convince my noble friend that the Government have taken on board the concerns that he expressed. We are looking carefully at the problem and hope to arrive at a satisfactory solution for implementation in the Bill. I know my noble friend shares my view that if the current restriction to one FM and one AM licence is to be relaxed the specific approach in this amendment may well not be the right one. In view of what I have said I hope that he will not seek to press the amendment this evening.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken on the issue. I have no doubt that I also owe thanks to others outside this Chamber. My noble friend states that he seeks a solution. I entirely accept that the wording of the amendment may not he in perfect form for legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1192
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Funding of Sianel Pedwar Cymru]:
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 60, line 27, leave out ("transmitting") and insert ("providing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to widen the power of the Secretary of State to take all the costs of providing a full digital service into account as well as the cost of transmitting the service. The effect would be to provide a fairer base for the new arrangement than the 1997 amount. It encompasses all the costs which will be incurred by the S4C digital service.
This short amendment follows the debate about the proposed new funding arrangements for S4C and, more precisely and importantly, the question of the fairness of the settlement. That lies at the centre of my argument. I am sure that the Secretary of State will recognise that.
During the passage of the Bill through the House, I noted that some noble Lords referred to the proposed funding arrangements for S4C. The matter was referred to at Second Reading and at Report stage. Let us look at the reality of the position. The fact is that at present S4C's funding formula is one based on 3.2 per cent. of total advertising revenues. The Bill proposes to change the formula from 1998 to one based on the 1997 funding plus RPI. Noble Lords have pointed out to the Minister that total advertising revenues have consistently risen at a higher rate than RPI and that this pattern is projected to continue.
What does this mean? It means that the proposed funding formula will give S4C a lower level of funding support in the future. Let us be clear about this. It will weaken the current analogue service; and, furthermore, S4C will be unable to take advantage of the opportunities presented by digital broadcasting. The cost of implementing a digital service must be reflected in the future funding arrangements. The opportunity to do more is there, but the means are not, and the availability of a Channel 4 digital service in Wales will have an effect on S4C's advertising revenue.
I know that S4C welcomes the reassurances given by the Government that commercial flexibility will be awarded in order to maximise other funding schemes. This is similar to the provision granted to the BBC. But there are marked differences between the BBC and S4C. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of scale. In terms of income, the licence fee provides the BBC with income 20 times greater than S4C. Commercially the BBC has a global market to exploit. S4C's market is more limited as it seeks to serve a minority audience, and S4C has a less established international brand.
Despite the noble Lord's assurance on 13th February at col. 602 of the Official Report, that,
"The Government are committed to ensuring that proper arrangements are in place for S4C to continue to thrive. That includes the adequate provision of resources",
the Government have not accepted any arguments which have sought to address the obvious conflict between a lower level of funding and the opportunity to provide an enhanced S4C service using digital technology.
This conflict is at the very heart of the concerns voiced by noble Lords and by S4C. Despite the opportunity and the will to exploit new commercial opportunities, S4C must always be heavily dependent on public funding—a fact accepted by the Government at the time of S4C's foundation. I am glad that the noble 'Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, is present this evening because 15 years ago he played a major role in the foundation of S4C, and Wales will always be grateful to him for that. He knows that what I say now is accurate. That fact is an undeniable reality for a minority channel. S4C's funding has to be protected and stagnation for S4C at a time when all other broadcasters in the UK develop their services is not an option and is patently unfair.
With the support of the Government and opposition parties, and with its own drive and imagination, S4C has developed into a major Welsh organisation in the space of 15 years. It has a central role in supporting and nurturing the Welsh language and culture. The fortunes of the Welsh language are on the upturn. I am glad to have the understanding and support of my noble friend Lord. Elis-Thomas, the chairman of the Welsh Language Board. At least 25 per cent. of the population of Wales have a reasonable understanding of Welsh, and 19 per cent. are fluent in the language. The total number of Welsh speakers is stabilising after decades of decline and an increase is evident within the critical younger age group. In a recent survey conducted by NOP, 20 per cent. of those interviewed who had spoken a little Welsh at one time in their lives had been inspired to try to use the language by the existence of S4C. Twenty per cent. of those with no knowledge of Welsh also watched some Welsh programmes by availing themselves of the sub-titling service. S4C is central to the television viewing patterns of Welsh speakers today. Sixty one per cent. of fluent Welsh speakers watch S4C for at least half their total television viewing time.
Given S4C's influence on the improved state of the language, and given that its establishment has resulted in a remarkable level of social cohesion in Wales, it is surely vital that S4C's funding remains at a realistic and practical level. Government funding is given to S4C in order to produce television programmes. But it would be naïve to think that the benefits are limited to the channel's output. The effect of the Government's financial support on the language, culture and social harmony in Wales is immeasurable, but it is there for all to see. S4C is the major commissioner of work from independent producers in Wales. The security of thousands of jobs is inextricably linked with the financial well-being of S4C. These jobs have brought economic benefits to areas where other employment opportunities are limited. Any diminution of funding would have a negative impact on all those related issues. It would be a serious blow to Wales and one which would hurt the Welsh community from Anglesey to Gwent.
Sixteen years ago, we had a long and difficult debate about the future of television in Wales in which I was closely involved, as was the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to whom we owe a great deal. The issues are fundamental in Wales today. I feel that the House and the Government should respond to the call and the plea of Welsh people at this time. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, from these Benches I support the amendment, although I am probably the only person whose name is attached to it who does not speak a word of Welsh. However, the other three signatories do.
It is regrettable that the Government have chosen to make no moves in this important area for a small but nevertheless important television service to people in Wales. We feel that the Government have walked away from the advanced step that was taken when S4C was set up. It is a small company, covering 25 per cent. of Welsh speaking people in Wales. We have to be careful. It will be crushed in what will become an international big boys' game if the funding of S4C is affected in the way we believe it will be. A reduction of funding would weaken the analogue service. We would have a Broadcasting Bill which provided the means for S4C to go digital but did not provide the financial underpinning which is necessary. The channel would be kept in a competitive box unable to develop.
At the same time as digital services become available, Channel 4 in Wales will take a major part in the competition for advertising revenue in Wales. Noble Lords have been trying to find a means through discussion with the department and through amendments at Committee and Report stages, as well as now at Third Reading, to give S4C hope that it will not be allowed to shrink on the vine as it feels will happen. The channel will not be able to compete in a system which makes the competitive requirements fair to it. I hope that the Minister will be able to give S4C better news at this Third Reading than at the Committee and Report stages.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I wish warmly to support the amendment so well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. There are serious worries in Wales about the future of S4C. It has been universally acknowledged by Welsh and English speaking people in the Principality that S4C has been a great success. None of us wants to return to the unhappy period of social unrest that preceded its existence. It has been a significant factor in supporting and nurturing the Welsh language and culture. A whole network of supporting jobs has grown up around it. However, as has been said, its future depends on its funding arrangements. Efforts have been made at every stage of the Bill by many of us to ensure that it will be fairly treated.
At the Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Inglewood said:
"The Government are committed to ensuring that proper arrangements are in place for S4C to continue to thrive. That includes the adequate provision of resources".—[Official Report, 13/2/96: col. 602.]

1195
Fair words butter no parsnips—or should they be leeks? The facts are these. First, funding in future is to be linked to the retail prices index and is therefore likely to grow less than the proportion of advertising revenue did before. Secondly, as a minority channel S4C is and always will be dependent on public funding. It will do its best to increase its commercial resources, but its task will be that much harder when a Channel 4 digital service is available and in competition with S4C for advertising revenue.
We tried to persuade the Government to continue to pay the grant on 1st January. That was refused. We put forward an amendment for a slight widening of the Secretary of State's power so that the transmission costs of a digital service should include the cost of promotion. That too was turned down. This is our last effort to try to obtain help from the Government.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, S4C has been encouraged to continue talks with officials of the Department of National Heritage but so far without any satisfactory conclusion. As noble Lords have said, on this side of the House we can take pride in, and are especially proud of, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw's part in instituting S4C. We would be wise to ensure that it continues to flourish. We have a good record of economic success in Wales. We should not allow any failure in the broadcasting field to overshadow that achievement. I conclude by asking my noble friend on the Front Bench to give a positive response.
Lord McNally: My Lords, perhaps it is appropriate for another English voice to support the amendment, although eagle eyes may see that my noble friend Lord Geraint is sitting behind to ensure that I keep close to the party line. I have another interest since I am married to a Swansea girl whose sister lives in north Wales, so I have a fully balanced view of the issues concerned.
The crux of the answer we wish to hear from the Minister was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. The Minister referred to the Government's commitment at earlier stages of the Bill. At this point we ask whether the means will be available for the desired end. If not, all the good will in the world is of no use.
Broader issues are at stake than simply a Welsh interest. Some noble Lords have pointed out that when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, championed S4C he was cementing the Welsh nation into the British nation. We discuss Europe and the capacity of nations and regions to prosper and retain their identity. The willingness of the broader British state to commit itself to such an imaginative experiment as S4C was a sign of what can be done. I do not want to tempt other Members into a broadly European debate. However, I do think it is important in terms of regions and nations of Britain that the larger shows imagination and generosity in respect of the smaller.
In setting up S4C, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, showed that vision and breadth of imagination. What we need to see now from the Minister is a recognition that
1196
that confidence was not misplaced. As a number of noble Lords with great experience of Welsh culture, language and society affirmed, the television channel has been a cementer, strengthener and improver of all those things in the Welsh nation. We are looking now for a recognition of that success and of the dangers of underfunding, and for the Minister to give this House the commitment in spirit that he gave at an earlier stage.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, as I believe the House knows well, I have been very much in favour of this development. I was persuaded completely by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, long, long ago that I must do this. I did it; and I was right. I did exactly what the noble Lord told me to do, and it was not wrong on that occasion. I can only say to the Minister that he is a great friend of mine and he can do a great many things in this respect. I hope he will be able to think very carefully of something that has been a very considerable success in Wales.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for contributing to this debate. He will remember the heated debate at the time he was making his various decisions on these matters. So too will his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who will also remember our conversations in those days when my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Gwynfor Evans, decided to make a public stand on this issue. The noble Viscount will recollect that the issue had all-party support in Wales. I pay tribute yet again to the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in today's debate, as he was involved then.
It will not have escaped the Minister that the amendments we have moved on issues relating to S4C in Committee, on Report and now at Third Reading also have all-party support in this House. That mirrors the situation when the channel was established. I shall not repeat to the Minister what I said during the technical debates in Committee about the nature of the funding formula. What I will ask him to do is look to this consensus and to not breaking it. I ask him to ensure that the decision on that channel, established by his noble friend Lord Whitelaw on the principle that it should be adequately funded in order for it to compete successfully along with all the other broadcasters, will be upheld and that the momentum established by the channel will be maintained.
The Minister in particular, and his officials, have been prepared to discuss this whole issue with the authority. It is obviously up to the authority to justify its arguments in terms of the level of funding it requires. We are in difficulty here in that, short of having some independent arbiter (I do not suggest that, but it might be one way of proceeding) funding is very difficult to quantify in this area of broadcasting as we move through analogue into the world of digital. (I must say, the Welsh word digidol is much easier to say than the word "digital". I shall say digidol rather than digital.)
The point is this. As we move into a multi-media situation in new technology, it is essential that the authority should be able to compete. To measure the real costs of that revolution requires very careful, objective analysis of what the costs are likely to be.

1197
For those reasons I ask the Minister to assure the House that he stands by the statement he made at earlier stages of the debate. He committed himself and the Government to ensure "adequate provision of resources". If it becomes clear to the Minister and his department, through the submissions of S4C, that the present level of the formula set out on the face of the Bill is not adequate, on the objective evidence presented to his department, I hope that he will either take the route of seeking further independent advice or will ensure that resources are provided according to the clear views expressed by the authority and its officials.
I should have declared an interest as chair of Screen Wales, and also on behalf of the rest of my household. My son is employed as a post-production sound person in that excellent facilities company, Barcud. My wife's translation agency, Cymen, also benefits from contracts from S4C, including subtitling.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, at every stage in the passage of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, pointed out, we have been at pains to try to mitigate the funding formula which is in the Bill and at Clause 69, as we understand that the terms of that formula will inflict injury on S4C. But, depressingly, the Government have not accepted any of our amendments. However, I assure the Minister that we have not surrendered to the arguments he has advanced.
Initially, I remind noble Lords, the Government maintained that the reason for changing the formula was to provide S4C with a "more predictable and reliable formula". That argument has been demolished. It is inconsequential, because S4C has never experienced any difficulty with the formula and never asked for it to be adjusted.
Perhaps I may also remind the House that in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, threw a different explanation at us. The new terms, so we are told, will put S4C funding on a similar basis to that of the BBC. I took careful note of that comparison, because it appeared to me to be somewhat persuasive. However, I have reflected on that formula, and it is totally unfair.
There are at least four major defects in the comparison. First, it lacks integrity because it is used selectively. The comparison is resorted to when it is helpful to the Government for one purpose and one purpose only; namely, to reduce the funding of S4C. But it is entirely ignored when it comes to other purposes, such as giving S4C the same digital capacity as the BBC
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn clearly pointed out, and I shall not elaborate, it is plain common sense that the BBC and S4C are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and one cannot draw a comparison.
Thirdly, it was not contemplated 12 or 13 years ago when S4C was established that its funding should be on a basis of comparability with that of the BBC. It was accepted, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned, that S4C would always he more heavily
1198
dependent on public funding than was the case with the BBC. But on that matter the Government have experienced a spasm and changed their mind.
The fourth and last defect is that the new funding formula will lead the Government's Welsh language policy into a farcical situation. I very much hope that the noble Lord will convey that argument to his noble friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Diminish or reduce S4C funding and S4C may become less effective than hitherto, with the inevitable result that the painstaking efforts of schools and teachers throughout Wales and the public and voluntary bodies will be greatly diluted or weakened, if not thwarted.
I should like to make one final point. No new measure will be taken to compensate for that loss because there is none that can be taken. To my mind, on that basis alone the funding formula embedded in Clause 69 needs to be amended and mitigated in favour of S4C. I very much hope that the Minister will give: very careful consideration to this amendment, which has been ably moved by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for setting out the rationale for this amendment, which aims to meet, as he himself said, similar concerns to those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in the amendments that he tabled on Report. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to our discussion this evening.
Since the debate on Report, I again met very recently the chairman and chief executive of S4C. I listened carefully to their concerns for the future of S4C and what they see as the implications of the proposed arrangements for funding the channel for the way in which it 'carries out its activities and fulfils its remit. I shall elaborate in further detail on certain points relating to that. We shall also reflect carefully on your Lordships' remarks this evening.
The funding arrangements in the Bill already allow for extra provision for S4C's transmission costs. That is in line with the provisions of the 1990 Act. I have also indicated that we shall be making provision for S4C to increase its commercial activities and therefore enhance its self-funding capabilities, though I am afraid that time has not allowed us to bring forward the necessary amendments to your Lordships' House. We believe that these are sensible measures to ensure the continued success of S4C, while keeping the running of the channel, and in particular editorial control, sufficiently distant from government interference.
As I made clear on Report, S4C will be able to use its public funding to meet the costs of broadcasting S4C digital, including measures to promote receiver take-up which will be taken forward in partnership with the other broadcasters on the multiplex. S4C is unique among broadcasters in being given the possibility of additional funding to meet its transmission costs, both analogue and digital, and I cannot see why S4C should be given any extra funding to meet other costs which other broadcasters, including the BBC—although it is much bigger than S4C it is very similar inasmuch as it is publicly funded and is self-regulating—should meet from their existing sources of revenue. As I stated on

1199
Report, it seems that there is a line to be drawn with regard to what might legitimately be seen as an extra call on taxpayers' money. I believe that the line is sensibly drawn behind transmission costs.
This amendment would extend significantly S4C's ability to call on the Government for additional funding beyond that derived from the core funding formula. Following earlier representations from S4C and arguments made in our own debates, Clause 69 as drafted is careful to maintain and not to disturb the traditional arm's length relationship with the Government which all broadcasters have come to expect and, quite apart from the other considerations, I am convinced that what is proposed might prejudice that. Moreover, in its implication of generalised bids for additional funding, the amendment raises obvious questions of public expenditure control. I remain to be convinced that additional funding for S4C is necessary and also that, if it were, we should seek to provide for it in this way.
In conclusion, I have always found it advantageous to follow the advice given to me by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw on a whole variety of matters. I end by emphasising that we shall continue to take your Lordships' remarks very seriously in our continuing discussions with the channel.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I cannot say that I am full of delight in responding to what the noble Lord said in his winding-up remarks. He could have been rather more constructive in his response, not only to what we said but to the feelings of the Welsh people at the present time. Nevertheless, he made one or two remarks which caused me to pause. He said—twice—that he would reflect on this debate and what has been said by noble Lords throughout the House. Secondly, he said that measures were being prepared but were not yet ready to be published or made known to Parliament. Let us hope that those measures will give us some measure of satisfaction.
Against that background, we realise that the Bill proceeds to another place. So there is ample opportunity for the noble Lord and his right honourable friend to consider very carefully the feelings on the Bill of noble Lords from the Principality in this House and at this time. I hope that he will do so. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 [Application of excess revenues of Channel Four Television Corporation]:
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 61, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
("(a) for paragraph (a) there is substituted—
"(a) subject to subsection (1A) of this section, pay 50 per cent. of the excess to the Commission; and", and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17. This series of amendments deals with the anomalies that lie in the financial relationships between
1200
Channel 4 and the ITV companies and the fact that what is meant to be a safety net for Channel 4 has become a rather large subsidy from ITV to Channel 4. The amendment also deals with the wider background, in a sense, of the financial relations between one ITV company and another. The two issues are linked and that affects the timetable that is proposed.
We have covered this ground a number of times during our proceedings on the Bill. It is fair to say that those on conflicting sides of the argument have both moved. On this side, we put forward our compromises. The latest is in the series of amendments that I now move. The Minister has also shown willingness to move and put forward his compromises. Those compromises are now set out on the consolidated list. The difference now left between us is not big but it is very important and not to be shrugged away.
On our side, we have conceded a timetable that moves a good way from the original desire for immediate abolition of the subsidy from Channel 4. It is a timetable which would reach zero by 1st January 1998 and during 1997 would reduce more gradually. The Minister at Report stage, characteristically ready to listen to the arguments of the House, moved very significantly indeed. We welcomed that at the time. He said that the Government were now ready to move and that the first reduction should take effect from 1998 and the second reduction would take effect from 1999. He then added these characteristically cautious ministerial words: "It is too early to say what the new levels will be". However, the Minister has shown himself ready in principle to make 1st January 1999 "zero date", if I may call it that. He is proposing in his amendments to provide the necessary legislative power for that possibility.
However, as I understand it, the Government are still unwilling to make a final commitment. I am making a last ditch stand tonight to seek to persuade the Minister to abandon his amendment and accept the arguments that I put forward for mine. Leaving uncertainty in the matter will continue to have a destabilising effect within the independent television system for the next couple of years while the final figures are haggled over. Other noble Lords no doubt received, as I did, representations from the Independent Television Association, which supports the Government's proposals rather than mine. I want to face that argument. I recognise the reasons for the Independent Television Association taking that view; but it is profoundly mistaken, even in its own interests.
Under the 1990 Act, 1998 is the year in which the contracts for the ITV companies are open for review. I am reinforced in my position by words from the well-known figure in the ITV world, Mr. Ward Thomas of Yorkshire Tyne Tees Television. He says that the view that I have been expressing, linking the problems of Channel 4 funding and ITV licence fees, is the way to resolve the issue. He said,
"This can be the only practical way of eliminating the continuing tad blood' within the system that you have referred to in the House".
Linked with the Channel 4 subsidy are the grotesque arrangements for the ITV companies paying their licence fees that emerged from the 1990 bidding

1201
process. To take a single example of those distortions, Midlands licensee, serving 4.5 million homes, by a magnificent piece of risk-taking, managed to end up paying £2,000 per annum for the privilege of serving the great Midlands area of this country, whereas Tyne Tees, serving 1.4 million homes, pays £15.1 million per annum. Those anomalies are as unsustainable as the anomaly of the subsidy from Channel 4 to the ITV companies.
Over the whole period of ITV until the totally mistaken and disastrous 1990 Act, there was an even-handed arrangement between all the regions in regard to the proper contributions that they should make to the Treasury. It was in fact only the 1990 Act which, for the first time, reduced that to a system of blind options and enormous disparities. I mention that because, if there was certainty that during 1998 the commitment from Channel 4 to the ITV companies was going to reduce and that from 1st January 1999 there would no longer be any subsidy, it would clear the air for negotiations between the ITC and those ITV companies which are seeking a review of the arrangements. The matter must be seen as a whole. From the point of view of the ITV companies, if the Government get away with the timetable that they are proposing, the water will be muddied in that negotiation and the ITV companies' ability to obtain a fresh start will be obscured by the fact that there is still a possibility of some element of subsidy from Channel 4.
It is for those reasons that I argue the merits of this series of amendments. Before I sit down I should perhaps explain what the amendments do. Amendment No. 14 is a consequential amendment and I need not waste time on it. Amendment No. 15 represents a substantial concession from the position that I have argued for so far in these proceedings. It has the effect of reducing to zero the thresholds at which Channel 4's revenues over the 14 per cent. of total national advertising revenue would be paid from 1999 onwards. It makes a transitional provision for the year 1998.
Amendment No. 16 has the effect of placing in legislation the intention that the Minister announced and which we welcomed at Report stage; that is, that the Channel 4 reserve fund should be capped following the enactment of the Bill and that no further payments into it would be required from Channel 4. Amendment No. 17 has the effect of permitting the Secretary of State the opportunity to vary the thresholds once more after the year 2002 when the present cycle of ITV contracts comes to an end and when the government of the day can properly take stock of the impact that the digital revolution is having on the broadcasting scene. At that time it will be amply proved that Channel 4 can stand on its own feet. I hope that I may be there to see it happen; who knows? I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, in rising to support Amendments Nos. 14 to 17, I am conscious that the Minister's Amendment No. 19 comes shortly after. It is a little like coming round the corner and finding oneself face to face with the sphinx. I hope the Minister will not mind if I describe his amendments as a little "enigmatic"
1202
as I should like to join in the tributes paid to him today for the sheer intelligence, courtesy and capability with which he has handled the Bill. I am full of admiration for him. I say the amendments are enigmatic. I wish I were prescient enough to read between the lines. However, your Lordships may agree that the words "may be nil but", do not give a lot of space for reading between the lines.
It is clear from everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that the intention behind the amendments is to clear away the anomaly of Channel 4 having to pay out anything to ITV once the date of 1997—it is generally agreed that that is the right one—has passed. I am well aware that at Report stage the Minister indicated—if I get him wrong perhaps he will tell me immediately—that in 1999 that may be the case, but 1998 he thought would be the transitional year. It was at that time that he announced the concession of Channel 4 not having to pay into the reserve fund. I am sure that that will be welcome to Channel 4. However, there is a big difference between being obliged to put one's earnings into one's savings account and being obliged to pay them out via a thumping great bill to somebody else.
I can see no justification, after the end of 1997, for any payments to go forth either way. It has often been said in the course of these debates that we cannot foretell the future, particularly in the world of television. I have two comments to make in that regard. First, we can tell a jolly sight better now than we ever did in 1990 when this formula was invented. It was invented, of necessity, on guesswork and we now know that that guesswork proved wrong. Justice and common sense suggest that we put it right as fast as possible.
Secondly, who knows what will happen in the future to Channel 5? I cannot find an informed television commentator who thinks, however successful Channel 5 may be, that there is the smallest remaining danger of Channel 4 foundering, and therefore this formula having to be invoked. I cannot see any justification for thinking that Channel 4 may still be in danger. It seems to me therefore that if 1998 is to be a transitional year, the amount paid in that year ought to be absolutely tiny. As I said at Report stage if indeed it could be nil, as the Minister's amendment would make possible, that would be the best of all solutions. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give some indication of what 1998 will bring. If he gives any indication that it would be less than 15 per cent., I should be exceedingly happy and immediately cease to support this amendment. However, if he does not, I recommend to your Lordships that the figure of 15 per cent. is quite enough. I hope it is unnecessary.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments which, but for some unfortunate error, should have had my name attached to them. It seems to me that it is virtually impossible to add to the steady stream of arguments in favour of freeing Channel 4 from the malfunctions of the 1990 funding formula which your Lordships have heard since Second Reading as we have gone through this in Committee, on Report and now at Third Reading.

1203
There was no way in 1990 of knowing how unfairly the funding formula would work out. Indeed, there are few, if any, who can argue that it has worked as Parliament originally intended. Had we known in 1990 how much effort it would take six years later to right an unintentioned wrong, I am sure things would now be very different. However, these amendments would provide the much needed clarity and certainty from which all sides would benefit and, as was explained by my noble friend Lord Thomson, they would also preserve the flexibility of a safety net which many of us would wish to see, and that safety net is not going to disappear by adopting these new amendments.
The ITC has said that payments from Channel 4 to ITV should cease after the end of 1997. It would seem sensible, therefore, to take steps to adopt that position as soon as possible. These amendments provide for just one more payment to ITV and then settle the matter at nil after 1998.
The latest briefing document I have seen from the ITV association states that it will need a "cushion" as the subsidy from Channel 4 is phased out. Cushions are usually reserved for the slothful couch-potato or for the brittle and unathletic and sometimes for those falling from a great height. ITV may tell us which is more applicable. Channel 4 estimates that this particular cushion will be worth about £25 million. This should be more than adequate, given the huge amounts it has already received from Channel 4.
As a direct consequence of the statements made by the Minister at Report stage, it is clear that the ITV companies can entertain no expectation of further revenues from Channel 4 after 1999. It was good that the Minister made that clear at that stage. But unless this conclusion is written into the Bill there will be a great danger that conflict between ITV and Channel 4 will continue. It would give certainty on this issue, although it is far from the ideal option of abolition which many of us were hoping would be accepted when we argued the matter in Committee. That was our first target, but we now seek to achieve an improvement with these amendments. Writing these provisions into the Bill is important. It is more important even than accepting the good word of the Minister. There is no doubt about what he said, but it does need to be on the face of the Bill.
It would seem that the amendments tabled by the Government will have little real effect. I hope to hear from the Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said, what extra they bring to the Bill. I too find that rather difficult to work out. They are certainly less than could have been expected from the Minister's comments at Report stage, when, as he is well aware, we were not able to see anything in writing. With that in mind, I am pleased to support these amendments, as they incorporate the Minister's express intention to cap the Channel 4 reserve fund. I hope the Government will support this proposal, as it will make a welcome change. It will ensure that these particular changes will be made to the Bill in this House before it goes to another place.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, as at Report stage, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. However, I would like to preface my remarks on his amendments by reiterating my strong belief that there are no grounds of principle or public policy for continuing with this formula. There is, frankly, no reason why Channel 4 should continue to subsidise the ITV companies beyond the end of next year.
My noble friend's Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are disappointing as well as being impenetrable in that they fail to deliver the expectation which he raised with us at Report stage. His statement then led us to expect a reduction of the payments in two stages, with the latter set at zero. Pending consideration of this, an amendment to end the payments at the end of 1997 was withdrawn. But what he now proposes offers nothing that will guarantee a reduction in two phases; it merely sets the powers to do so at a later stage.
At Report stage we were led to believe that, in line with the ITC position, the second stage would be a reduction of the payments to zero. Now that promise is simply a "maybe". My noble friend's amendments say that these payments "may be nil". That means that the payments may vary anywhere from 50 per cent.—that is £80 million—to nil. It means that they may be altered any, or, indeed, every, year. It means that they may be altered in any way. It means that they may rise as well as fall. That must be a recipe for continuing conflict and for endless lobbying by ITV and Channel 4 at a time when they should be co-operating to introduce digital television. I would have preferred simply to alter "may" to "shall".
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is itself a compromise. The board of Channel 4 has quite reasonably asked to be relieved from the end of 1997 of a formula which was designed to help it but which everybody now accepts is draining substantial funds from programme making. The amendment asks for an additional—in my view unjustified—payment for 1998. What it offers, however, is that element of certainty which is so badly needed. Without certainty, Channel 4 will find it extremely difficult to plan its film, programme and digital investment budgets for the years following 1997, and without certainty the debilitating wrangling will continue.
This compromise must surely answer all the Government's concerns. The safety net will remain in place, even though Channel 4 does not want it or need it. The Secretary of State will still have power to vary the percentage of qualifying revenue on which the formula is based and so manage any dramatic fluctuation in later years. Nothing more is now needed other than certain figures by which the formula is to be phased out.
I shall be most interested to hear what my noble kinsman Lord Arran, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, or the noble Lord, Lord Howell, speaking as they do with great affection and support severally and collectively for the independent television companies, have to say in answer to this. By the by, I would also like to ask my noble friend the Minister, who has considerable

1205
experience at a European level, how he believes that any continuing subsidy payments to ITV after 1997 can pass scrutiny by the commission, since the funding formula was registered as state aid with the sole purpose of supporting Channel 4.
My noble friend the Minister has himself conceded that early action needs to be taken to stop the payments from Channel 4 to ITV. Those words, "early action", are his in col. 443 of the Official Report of 7th March. So action—and action on the face of the Bill—is what we need. Intentions, statements, promises and maybe's are not enough. They cannot bind this Government or any future government and they do not in my view respond to the widespread agreement among many of your Lordships that we ought to put right in this Bill what has clearly gone wrong in the last one.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, there is a certain familiarity about this debate. There have been a number of previous rounds, although unavoidably I missed the last one. However, I have carefully read what was said on 7th March. On this occasion, as on previous occasions, I must declare an interest as a director of an ITV company, HTV.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, brought us back to the gap year. I had looked at his amendment with a certain amount of surprise, noting as I did the absence from the Marshalled List of another amendment from him on the gap year. I well recall him saying when we debated the gap year that he would be looking closely again at the issue and might well return to it. At that time I said that I would support him. But the impact of his amendment is in a sense to bring that issue right back to the fore again. My noble friend the Minister argued on 7th March that effectively the compromise he advanced had gone a long way to close the gap. That was acknowledged at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. But, by now accelerating the process, the issue is inevitably reopened.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said that we can foresee better than we could in 1990. But back in 1990 the television companies which were bidding—those that did not get their licences had the same problem—had to bid into a very deep fog indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is right in saying that the two points need to be looked at together. If a violent change is to happen at the end of 1997 there has to be a re-examination of the total position and not just a part of it The noble Lord is proposing a fairly sharp change—a reduction in one year of two-thirds of the money at present going to Channel 4 companies. I am not arguing for a moment that there does not need to be a phasing out of these arrangements but it seems to me that the Government are right in saying that it is sensible to leave flexibility and to set the rate of phasing in the light of circumstances as they are in 1997. Only then will we be able to gauge the impact of Channel 5, measure the impact of the proposed digital or satellite channels—there could he a large number of themߞand take account of the economic climate and the impact on the Channel 3 companies in the light of the advertising revenue for those companies at that time.
1206
The Government put forward a particularly sensible compromise on the last occasion, in that it allowed for some adjustment at the time in the light of circumstances. I find myself in perhaps the rather unusual position in debates in this House, in which I have sometimes been a little difficult with my noble friend, of being the first person to speak in favour of the Minister's solution as advanced on Report. I believe that he got it right then and I hope he will stick to that solution.
I have only one other thought to put to him. He said that, as the payment for 1997 is made in 1998, that in effect eliminates the gap year and is a factor to be taken into account. He referred to the fact that that was a cash flow impact. But in terms of the way in which companies do business and prepare their accounts—this is the almost universal practice—they account for those funds in the year to which they refer. Therefore, in planning their expenditure and their income, they relate to the year to which they refer and not to the fact that the cash comes in a month or two later. That is a cash flow impact. It is not an accounting impact; it is not the basis on which companies can plan their business. My noble friend must consider that matter but stick to his guns and retain the flexibility that he has given himself. I hope that he will reject the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I support the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. As he said, we are now in the third round of this debate. If that proves anything, it proves that my noble friend the Minister, by giving two substantial concessions to Channel 4, instead of making it absolutely satisfied, aroused in Channel 4 an appetite for more and more. To give more would be a mistake. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, seeks further to amend the Government's compromise amendment. I believe that the Government's compromise has balanced the interests between ITV and Channel 4. Peace has broken out. There is no conflict any more.
It is right that we should not seek to prescribe precisely what the levels of the payment should be from January 1998, therefore allowing discussions to take place before the end of 1997. I share the Government's view that a review should be conducted at that time, when judgments can be made about the impact of competition. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said that he can see into the future more clearly than we could in 1990. He may be right. He may have a better crystal ball than us. But I have to say to the noble Lord that Channel 5 will come before us and the experts in the industry say that by the year 2000 it could be taking 7 per cent. of the revenue. We know that satellite and cable will expand rapidly and the Government say that digital and satellite will come before us very quickly. It is important that the Government should maintain flexibility. The Government made substantial concessions to Channel 4. We do not know what will happen. No one will lose anything by retaining this flexibility. I therefore urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, we had full and frank debates on the Channel 4 funding formula during the Committee and Report stages and as a result the amendments tabled on that issue were withdrawn. At the same time the Government announced that they would cap Channel 4's reserve fund, thereby increasing its programming budget by at least £30 million or by 10 per cent., and that they would review the formula in 1997 with the intention of reducing the money received by ITV. In the light of that it seems to me that Channel 4 has already done very well out of the contribution to the debate in your Lordships' House and I would therefore urge your Lordships to hold back from giving Channel 4 any further concessions.
My main reason for this seemingly hard line is that, as the Broadcasting Bill reaffirms, the present formula was designed to remain in place until 1998, when it could be amended following a review in 1997. It should really be at that point and not before that the exact levels at which the formula should be set for the future are debated. We really will, as many noble Lords have said, have a clearer idea by the end of 1997 of the impact of Channel 5 and of the growing importance of cable and satellite.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, obviously pre-empts the end of 1997 review by specifying the precise amount of money to be received by ITV. It has been clear from the outset of this debate on the funding formula that it is only one part of a very complicated web of funding arrangements which sustain both Channel 4 and ITV. Any change to any part of the arrangements could therefore have a serious and damaging impact on the UK's commercial television sector. I honestly do not believe that it is good practice to fiddle with one part of a contract, if one likes, while leaving the other untouched.
The intention of the amendment is effectively to bring forward the 1997 review without giving due consideration to the many factors at play. That could result in a decision being made in this House that would damage the quality of service provided to viewers. Noble Lords will remember that in Committee I pointed out the apparent disinterest of Channel 4 to spend its increased programme budgets on UK material, preferring instead to invest in cheap US programmes. Since that date I have had a letter from the chief executive of Channel 4, Mr. Michael Grade. He says,
"You may not know that the Board of Channel 4 has committed publicly to spending every penny of its revenues released by abolition"—
that is abolition of the funding formula—
"on British film and television production (and training). The whole purpose of redressing the funding formula iniquity is to substitute home grown for imports".
Despite that, like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I support the amendment produced by my noble friend the Minister. Channel 4 has the assurance that the review will take place at the end of 1997 and we should wait until then. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, explained that his amendment to Clause 71 aims to provide on the face of the Bill that Channel 4 should make no further payments to its reserve and that the payment from Channel 4 to Channel 3 companies for 1998 should be set at 15 per cent. of Channel 4's income above the statutory threshold; and that no payments should be made for the four years thereafter. With your Lordships' permission, in my comments on this amendment, I shall also speak to government Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which have been referred to and which cover related issues.
As I have explained on previous occasions, the Government want to retain the Channel 4 funding formula as a prudential measure but to operate it flexibly so that Channel 4 can retain more of its income for programming. I have indicated our intention to take early action to cap Channel 4's payments into the reserve, and Amendment No. 19 duly makes this possible. As to Channel 4's payments to Channel 3—in effect, an insurance premium against the guarantee of minimum income payable by Channel 3, which will remain in force—I explained that the Government intend to proceed by a phased approach, with the first reduction taking effect from 1998 and the second from 1999. Our overall expectation is a significant adjustment in Channel 4's favour. Amendment No. 18, which I have tabled, will in principle allow a reduction in Channel 4 payments to Channel 3 to zero from 1999. This general approach is intended to establish a way forward which is fair to all concerned.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, reflects the Government's thinking on continuation of the funding formula, on immediate termination of payments into the reserve and on the phasing of reductions of Channel 4 payments to Channel 3. I very much welcome this growing consensus on the way forward. But there is a significant difference as against the Government's approach in the proposal to set the precise level of Channel 4 payments to Channel 3 for each year from 1998 to 2002 on the face of legislation. The Government's view is that this approach is a mistake, for reasons both of principle and of practicality.
As far as the proposal to set a 15 per cent. payment for 1998 is concerned, it has been argued that it is necessary to establish certainty for Channel 4 now. I do not find this argument convincing. Even were we to establish a figure now, there would remain uncertainty for Channel 4 as to the actual amount of their payment for 1998. After all, that will depend on two variables which cannot yet be established. The first is the level of the total television revenues for the relevant year, which forms the basis for the threshold above which the formula comes into effect; and the second is the level of Channel 4's own revenues for 1998. For those reasons I believe that the arguments based on certainty are perhaps overdone.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, I am not persuaded that 15 per cent. is necessarily the right figure. That will need to be established against updated estimates of television

1209
revenue, market and sectoral developments and other relevant matters nearer the time. That point was made by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. For those reasons the Government are opposed to the proposition that Channel 4's 1998 payments should now be set at 15 per cent. on the face of the statute.
The second limb of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is that Channel 4's payments for the four subsequent years from 1999 to 2002 should be established by statute at zero. As I indicated, the Government's own amendment would in principle allow zero payments from that year. But here also it is simply too early to take a final and definitive view of payment levels up to six years from now. Moreover, establishing the figures in primary legislation, as the amendment proposes, would rule out all prospect of subsequent adjustment in the years up to 2003 were that to be deemed sensible subsequently. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the need for flexibility to respond to fast-moving developments in the broadcasting sector. For those reasons the Government oppose this element of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, as well.
The Government recognise that it must be for Parliament to decide on the precise levels of funding to be established within the revised formula. That is why we have proposed that they should be set by order subject to affirmative resolution. Such an approach is wholly in line with the approach which Parliament adopted in relation to variations to the formula in the 1990 Act. It allows well-informed judgments about appropriate levels after proper consideration and consultation at the appropriate time. It is consistent with the need for flexibility, which is a key principle underlying the formula itself.
My noble friend Lord Stockton expressed some concern about the Government's policy. I can do no better than other noble Lords have done and refer to the second day of the Report stage of the Bill. With the leave of your Lordships, perhaps I may quote:
"As a second step, we propose to introduce reductions to Channel 4 payments to Channel 3 in two phases. The first reduction will take effect from 1998; the second will take effect from 1999. It is too early to say what the new levels would be, but we have indicated that we expect significant adjustment in Channel 4's favour, and we are taking powers which would in principle enable us—if we so judge nearer the time and Parliament agrees—lto reduce Channel 4 payments to Channel 3 to zero from 1999. Whatever the final level, there would be a stepped reduction towards it from 1998".— [Official Report, 7/3/96; col. 443.]
The importance of that passage is that it is clear what our policy is. I appreciate that some noble Lords may not agree with it and might wish that it were something different. However, bearing in mind the appropriateness of Parliament taking a final decision, it is a perfectly proper way to proceed. It also indicates to the world generally what our policy is now. As I explained, we take the view that this is not the right time to decide a final figure for what might be a significant amount of money at some considerable time in the future.
1210
There is one final point I wish to touch on. It has been argued that we must finalise the amounts of funding now in order completely to clarify matters. I believe it is clear that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, would not achieve that because of the very nature of the formula we are talking about which contains a number of variables that interrelate. As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said, that in turn is part of a wider matrix of the funding arrangements for Channels 3 and 4 broadcasters.
As regards Channel 4 funding arrangements, we have put forward a proposal, supplemented by the amendments I have now tabled, which, we believe, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, acknowledged, attempts to strike a balance between all the relevant interests and retain sufficient flexibility to establish fair figures. It is for those reasons that I hope the amendments will commend themselves to your Lordships.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House, but perhaps I should explain to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that I did not table a separate amendment about the gap year because I was trying to be as economical as possible with my amendments at this late stage in our consideration of the Bill and I thought that I might deal with the matter by putting it in a wider context in my remarks.
I thought that the Minister made a curious remark—perhaps I did not pick it up correctly—when he said that even my amendment did not create certainty. I cannot think of anything more certain from Channel 4's point of view than to know that from 1st January 1999 its payments would cease; that its payments would be zero. I cannot think of anything more certain than zero.
The usual remark that one would make to the Minister—we have had many opportunities to say it because, as far as was possible within the limits of government policy, he has been a most accommodating and helpful Minister—is that one wants to read and study carefully what he has said and perhaps return to it later. Suddenly and sadly, I remember that we shall not be able to return to this later. However, other people further along the corridor and in another place will have the opportunity to consider these matters later.
I was greatly encouraged by what the Minister said on Report. Incidentally, I have subsequently examined his remarks carefully. In my innocence I had thought that my amendment was such an olive branch and was so reasonable—I wrote to the Minister to tell him about it in advance—that I fully hoped that he would say that he did not want to waste your Lordships' time and was happy to accept it. However, when I saw the Minister's amendment I knew that I was sunk. Against that background, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

1211
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 62, line 4, after ("which") insert ("may be nil but").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 62, line 7, at end insert ("which may be nil").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause—
("PART IVA
SPORTING AND OTHER EVENTS OF NATIONAL INTEREST
LISTED EVENTS
.—(1) For the purposes of this Part, a listed event is a sporting or other event of national interest which is for the time being included in a list drawn up by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Part.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not at any time draw up, revise or cease to maintain such a list as is mentioned in subsection (1) unless he has first consulted—

(a) the BBC,

(b) the Welsh Authority,

(c) the Commission, and

(d) in relation to a relevant event, the person from whom the rights to televise that event may be acquired;

and for the purposes of this subsection a relevant event is a sporting or other event of national interest which the Secretary of State proposes to include in, or omit from, the list.
(3) As soon as he has drawn up or revised such a list as is mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall publish the list in such manner as he considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of—

(a) the persons mentioned in subsection (2), and

(b) every person who is the holder of a licence granted by the Commission under Part I of the 1990 Act or a digital programme licence granted by them under Part II of this Act.

(4) In this section "national interest" includes interest within England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
(5) The addition of any relevant event to such a list as is mentioned in subsection (1) shall not affect—

(a) the validity of any contract entered into before the date on which the Secretary of State consulted the persons mentioned in subsection (2) in relation to the proposed addition, or

(b) the exercise of any rights acquired under such a contract.

(6) The list drawn up by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 182 of the 1990 Act, as that list is in force immediately before the commencement of this section, shall be taken to have been drawn up for the purposes of this Part.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 28:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause—
CATEGORIES OF SERVICE
(".—(1) For the purposes of this Part television programme services shall be divided into two categories as follows

(a) such of the services specified in subsection (2) as are provided without any charge being made for the reception of programmes included in the service, and

(b) all television programme services not for the time being falling within paragraph (a).

(2) The services referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—

(a) regional and national Channel 3 services,

(b) Channel 4, and

(c) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) so as to remove any service from, or add any service to, the services specified in it.
(4) An order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
Insert the following new clause—
CONTRACT FOR EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO TELEVISE LISTED EVENT TO BE VOID
(".—(1) Any contract entered into after the commencement of this section under which a television programme provider acquires rights to televise the whole or any part of a listed event live for reception in the United Kingdom, or in any area of the United Kingdom, shall be void so far as it purports, in relation to the whole or any part of the event or in relation to reception in the United Kingdom or any area of the United Kingdom, to grant those rights exclusively to any one television programme provider.
(2) In this Part "television programme provider" means the BBC, the Welsh Authority or any person who is the holder of any licence under Part I of the 1990 Act or a digital programme licence under Part II of this Act.
(3) For the purposes of this section rights to televise the whole or any part of an event live for reception in any area granted to a television programme provider are granted exclusively if the person granting them—

(a) has not granted any such right to any other television programme provider, and

(b) is precluded by the terms of the contract from doing so.). Insert the following new clause—

CONTRACT FOR TELEVISING LISTED EVENT MUST SPECIFY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
(".—(1) Any contract entered into after the commencement of this section shall be void so far as it purports to grant to a television programme provider rights to televise the whole or any part of a listed event live for reception in the United Kingdom, or any area of the United Kingdom, unless the contract complies with subsection (2).
(2) A contract complies with this subsection if the terms of the contract allow the television programme provider to include the live coverage of the listed event—

(a) only in a television programme service falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section (Categories of service), or

(b) only in a television programme service falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection.")

1213
Insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTION ON TELEVISING OF LISTED EVENT
(".—(1) A person providing a service falling within either of the categories set out in subsection (1) of section (Categories of service) ("the first service") for reception in the United Kingdom or in any area of the United Kingdom shall not, without the previous consent of the Commission, include in that service live coverage of the whole or any part of a listed event unless—

(a) another person, who is providing a service falling within the other category set out in that subsection ("the second service"), has acquired the right to include in the second service live coverage of the whole of the event or of that part of the event, and

(b) the area for which the second service is provided consists of or includes the whole, or substantially the whole, of the area for which the first service is provided.

(2) The Commission may revoke any consent given by them under subsection (1).
(3) Failure to comply with subsection (1) shall not affect the validity of any contract.
(4) Subsection (1) shall not have effect where the television programme provider providing the first service is exercising rights acquired before the commencement of this section.").
Insert the following new clause—
POWER OF COMMISSION TO IMPOSE PENALTY
(".—(1) If the Commission—

(a) are satisfied that the holder of a licence under Part I of the 1990 Act or a digital programme licence under Part II of this Act has failed to comply with subsection (1) of section (Restriction on televising of listed event), and

(b) are not satisfied that in all the circumstances it would be unreasonable to expect him to have complied with that subsection,

they may require him to pay, within a specified period, a specified financial penalty to the Commission.
(2) If the Commission are satisfied that, in connection with an application for consent under subsection (1) of section (Restriction on televising of listed event), the holder of a licence under Part I of the 1990 Act or a digital programme licence under Part II of this Act has—

(a) provided them with information which was false in a material particular, or

(b) withheld any material information with the intention of causing the Commission to be misled,

they may require him to pay, within a specified period, a specified financial penalty to the Commission.
(3) The amount of any financial penalty imposed on any person under subsection (I) or (2) shall not exceed the amount produced by multiplying the relevant consideration by the prescribed multiplier.
(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) "the relevant consideration" means an amount determined by the Commission as representing so much of any consideration paid by the person on whom the penalty is being imposed as is attributable to the acquisition of the rights to televise the event in question, and

(b) "the prescribed multiplier" means such number as the Secretary of State may from time to time by order prescribe.

(5) An order under subsection (4)(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) Where the Commission receive any amount payable to them by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), that amount shall not form part of the revenues of the Commission but shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
(7) Any amount payable by any person to the Commission by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) shall be recoverable by them as a debt due to them from that person.").
1214
Insert the following new clause—
REPORT TO SECRETARY OF STATE
("—(1) If the Commission

(a) are satisfied that a broadcasting body has failed to comply with subsection (1) of section (Restriction on televising of listed event), and

(b) are not satisfied that in all the circumstances it would be unreasonable to expect the body to have complied with that subsection,

they shall make a report on the matter to the Secretary of State.
(2) If the Commission are satisfied that, in connection with an application for consent under subsection (I) of section (Restriction on televising of listed event), a broadcasting body has

(a) provided them with information which was false in a material particular, or

(b) withheld any material information with the intention of causing the Commission to be misled,

they shall make a report on the matter to the Secretary of State.
(3) In this section "broadcasting body" means the BBC or the Welsh Authority.").
Insert the following new clause—
CODE OF GUIDANCE
(".—(1) The Commission shall draw up, and may from time to time review, a code—

(a) specifying the circumstances in which the televising of listed events generally, or of a particular listed event, is, or is not, to be treated as live for the purposes of this Part, and

(b) giving guidance as to the matters which they will take into account in determining—

(i) whether to give or revoke their consent under section (Restriction on televising of listed event)(1), or

(ii) for the purposes of section (Power of Commission to impose penalty)(1) or (Report to Secretary of State)(1), whether in all the circumstances it is unreasonable to expect a television programme provider to comply with section (Restriction on televising of listed event)(1).

(2) In exercising their powers under this Part, the Commission shall have regard to the provisions of the code.
(3) Before drawing up or revising the code the Commission shall consult such persons as appear to the Commission to be appropriate.
(4) As soon as the Commission have drawn up or revised such a code, the Commission shall publish the code in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of—

(a) the BBC,

(b) the Welsh Authority,

(c) every person from whom the rights to televise a listed event may be acquired, and

(d) every person who is the holder of a licence granted by the Commission under Part I of the 1990 Act or a digital programme licence granted by them under Part II of this Act.").

Insert the following new clause—
INTERPRETATION OF PART IVA AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
(".—(1) In this Part (unless the context otherwise requires)—
"Channel 4" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1990 Act;
"the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission;
"listed event" has the meaning given by section (Listed events)(1);
"live" shall be construed in accordance with the code drawn up under section (Code of guidance);
"national Channel 3 service" and "regional Channel 3 service"
have the same meaning as in Part I of the 1990 Act;

1215
"television broadcasting service" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1990 Act;
"television programme provider" has the meaning given by section (Contract for exclusive right to televise listed event to be void)(2);
"television programme service" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1990 Act.
(2) Section 182 of the 1990 Act (certain events not to be shown on pay-per-view terms) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause—
BSC TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTS
(" · It shall be the duty of the BSC to draw up, and from time to time review, guidance as to standards and practices to be followed in connection with programmes which fulfil the obligation of the BBC to provide—

(a) education; and

(b) educational content.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment places on the new Broadcasting Standards Commission a duty to draw up and review guidance on the content and nature of broadcasting defined as "education" and that which has some educational content. We want to see some such provision appear on the face of the Bill.
This amendment was moved at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Farrington. Replying to the debate at that stage the Minister said that,
"The amendment … seeks to treat the BBC on a different footing from … other public service broadcasters".—[Official Report, 15/2/96; col. 822.]
In fact, this amendment seeks to bring the BBC in line with other public service broadcasters, as the independent terrestrial television companies and Channel 4 are regulated by the ITC. The BBC is unique in that its education programmes are not monitored and evaluated by any independent body. Channel 4 has a minimum number of hours for schools programmes but there is still no such requirement for the BBC. The Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC requires the BBC,
"to have programmes of an educational nature…as well as formal education".
This loosely worded double requirement allows the BBC to blur the distinction between education programmes and programmes with some educational content. This amendment separates the two elements, thereby requiring the nature of each to be understood and addressed.
At present, the Bill provides that the Broadcasting Standards Commission will have responsibilities in two areas: first, the treatment of individuals in respect of fairness and privacy; and secondly, standards of taste and decency. Both of those involve it reacting to actual or potential broadcasts. Placing a third responsibility on the Commission to ensure high standards in education
1216
broadcasting and broadcasting with some educational content will allow it to adopt a positive role which will set an example to the other public service broadcasters.
The need for an amendment of this kind arises from concern about the changes which seem to have occurred in the BBC's education broadcasting provision over the last year. The BBC is seeking higher ratings by diluting its education mission. Evidence of this dilution is provided by the fact that the chat show "Esther", presented by Esther Rantzen, the antiques quiz show "Going for a song" and the entertainment programme "Ruby's Health Quest", as well as "My Brilliant Career", the documentaries about failed businessmen, are all examples of programmes which have been funded by the education budget. I know the arguments which the BBC puts forward to justify such programmes.
The BBC's ring-fenced budget for adult education, Education for Adults, is now being transferred into general programming and the controllers of BBC 1, Alan Yentob, and of BBC 2, Michael Jackson, have effectively been given the power to decide what programmes are educational and who should make them.
At this point I want to remind your Lordships that this is the International Year of Life-Long Learning. This very morning I received a document from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, its response to the Government's consultation document on lifetime learning. I should like to read from its page on broadcasting. It states:
"The 1990 Broadcasting Act ended the obligation on terrestrial independent television companies to provide educational programming for adults. Yet all the evidence points to the importance television can play in reaching under-participating groups free at the point of use in their own homes, and motivating people to participate in education and training activities …
The adult literacy campaign of the 1970s was kick started by prime time television, through BBC's On the Move.
Adult Learners' Week each year includes programming on all channels backed by a freephone helpline, attracting some 50,000 people, more than half of whom are unemployed to phone seeking opportunities for adult learning. An impressive number turn the enquiry into active enrolment. The BBC/ALBSU"—
that is the learning programme for those with learning difficulties—
"Family Literacy adverts in 1995 stimulated 350,000 people to phone for family literacy packs. Terrestrial television is still a major influence on the lives of Britain's adults, and is likely to remain so".
It is important that programmes are available at prime time. It is because people just happen on these programmes that they have such an effect. They are not going to video programmes—they may well not have a video—and if they are broadcast at midnight they are not going to get them and the whole effect will go.
We want to encourage regulators to approve programming designed to motivate, like short promotional sketches. At the same time, the Government should welcome the development of dedicated programming, like that on the Learning Zone, which reaches already committed learners, while—and this is important—maintaining an obligation on the BBC and Channel 4 to provide accessible programming for

1217
adult learners during prime time evening slots, as well as after midnight and in the afternoon. I hope that that plea from the national institute will have some effect.
Seventy per cent. of programmes will be made by independents or other BBC departments. The BBC justifies this change by contending that any factual programme-maker can make education programmes. The BBC is reducing the number of new television programmes it is making for schools. It will be making only 90 hours a year, fewer programmes than Channel 4 is required to make for schools. The BBC is also asking producers who have no experience of making schools programmes to start making them.
Schools programmes require very different skills from those needed to make mainstream television programmes. One important reason for that is that schools programmes need to follow the national curriculum and need to be a suitable resource which teachers can pursue effectively in the classroom. With favourite and memorable programmes such as "You and Me", "Storytime" and, more recently, "Come Outside" and "Hotch Potch House", the BBC has built a distinguished reputation in programmes for the under-fives. The programmes carefully lay firm foundations for children before they enter school. These programmes will all disappear, replaced by a daily programme made by children's entertainment producers. There has been no involvement from the BBC's education policy unit in supervising a proper education framework for the programmes. This has resulted in the distinction between education programmes and programmes with some education content being blurred.
While this amendment seeks guidance for both categories, its purpose is to ensure that the content and methodology of education programmes meet, and continue to meet, the highest standards of production practice. This includes ensuring that any curriculum requirements are met; that proper account is taken of changes in teaching practice; that the programme is appropriate to the age and other characteristics of the intended audience; and that effectiveness of the programme (or series) in fulfilling its educational function is evaluated.
Only if those and similar criteria are met will it be possible for the BBC to fulfil its obligation to disseminate education, which is expressed in the draft Charter and the draft Agreement. I wish to make it clear that I have great belief in the BBC and I very much respect what it does. I believe that, because of the need to keep up its ratings and because of the money involved, it has perhaps been forced into doing what I have been complaining about in the amendment. I strongly believe that provision for education should be written on the face of the Bill and I hope that the Minister will appreciate my keenness in wanting to provide that in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps I may add briefly to what my noble friend said and make a couple of general points which go wider than the BBC, though including it. There is no provision in the Bill to enable education to benefit from the greater scope and opportunity for choice and for specialist broadcasting,
1218
such as education, which is provided by the digital revolution. That is the positive side and the positive opportunity that is missed.
The negative side relates to a time in the future when the BBC and Channel 4 analogue services cease; when they are switched off. We shall then be left with the digital multiplex providers sitting on 12-year licences with renewal who will have no educational obligations whatever. All that we have helping education are the commitments in the BBC Charter for 10 years ahead. However, as I and other noble Lords pointed out when we debated the matter, those commitments have already been weakened.
Britain last had an opportunity to establish a specific education channel when BSB left the Marco Polo satellite vacant. That opportunity was not taken. We now have a new opportunity with digital television and this Bill and it would be wrong and sad to miss it again. I hope that the Government, in anything that the Minister can say today or in proceedings in another place, will find a way to improve the guarantees for educational broadcasting and in particular to write that into the Bill.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I expect that it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness, Lady David, when I say at the outset that this is a matter for the Governors of the BBC and not for the BSC. The BBC's obligations in respect of the provision of educational programming are contained in its Charter and Agreement and it is for the Governors to ensure that those obligations are met. Similar obligations are placed on independent broadcasters under the 1990 Act. I do not believe that this is an area in which the BSC can usefully, or indeed appropriately, play a part, nor do I believe that it is desirable to single out the BBC or any other broadcaster for special treatment by the BSC, however important the sector may be, as is clear in this instance.
The BBC's record of providing educational programming is impressive. This year, BBC Education will broadcast over 4,200 hours of programmes. Nearly 80 per cent. of primary schools use BBC broadcasts. The BBC has operated in partnership with the Open University since 1970 and broadcasts over 2,000 Open University programmes on television and radio each year.
The BBC's new Charter and Agreement includes a new requirement in Clause 32(e) of the Agreement that home services:
"contain programmes of an educational nature (including specialist factual, religious and social issues programmes as well as formal education and vocational training programmes)".
We have discussed the matter in a different context and on a number of occasions during debates on the Bill. There are a variety of ways in which those who believe that the BBC may not be honouring its obligations can take that matter forward. As I intimated earlier, I do not believe that what the noble Baroness proposes is an appropriate extension of those means. The BBC has also set out its aim to develop and strengthen educational programming over the coming years. It is increasing

1219
funding to the tune of an additional £1.5 million for the Education Directorate for the next year and is increasing broadcast hours of educational programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, painted a bleak and I believe unfair picture of the future of educational broadcasting. In the digital world the existing public service broadcasters will still be subject to the existing criteria in respect of educational matters. In addition, looking at the way in which the multiplex licences are to be allocated one sees that the core criterion as regards the services is that there should be variety. Within that variety there is great potential for educational services. Those who want to achieve multiplex licences must look to a wide range of programmes, which includes possible educational programmes.
I believe that a fair picture of the future is not emerging in front of us; it is said that there will be a desert for education. The Government see the amendment as unnecessary and an entirely unjustified expansion of the BSC's remit into a new area. For those reasons we would resist it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his careful answer. As he said, it was not altogether unexpected, particularly his comments about attaching the amendment to the BSC. I hope that his predictions will prove to be correct: we shall be watching most carefully. I am most anxious about those adults who have not had a good education and about young people who have missed out and at 16, 17 or 18 are not sure what they want to do. They may happen to see such programmes quite by accident and may be taken with them. They may then decide that they want to go on to further education or to obtain some qualifications. I am afraid that such people may miss out.
We shall be watching the situation carefully and I hope that provisions for education can be put on the face of the Bill and pursued a little further in another place. Clearly, at this time the only suitable thing for me to do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Clause 79 [Power to publish guidance relating to avoidance of unjust or unfair treatment or interference with privacy]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 68, line 8, leave out ("guidance relating") and insert ("a code giving guidance as").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31.
Your Lordships will recall the debates which we had during Committee and Report stages where the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others proposed a number of amendments intended to change the wording used in the Bill to describe the BSC's "guidance" on fairness. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns of those noble Lords, and have, after careful consideration, decided that the existing wording is, indeed, anomalous.
The Government's Amendment No. 30 is therefore intended to rename the existing "guidance" as "a code giving guidance". That will have the effect of standardising the form of words used across the broadcasting spectrum: in the Bill, in the 1990 Act, and in the BBC's new Charter and Agreement.
I am aware that some noble Lords would prefer the Government to go further. However, the Government remain satisfied that the form of words used here is sufficiently clear and has been effective in the past.
The Government have also reconsidered the role of the BSC's fairness code, and the Government's Amendment No. 31 would require broadcasting and regulatory bodies to reflect that code in drawing up or revising their own guidance, just as they are at present required to do in respect of the BSC's standards code. I beg to move.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, in Committee I moved a similar amendment designed to strengthen the clause. Amendment No. 30 accepts very largely the principle which I tried to put forward. Therefore, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for accepting in principle what we were trying to achieve. That is another example of his listening carefully to what was said and being ready to try to accommodate us whenever he can. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 68, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of each broadcasting or regulatory body, when drawing up or revising any code relating to principles and practice in connection with programmes, or in connection with the obtaining of material to be included in programmes, to reflect the general effect of so much of the code referred to in subsection (1) (as for the time being in force) as is relevant to the programmes in question.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Complaints of unfair treatment etc.]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 71, leave out lines 2 to 7.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35, all of which deal with the issue of direct interest. It is not a new subject. It was discussed in some depth in Committee. Indeed, at the invitation of the Minister we withdrew an amendment because the Minister suggested that both the Government and I should reconsider the matter.
He suggested to me also that perhaps a lawyer should look at the amendments because I drafted the amendments for Committee stage and, of course, I am not a lawyer. We have done that, and the amendments before the House this evening have been drafted by a lawyer. However, I gather that the department may have a different view about their legal status and, indeed, the breadth of the amendments.
From some points of view, although certainly not from mine, direct interest is a potentially controversial area. Therefore, it may help the House if I say what the amendments are not about before I go on to describe what they are intended to achieve.
The amendments are not about the whole area of impartiality or incorporating that aspect into the Bill. That has been discussed previously. If that were the intention, neither the Broadcasting Standards Commission nor any other public commission would have the resources to deal with issues about which any member of the public or group, whether or not incorporated, could make a complaint. Nor are the amendments about party political broadcasts and impartiality in that respect. Indeed, that is covered by Clause 107 of the 1990 Act.
So what are the amendments about? They aim to deal with the situation in which a programme is unfair. It may not be unfair to one individual but, rather, unfair in relation to a group of people or perhaps in relation to a very narrow subject area.
Both the 1990 Act and this Bill leave open to judicial review the question of redress. When I was a member of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission—and I declare an interest in that I was a member of that commission until about 15 months ago—complaints were often received in which we felt that there was a sufficient direct interest. That was then challenged by the broadcasters who indicated that they would take the matter to judicial review. Sometimes they did and sometimes they did not carry out that threat. Of course, although individuals may have such a legal right, they do not have that right in practice because of the cost involved. When the commission is taken to judicial review, the cost is on the public purse.
These amendments intend to avoid that situation. I approach the amendments from the point of view that I assume that when the Secretary of State appoints members to the Broadcasting Standards Commission the individuals appointed will be responsible; they will consider all the aspects of the case before accepting it and accept accountability and responsibility for that. Therefore, the Secretary of State should be prepared to give credit to and trust to the commission.
In the past 18 months, there have been two judicial reviews in relation to the issue of direct interest. One case was in relation to a village called Elmton. In that case, the judge accepted that there was a direct interest as a broad concept. In that case the parish council felt that it had a defined interest in a programme which alleged that that small Derbyshire village harboured racists. Therefore, as a consequence, the complaint was covered by the provisions of the 1990 Act.
In that same period of 18 months, a complaint was made in relation to the National Council for One Parent Families. That was referred to in Committee and the Minister has written to me about that. In that case, the judge cast doubt on the Elmton judgment but he did not give the reasons behind those doubts or how he had reached his conclusions. Did the National Council for One Parent Families fail the direct interest test because it was a national body representing hundreds and
1222
perhaps hundreds of thousands of unidentifiable people—lone parents in that case—or did the judgment in that case mean that no representative body may complain unless it can point to named individuals? Does the size of the organisation matter? Is the membership of the organisation crucial in judging direct interest? Should a body which represents members of our community who, by the very nature of their disability—for example, people with mental disabilities—are unable to become members or indeed to complain, be prevented from representing that particular group in relation to direct interest?
I mentioned the case of the National Council for One Parent Families, and that is a good example of the direct interest issue. In that programme, a young woman by the name of Michelle Ellis was treated unfairly. The complaint was dealt with and the commission found unfairness. But under that very narrow definition of direct interest, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission could not deal with the programme as a whole. Indeed, there were sections within that programme which were judged to be unfair in their treatment of the issue but they did not relate directly to Michelle Ellis who made the complaint.
I suggest to the House that the amendments before us this evening relate to the raison d'être of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. For example, what would happen in relation to a programme which unfairly treated people who are blind? Could the RNIB make a complaint? Could SANE make a complaint on behalf of people with mental disabilities? Could trade unions make a complaint on behalf of their members?
If the Broadcasting Standards Commission is not given jurisdiction in such cases as having sufficient direct interest, I believe that many will go without redress. Without the new body there is no redress except through the courts. We are dealing with groups of people who do not have the resources—either financially or otherwise—to take such issues through the courts. The amendment would not open the floodgates as has been suggested by some people. Left as it is, judicial review is something which in my view will happen increasingly as the new commission tries to carry out its responsibility to viewers and listeners. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having explained to me her thinking behind the proposed amendments, and for letting me see an early version in draft form. I understand that she takes as her starting point in the issue the case of the "Panorama" programme "Babies on Benefit" where, noble Lords will recall, the court found that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission was acting beyond its remit in entertaining a complaint from the National Council for One Parent Families. I shall take the amendment in the sense described so helpfully by the noble Baroness.
The issue in that case was that the complaint in question was brought to the BCC by the organisation, not on behalf of a named participant in the programme but on behalf of the interests of single mothers. In establishing the BCC, the Government's intention was

1223
that it should defend the personal rights of those appearing in television programmes. The same role is intended for the new commission. It was not the Government's intention that either commission should be used as a forum for interest groups to air their grievances about the treatment or representation of groups of individuals who might be indirectly affected by a programme.
The Government are particularly concerned that the commission's role, in providing an opportunity for those who feel that they have been treated unfairly by a broadcaster, or had their privacy infringed in some way, should not he diluted. There is no reason why an interest group, or a representative of one, may not be authorised by an individual to make a complaint on his or her behalf. Both the 1990 Act and the Bill allow for that to happen. If, in the case that I mentioned earlier, the interest group had been authorised by an individual featured in the programme to make a complaint of unfair treatment, then the BCC could quite legitimately have entertained the complaint.
I think that in that context it is important to be clear that there is nothing to prevent a complaint of the kind that the noble Baroness is concerned about being made to the regulator; that is to say, the Governors of the BBC, the ITC, the Radio Authority in the case of a radio programme, or the Welsh Authority. That seems to us to be the right way to deal with the type of matter under discussion. It is for those reasons that the Government feel that it is both unnecessary and unhelpful to extend the commission's remit in the way proposed. Therefore, we resist the amendments.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I do not welcome it, but at least it makes the Government's position clear. After considering both the meeting that I had with the Minister and the exchange of correspondence that has taken place between us, I regret to say that there still seems to be a block between us on the matter. It may be that a programme is unfair, but it may not be unfair directly to one individual featured in it. That is where the kernel of the matter lies. I expect that the devil is in the detail in the sense that the Minister is obviously concerned about having a remit which is open-ended. That is not the intention of the amendment.
Normally when we are told that complaints can be made to the BBC or, indeed, to the regulator, one would welcome such information. However, I have not yet built up the confidence in either of those two areas that I believe the public have as regards the old Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council, both of which will be replaced by the new body. The Minister's response does not meet the points that we have made. I hope that the issue will not be dropped; indeed, I believe that it will be raised time and time again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 87 [Consideration of fairness complaints]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 72, line 42, at end insert—
("(f) to provide the BSC in respect of unfairness complaints with full unedited visual or sound recordings and transcripts of the making of the programme which is the subject of the complaint so far as the relevant person has in his possession a visual or sound recording of it,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the above amendment deals with an issue that was tabled on the Marshalled List in Committee to which the Minister gave a most helpful response and to which we now return. I have to say that the Minister has also written to me on the matter and indicated that the broadcasting companies have been approached by his department. However, as of last Friday, I believe they had not all responded. I am not in a position to say whether that indicates their interest in the matter, in that they think that if they do not answer the matter will, perhaps, go by the wayside.
However, I am in a position to judge the fact that time and time again one would have complaints about a programme from an individual—and there is no division between us in that area. The complaint would be accepted as legitimate and, in the process of dealing with it, questions would be put at the oral hearing to the complainant, who would say, "Yes, I know it says that in the programme but, if you look at the whole interview; you will find that just before that part that was edited and shown I said this or that and omitting it completely put out of context what I said".
On many occasions the broadcasters would hand over the unedited tapes—the rushes, as I believe they are called—and that would help considerably. Sometimes it would help the commission find in favour of a broadcaster and sometimes in favour of a complainant. But by no means are they available by right. For example, if one had a broadcast from an independent producer, as sometimes would be the case, he might say, "Sorry, we've destroyed those tapes". One would then be left with the programme and, therefore, unable in some instances to reach a really fair adjudication either as regards the broadcaster or, indeed, the individual complainant.
I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's response to the amendment and to know whether he has heard from the broadcasters. Their views would certainly be most welcome. I should point out in conclusion that the amendment was not intended to develop a situation where we would have a warehouse south of the river housing hundreds and hundreds of tapes indefinitely simply to meet that provision in the Bill. That was not the intention. Indeed, it would not be necessary. If one looks at the position as regards radio, the stations are required to keep all tapes for three months after transmission of the programme.

1225
A provision along those lines would be most welcome, especially as there is a time limit on the ability of individuals or organisations to make complaints under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness has again been most helpful in her introduction of the amendment. As she said, and as noble Lords will recall, the noble Baroness previously tabled the amendment, which would require broadcasters to provide the BSC with transcripts and all available unedited material used in the making of a programme against which a fairness complaint had been made. At that time I said that the Government would resist the amendment. However, I subsequently met the noble Baroness and, having heard her arguments, agreed that we would consider the matter further.
The noble Baroness will know that the Government are not unsympathetic to her desire to ensure that broadcasters co-operate with the BSC in providing sufficient information to enable the commission to reach a properly informed adjudication. However, after careful consideration of her proposals, in consultation with broadcasting and regulatory bodies, a number of practical difficulties have presented themselves.
One problem lies with the lack of a corresponding requirement upon broadcasters to retain the additional material in question. Clearly—and the noble Baroness has, I believe, acknowledged this point—it would he quite impractical and unreasonable to require broadcasters to find the additional resources and space to store such material for all programmes. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the unedited material used in making a programme may be several times the quantity of that used in the final transmission. However, in the absence of such a requirement, there is nothing to prevent an unscrupulous broadcaster from simply deliberately destroying, before a request has been received, any material which he does not wish to hand over were such a request to be made.
Additionally, there could also be quite legitimate reasons why a broadcaster might be unwilling to hand over such material; for example, it might infringe the privacy of other participants in the programme or reveal a confidential journalistic source. We wish to avoid giving the BSC powers which would go beyond those available to the courts to demand material without hearing argument and without a public interest exemption in situations where the courts would need to make an order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
These are important points which we shall have to take into account. However, we remain sympathetic to the thinking behind the amendment of the noble Baroness. With your Lordships' leave, I should like the opportunity to consult more widely before the Government's more detailed response is made to another place.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, that was a helpful response, particularly as regards the latter points the Minister made. In our experience of the Bill, when a measure has been promised it has been
1226
forthcoming. We respect the integrity of the Minister as regards his proposal. I shall await with interest the Bill's passage in another place to see what emerges. I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 [Interpretation of Part V]:
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that we do not return to this business until twenty minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1996
7.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to the second Motion on the Order Paper. As in the debate in another place, there are two elements to the debate on the prevention of terrorism powers. Two orders are to be considered by this House. The first relates to the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act for a further 12 months. The second relates to some amendments we propose to be made to Schedule 2 to the Act. These will bring the procedures under which exclusion orders are made into line with European Community law following the judgment given in the Gallagher case. The debate is to be followed by separate votes on each of the orders. I shall deal with each of the orders in turn.
First, I shall deal with the renewal of the PTA. I should like to begin by thanking Mr. John Rowe QC for his very interesting and thorough report on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1995. His clear recommendation is that the Act should be renewed, and for the full 12 months possible under the Act. The Government have accepted his recommendation but before I explain why I should like to say a little about the background to tonight's debate.
The background is very different from last year's, and indeed very different from that which I thought it would be only a few weeks ago. We argued last year for the continuation of these powers against the backdrop of a Provisional IRA ceasefire and the subsequent cessation of violence by loyalist paramilitary groups. While recounting the very real threats which still existed and noting the activities of the first part of 1994, I was able to point to the hope felt by many in Northern Ireland and Great Britain that the threat from terrorism would diminish in the longer term. At that time, and for the

1227
first time for many years, the people of Northern Ireland were beginning to experience the fruits of peace. They could go about their daily business without fear of violence from either republicans or loyalist paramilitaries. For the first time, too, in many years, the imminent threat of Provisional IRA violence in Great Britain had receded.
The hope was that the cessation in the violence would become a lasting peace. As your Lordships know, the Government have done all in their power to bring that about. In the months which followed the paramilitaries' respective ceasefires, we reduced the more visible and inconvenient aspects of security. In Northern Ireland we took soldiers off the streets, and border crossing points were reopened. The number of house searches carried out in 1995 under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 were reduced by 75 per cent. and the number of arrests under Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act fell to a third of what it had been in 1994. There has been new investment in Northern Ireland and new jobs have been created. Tourism was on the increase.
The total number of detentions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the United Kingdom for 1995 was 70 per cent. down on 1994's figure. We constantly sought to move the peace process forward. The Government held talks with all the parties including Sinn Fein at ministerial and official level. The terrorist response to these developments was the bomb at South Quay on 9th February. As ever, the Provisional IRA's intent appears to have been to kill or to maim as many people as possible. It is with great sadness that I remind the House that two people were killed in that blast; many others were injured, some seriously. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are very much with them and with their families.
Since then there have been further incidents, further injuries and another death. Our deepest thanks go to the emergency services whose courage and professionalism have done so much to limit the injury and pain planned by the Provisional IRA. A new ceasefire has not been declared. Instead Mr. Gerry Adams tells us that the Provisional IRA is offering another 25 years of bloodshed.
The powers in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 enable us to fight terrorism more effectively than would otherwise be the case. That is why we have argued for their renewal each year, and it is why we do so again today. In his report on the operation of the Act in 1995, Mr. Rowe confirms that the paramilitaries have retained their structure and their organisation intact throughout the past 18 months. Murder, assault, intimidation, and coercion; all continue in their name and under their direction. He concludes therefore that the provisions of the Act are still needed and that the Act should therefore be renewed. His report was prepared and submitted to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary before the Provisional IRA's ceasefire came to an end. His conclusions must carry even greater force now that the bombings have begun once more.
The Government agree with Mr. Rowe's conclusion. It would be sheer folly to lower our guard now by allowing any of the provisions in the Act to lapse. The events of the past few weeks surely put the continuing need for the Act beyond question. But the Act's provisions are not used solely to counter Northern Irish terrorism. Some of its powers can be, and indeed are, used to great effect to counter the threat of international terrorism. The most recent examples are the charges on explosive offences—after detention and extension of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act—made following the car bombs outside the Israeli embassy and Balfour House in July 1994. In 1995 a series of detentions under the Act of those suspected of involvement in the terrorist campaign in France were a contributory factor in the disruption of that campaign. One of those detained is currently held following an extradition request from France. Mr. Rowe concludes that whatever happens in Northern Ireland there is always likely to be terrorism of an international kind; that the manifestations of this are increasing; and that the need for the Act's provisions to counter them therefore remains.
I should also like to say something about the inquiry which is currently being undertaken by a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced to the House on 9th January, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, had then agreed to lead an inquiry to consider whether specific counter-terrorist legislation would be required once a lasting peace was established in Northern Ireland. His review is under way. It will examine the provisions both of the PTA and of the Northern Ireland emergency provisions legislation in the course of considering what may or may not be needed in future. His terms of reference remain unchanged notwithstanding recent events and the Government will consider his conclusions once the inquiry has been completed. I understand that the noble and learned Lord hopes to report before the autumn.
The Government's first priority must be to protect the public. To do that we need to give the police the powers they need to combat terrorism effectively. The provisions of the PTA are needed to stop the terrorist from taking action and from re-stocking his armoury and to deprive him of funds and a place to hide. In the absence of peace, at a time when the terrorist is ready and willing to strike and slaughter at random, there can be no question but that the Act is needed. The Act must be renewed, and for the full period of 12 months allowed under the Act. I therefore commend the order to the House.
I come now to the second part of this debate. The second order before the House today amends the procedures in the PTA governing the making of exclusion orders.
In putting the case for the renewal of the Act, I have not dealt with the detail of the powers themselves. They have been discussed and debated many times before, both here and outside Parliament. We all know the

1229
arguments. Except as regards the making of exclusion orders, I shall not detain the House therefore in describing them now.
The power to make exclusion orders may be used only to counter the threat from Northern Irish terrorism; and it has, as Mr. Rowe points out in his report, proved a valuable tool over the years in disrupting terrorist plans.
Particular individuals can be barred from entering Northern Ireland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom where the Secretary of State is satisfied that they would take advantage of their presence in that place to commission, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. The use of this power not only hampers the terrorists' ability to travel, but because their identity is known, it also limits their overall usefulness to the terrorist organisation to which they belong. Once their organisation is aware that the activities of an individual have become known to the security forces, their usefulness necessarily diminishes.
Some have argued that keeping people under observation could be more effective than exclusion. But the Government believe that the resource implications of mounting a surveillance operation in every case would be substantial, and in most cases that would not be a realistic proposition.
Some people have suggested that the process of exclusion is arbitrary and unfair. I do not accept this, and Mr. Rowe's report makes it clear that it is not so. Before any order is made, a considered report is sent to the relevant department. Mr. Rowe refers to the further scrutiny of the case for exclusion by officials and by the Secretary of State. This scrutiny is robust. I was pleased to note from his report that Mr. Rowe found that each participant in the process,
"approached the task with fairness",
during the year under review.
Each case is assessed on the basis of the available facts. There are currently 33 orders in force. That is the lowest number ever since the power was introduced.
The reduction in the numbers of orders in force since 1994 reflects the assessment of the level of threat presented by certain individuals at the relevant time. I have to tell your Lordships that the case to exclude each of the 33 is a strong one and that it remains.
It is possible that further orders will be made, particularly now that the Provisional IRA's ceasefire has broken down. But each case will, as now, be considered very carefully on its merits.
The need for the exclusion power is proven. It is effective. It is an essential weapon in the counter terrorist armoury. Now is not the time to relinquish it.
But we propose to make some changes to the procedures governing the making of exclusion orders in order to bring them into line with European Community law following the European Court of Justice's ruling in the Gallagher case; and these are set out in the second order which we are debating today. The regulations are to be made under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 which makes special provision to facilitate the amending of legislation to bring UK law into line with European Community law.
For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I may say that the Court found no fault with the substance of the power to exclude. Its judgment simply requires the Secretary of State to obtain independent advice in every case where he is considering whether to make an exclusion order before the decision is taken.
The new procedures set out in the regulations require the Secretary of State to serve written notice on any person in the United Kingdom against whom he is considering making an exclusion order; to refer the matter for advice to one or more independent persons nominated by him to give him advice on such matters; and to take the advice he subsequently receives into account when making his decision. A person who has been served with such a notice may make written representations setting out his objections and can ask to be interviewed by the independent adviser before the latter reports to the Secretary of State.
These new procedures replace very similar procedures in Schedule 2 to the Act but which currently apply only after an exclusion order has been made.
Historically, those detained under the Act have often been at an advanced stage of planning a terrorist operation. The decision to arrest them will have been taken either because surveillance has been compromised or because there is uncertainty as to the exact timing of a terrorist attack. This can sometimes mean that the individual is detained before sufficient evidence is available to secure a criminal conviction. In such cases it is often the police who apply for an exclusion order.
These people can be dangerous, committed terrorists involved in an operation at an advanced stage of planning. It would not be right to release them back into the community pending the procurement and consideration of independent advice.
That is why there is currently a power to detain individuals during that time; and it is why the new regulations before us contain a similar power of detention. Under the new procedures it will he possible, if the individual concerned is within the part of the United Kingdom from which consideration is being given to excluding him, to detain him for the period between the serving of the notice and the final decision being taken.
This power is not always used now. It may not always be used in the future. Sometimes the individual is permitted to leave the jurisdiction pending consideration of the case against him. This will still be possible in future.
All the necessary procedures will be carried out as swiftly as possible. But, as your Lordships will have seen from the regulations, the time it takes for any individual to be interviewed and so forth is partly dictated by them. The individual concerned will have seven days from the date of the notice, if they arc inside the jurisdiction from which consideration is being given to excluding them, in which to make their representations and request an interview.
The events of the past five weeks fill us all with dismay and sorrow. Peace seemed for a while as close as it has ever been and then the terrorists chose to return to violence and murder. The bombs in London serve the

1231
interest of no one and no party. They have shown us, however, that we cannot afford to drop our guard. We do not propose to do so. We continue to need the emergency powers contained in the Act. The orders before us will give us those powers, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
7.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister spoke, entirely properly, for, I think, 15 minutes in total. I begin by saying that I agree with 13 minutes of what she said—in other words, minutes one to 10 and 13 to 15. Therefore, it will be clear that on a subject on which one must be entirely serious we are largely in agreement with the Government.
We are, and always have been, in total agreement with the Government, and I believe with all the people of this country, and with virtually all the people of Northern Ireland, on the nature of the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We have always totally condemned terrorism by paramilitaries of whatever persuasion, and we do so again. We do so with renewed fervour because of the deplorable resumption of hostilities by the IRA in recent weeks. We share with the Government and with all parties in your Lordships' House the sincere hope that it will be possible by the continuation of the peace process to persuade the IRA to return to its ceasefire and to enable positive negotiations to take place in the period following 10th June of this year. Our position on all these matters has never changed; and we have pursued our bipartisan support of the peace process ever since it began, as I think will he recognised by Ministers and indeed by all noble Lords.
We have always accepted that there must be some form of anti-terrorist legislation. In 12 of the years since the legislation was first introduced by a Labour Government my colleagues in another place have felt it necessary to vote for the legislation, although they did not do so in other years. That fact is evidence of our recognition of the need for anti-terrorist legislation while the situation in Northern Ireland continues. Our votes against that legislation in certain years have been specific, by design. I shall deal with each of the issues in turn. We have been concerned with the problem of exclusion orders and with who is responsible for the extension of detention and whether that should be the Secretary of State or whether there should be a judicial element. Above all, we have been concerned with the need for a general and comprehensive review of counter-terrorism legislation.
I deal first with the issue of exclusion orders. The figures which the Minister gave us tonight are extremely welcome. We are glad to learn that the number of exclusion orders in force has decreased from a much larger figure in recent years down to 33. The number of exclusion orders is important and we are glad to note that the figure has been reduced. Nevertheless, exclusion
1232
orders are internal exile, which has not been part of our law since the time of Henry VIII. We must surely continue to look forward to a time when no citizens of the United Kingdom are excluded from one part of the United Kingdom. By using the phrase "United Kingdom", I do not in any way prejudge the result of the peace process. I am saying that we are citizens of the United Kingdom and it must surely be our intention to ensure that we all have freedom to move everywhere within our own country.
Having read Mr. Rowe's report carefully, I still do not know whether the exclusion orders have an effect. It is true that a majority of the police in all parts of the United Kingdom take the view that the orders continue to be necessary. But it is to be noted that a significant minority expressed the view to Mr. Rowe that the exclusion orders were not performing any useful purpose. While it is not a basis on which we or my honourable friends in another place would vote against the order, nevertheless we look for a statement from the Government that they share our view that exclusion orders are peculiarly undesirable. All counter-terrorism legislation is undesirable, but exclusion orders are especially so. They ought to be brought to an end either by administrative action—in other words the action of the police—or by an amendment to the Act as soon as possible.
The second issue is extended detention. Again, we have reluctantly come to accept that extended detention is necessary, although I understand that in recent years the number of detentions under the Act beyond 48 hours has fallen. It is quite small, although the power exists for extended detention for seven days. All that is welcome.
Our specific complaint about extended detention is the involvement of the Home Secretary rather than judicial involvement. We hope that, in legislation which contains many necessary elements, the Government will continue to scrutinise that element with care and will bring it to an end as soon as possible. In other words, where there is a derogation from the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that should be done within the judicial process, without political involvement. I believe that that principle ought to commend itself to many noble Lords. We hope that it will commend itself to the Government and that we shall not be in the position of being forced to mention it in future years. Ideally, we would not wish to be faced with these regulations under the temporary provisions Act 1974 in future years.
The third issue is the general and comprehensive review. Over the years at intervals there have been reviews of the operation of the anti-terrorist legislation by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, Lord Gardiner, Lord Shackleton and, recently, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in 1987. We welcome the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to undertake a review which was announced in January of this year. I appreciate that the terms of reference of his review are not strictly a review of the prevention of terrorism Act. As I understand it, his responsibility is to consider the future need for specific counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom if the cessation of violence connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland

1233
leads to a lasting peace. It has not yet, but we welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord has been encouraged and is continuing his review, even though the ceasefire has come to an end and there has been a resumption of violence.
I do not believe that one ought to make a distinction between the need for counter-terrorism legislation in Northern Ireland in the present situation and the possible longer-term need for counter-terrorism legislation in respect of other enemies. The considerations are the same, whether it is the IRA or the Groupe Islamique Armée of Algeria, or whoever else it may be. The noble and learned Lord's inquiry specifically considers terrorism in general and seeks general principles about how we, as a free nation, seek to counter terrorism and to learn what departures from our normal procedures may be necessary if we are to succeed in doing so.
That most important concern which we had about the prevention of terrorism legislation has, I believe, been properly answered by the appointment of the noble and learned Lord. We welcome it. On that basis my honourable and right honourable friends in another place felt that it was unnecessary to continue to vote against the continuance order when the matter came before the House of Commons last Thursday. However, as I have made clear, they felt that some of the provisions are still defective. Therefore, it was not possible to give a blanket approval to the continuation order.
I turn now to the exclusion orders regulations. Again, we do not oppose them, but they are Henry VIII legislation. We are, by order, amending Schedule 2 to the current 1989 Act in considerable detail. I accept that the need for amendment which arises in part from the Gallagher case before the European Court of Justice has been demonstrated. We certainly do not oppose this exclusion order, and we shall not be voting against it. But I do so only having drawn attention to the strictly constitutional impropriety of amending legislation in this way.
The involvement of the European Court of Justice, as has been made clear, was relatively peripheral to the fundamental thrust of the exclusion orders. It was concerned with the opportunity for an independent review rather than with the principle of exclusion orders themselves. On that basis, we do not oppose the second order that will be put before the House.
In conclusion, we find ourselves in complete harmony with the Government on almost all the issues relating to terrorism that confront our country. We share with the Government a desire not to have any more derogations from the rule of law than are absolutely necessary to maintain our position in seeking to defeat terrorism. We do not under-estimate the power of terrorists who have no fear of public opinion and have nothing but their own fanaticism to drive them forward. We see that in Northern Ireland, but we see it much more strongly and horribly with the suicide bombs in Israel. We do not think that a prevention of terrorism Act will prevent terrorism. But we think it is necessary to do what we can to minimise the effects of terrorism, and to that extent, subject to the remarks I have already made, we are not opposing these orders.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. She was so quick off the mark that I missed her opening two minutes. We on these Benches share the very deepest regret, felt in this House and elsewhere, about the resumption of terrorism by the IRA. We also greatly welcome the Government's determination to pursue the peace process when it would have been so easy to find cause to abandon it. What the Government have done in this respect should have the support of everyone.
I shall not pursue some of the contradictions in the Labour Party's approach to the order. They are such that even the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh became tongue-tied trying to explain them. I invite noble Lords who have any doubt about the matter to read the debate in the other place on 11th March to get the full flavour of the divisions in the party. What I particularly regret are not differences of opinion, which are natural enough and are found in any party, but the failure of the Opposition to support positively what we believe to be a necessary measure. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the best of a bad fist in that respect. Because I have a regard for him, I like to believe that if there were to be a vote on the order in this House he would have found it extremely difficult not to support it.
The views that the noble Lord expressed about the original legislation and what has happened since will be widely shared. I do not think any noble Lord can welcome the order, because it might imply welcoming the necessity of it. But we accept it because it is an instrument, however limited, in the fight against terrorism.
I recommend that noble Lords wishing to explore the matter should look back to the debate in this House in November 1974 and study particularly the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich in introducing the Bill, as it then was, and what he said about the fundamental need for such legislation in the circumstances of that time. I also advise noble Lords to read the speech of my noble friend Lord Wigoder. He had some very wise words to say about how we had to be very careful that the legislation did not become a permanent feature of the landscape in this country. I should be quite happy to rest, if that were sufficient, on what they said all of 22 years ago.
There is no question that there is a derogation from civil liberties in the order. I agree—at least, I do not dissent from, if that is the best way of putting it—the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about detention for seven days and about exclusion orders. I regret those powers. We should not take them for granted, and we should not allow them to become a permanent aspect of legislation in this country.
Of course, it is true that the expression "prevention of terrorism" is a misnomer. The legislation of 1974 and the subsequent orders, including this one, neither prevent terrorism nor ensure the capture of those who practise it. It is a blunt instrument. But its role, although limited, is not one we can abandon. I accept that innocent people are sometimes victims of it. Sometimes, also, it may impede good relations between the police

1235
and the community. That is the inescapable price that in today's circumstances we must pay, faced with the threat that terrorism represents to a free and democratic society, sustained both by the rule of law and by our belief in the liberties that flow from it.
A year ago, in the debate in this House on 16th March, I said that I could not see why a full review should not be undertaken of existing legislation and that that could be done without prejudice to the order we were then discussing. I said that we on these Benches believed that such a review should be undertaken without delay. I made those remarks a year ago, and the view had been expressed before.
The noble Baroness, in her reply to that debate, while accepting that the time might come for such a review, said that it would be premature. It remained "premature" for all of 10 months. But that is no reason why we should not welcome the announcement made in January this year of an inquiry—the review to be undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
There is, however, one point on which I should like to be clear. It may be the point on which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, briefly dwelt. The terms of reference of the inquiry are to,
"consider the future need for specific counter terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom, if the cessation of violence connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland leads to a lasting peace".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/96; col. 33.]
That could he read as meaning that as, very sadly, the terrorism has resumed and we do not know when a further cessation may take place, in effect, the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is on hold meanwhile. I am sure that that is not the intention of Ministers, and indeed I understand that the noble and learned Lord is taking evidence at the present time. But perhaps the Minister will confirm my assumption that, whatever the terms of reference, it will be within the power of the noble and learned Lord not only to make such recommendations as will be appropriate once the cessation of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland has led to a lasting peace, but, if that cessation has not taken place, to make whatever recommendations he feels are proper in respect of the legislation that has resulted in this order. As I say, we accept the need for the order with reluctance; but we support the necessity of bringing it forward.
7.58 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I support the renewal of the temporary provisions Act, which I consider to be most necessary. Rather than put the argument in my own words, which people may think indicate that I take a particular view, I refer to paragraph 13 of the report by Mr. J. J. Rowe, QC, which has already been referred to by the Minister. It states:
"The proscribed organisations still maintain their structure and organisation, and murders and assaults are carried out in their name and under their direction. Between 8th December 1995 and 2nd January 1996, 5 murders were carried out by DAAD, which is widely believed to be associated with the IRA. The influence of the proscribed organisations is as strong as ever, and they retain the capacity, which they exercise, to intimidate and coerce individuals and businesses. I have seen examples. Jurors and witnesses receive
1236
threats, or fear to receive them; traders pay 'protection money'. Collections are made for contributions; and funds are diverted to the organisations by fraud and racketeering. Robberies are carried out to raise money. Explosive devices have been found: a new mortar device has been developed for use … [in] Northern Ireland. Considerable amounts of firearms and explosives are still in the hands of the proscribed organisations and ready for use. Training goes on, and there is some recruiting — The summary is this: there remains a capability to carry out attacks with explosives and firearms; the risk of immediate large scale violence has gone down, but the threat of it is still there, and the structure and influence of organisations remain. In these circumstances, there is a need for the PTA so far as concerns terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
That was written in respect of the year 1995, during the so-called ceasefire. How much more is it applicable today in view of the recent atrocities that have been committed.
Another point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, concerned the possibility of a judicial element in exclusion orders. Again, I take an impartial source and quote Mr. Rowe:
"it must be remembered that an application for an exclusion order usually relies upon and recites information which does not amount to admissible evidence; it is intelligence which is secret, and cannot be disclosed in court, because disclosure would compromise the source of it, and endanger someone. An application to a judge would rely on material just like this. Thus the person against whom the exclusion order was sought could not be told what the information was, and so could not cross-examine or challenge it, and could not raise an answer to it … In these circumstances the judge would not be hearing both sides, and the rules of natural justice would simply be absent. The judge could not give reasons for a decision, there would be no appeal, and there would be no possible guidelines from a superior court. He would be acting as a judge in name only".
The other aspect that I should like to mention is the funding of terrorism. That is very important. People talk about Godfathers and the Mafia-like characteristics of some of the terrorist organisations. Again, that was dealt with by Mr. Rowe in paragraph 41 of his report, in which he said:
"There are two other sections which have been effective on the financial side of terrorist activity; section 12 as to voluntary disclosure of a suspicion that money or property is derived from terrorist funds, and section 18A which penalises failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of financial assistance … all these powers have been used to support anti-terrorist investigation; I was given important examples of the detection and analysis of financial transactions, and this applied both to international terrorism and terrorism connected with Northern Ireland".
With that mention of international terrorism, we must remember that most of this Act—not in its entirety but most of it—applies to the whole of the United Kingdom and not just to Northern Ireland. It is essential in this country that we have proper defences against people who come here from another country and seek to plot against the government of that country or some faction within that country and do it within the shelter of the United Kingdom. It is essential that we are able to defend ourselves against such activities.
Finally, I join in the welcome that has been given to the review that is to he undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We have every confidence in his ability and impartiality and we look forward to reading his report when it is published.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I shall be brief. Ever since I introduced, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Prevention of Terrorism Act in another place in 1976, I have consistently supported the continuation of that Act and the exclusion orders which back that legislation. Tonight, I do so once again.
The ceasefire has ended. We are now back in a terrorist-war situation. There is all the more reason therefore to support the Government in their fight against terrorism, both terrorist forces within the United Kingdom and those who come from beyond our shores.
We have just endured an uneasy peace, welcome though it was particularly for those in Northern Ireland. I wish that it could have continued. But I believe that it was a sham. As I have reminded the House on previous occasions, the Provos—the Provisional IRA—were never at rest. When Gerry Adams was heckled in West Belfast, he said, "They haven't gone away, you know". Well, we know that now.
During the course of the ceasefire, Irish Americans, many of them gullible and naÏve, with no real knowledge of the Northern Ireland situation, raised nearly £½ million. Many of them thought that it was going to Provisional Sinn Fein or probably the families of terrorist prisoners. But in reality it has been going to the Provisional IRA. It has been paying for recruiting and training in the Republic and used as payment for the movement of arms or bomb-making equipment, renting safe houses, supporting activities such as dummy bomb runs in London and surveillance of persons. Therefore, there has been no shortage of moneys to finance those operations. Indeed, there is no more classic example than that of the lorry used in the Canary Wharf bombing which was prepared and moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain; weeks of work were involved and it took place during the so-called ceasefire. No doubt that job was made easier because of the relaxed state of the security forces.
Having reverted to a terrorist-war condition, we must use to the full the legal armoury of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the exclusion orders.
During the ceasefire, the Provos have taken full advantage of all those relaxations, many of them when visiting the mainland from both the north and south, visiting friends or attending football matches and so on, but diverting en route to leave a message in a covert drop, awaken sleepers, contact an active service unit, move arms and establish safe houses. We know in retrospect that for the past 18 months that has been going on. So checks at our ports and airports must be increased and exclusion orders are an important element in those operations.
I know there is concern about the extension time that a suspect can be held under the orders and that a Minister or the Secretary of State can determine the length of detention. I have no qualms about that, having done it and treated it with the seriousness that it deserves. I recognise its value. Tracing, tracking and detaining suspects, including exclusions, may he harassment—hut often it disrupts the plans and operations on the mainland and deters suspects from
1238
crossing from Ireland. As Mr. Rowe mentioned in his report, the powers to make exclusion orders deter terrorist acts and deprive the terrorist groups to which these people belong of some of their experienced operators.
The latest figures show that 477 people were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1995: 19 were held in connection with international terrorism—that is some proof of its value—and the rest were in connection with Northern Ireland terrorism. Subsequently, 121 were charged with offences under the Act and these orders.
The terrorists are still active; they are not at rest. There has been no recognition by them of the ceasefire; and without these orders more terrorists would be active. I know that some people complain and object to these orders. But libertarians must understand that we have to forfeit a little liberty to save and secure a lot of freedom. That is the crux of anti-terrorist legislation and that is why I back these orders tonight.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will appreciate that, in rising to speak tonight, I may bring a slightly different perspective to this debate. First, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining the orders. I wish to explain why I am speaking; to go on to look at some of the background; to look at the current situation and then to ask the Minister a number of questions.
Why am I speaking? It will be appreciated that when I first came to this House 11 years ago I attempted to divide the House against the Prevention of Terrorism Act as it was being renewed and I did that for a number of years. I stopped doing it because I received no support in the House for my point of view. I noted also that the legislation was changed a little by the introduction of the 1989 Act.
There are two elements that bring me to my feet tonight. First, in the second of the orders we are effectively introducing a new power of detention without charge and without judicial review. Secondly, given the debate and discussion that surrounded the Labour Party's opposition to these renewal orders, I felt that I had to stand and reaffirm my commitment to the principled position based on what I believe is a pragmatic view of the facts.
Perhaps I can explain a little of the background as I see it. The original Prevention of Terrorism Act was introduced in 1974, 22 years ago. If any Act introduced by Parliament demonstrates the adage that legislation introduced in haste leads to repentance at leisure, this does. I only hope that we can learn from that experience and not be pushed into a knee-jerk response following the horrific tragedy that occurred in Dunblane last week.
Over the past year or so we have experienced a peace process. It is worth considering the background to that. We need to look at the economic circumstances, the predominant one of which is the accession of the Republic of Ireland to the European Union. As a result it became involved in the common agricultural policy, which injected massive economic stimulus into its economy and reduced the gap between the two

1239
economies—that of the Republic and that of Northern Ireland. I can also point to the immense damage done to the City of London by the Bishopsgate bomb and other activities.
We should all pay tribute to John Hume for instigating the peace process. But we need to be aware that the Government placed road blocks in the way of that peace process. The first was the demand for the surrender of arms and the second was elections prior to talks. When we consider the situation in South Africa, we see that the ANC was not required to surrender its arms before a rapprochement between its members and the ruling white elite. When one looks at the situation in Israel and Palestine, one sees that there was no requirement for elections prior to negotiations.
With regard to the current situation, it is unfortunate that the peace process has broken down and I am sure that we all hope that some way is found to ensure that it is resurrected and taken forward. We are faced with a continuation of seven-day detentions without charge or legal review and exclusion orders that have already been referred to this evening by other noble Lords. I am not sure of the current situation—this is almost a rhetorical question for the Minister—but the last time I researched the subject the only other part of the world that operated a system of internal exile was the Soviet Union, when it existed. Even in the Soviet Union there was some form of judicial review of the process of internal exile.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Is he going to try to justify the 2,500 civilians—many of whom were women and children—who have died as a result of terrorism? It is not a road block; it is a dastardly effort to reduce any peace chance in Northern and southern Ireland.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, one of the matters we must look at is what is the practical reality of our actions. We are talking about the renewal of the draconian powers—that is how they were described when they were first introducedߞcalled the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We have had 22 years, less a little bit, of terrorism. The new situation with which we are presently faced, which is part of the reason I am speaking tonight, is that, because of the European ruling, the Government have seen fit to amend the Prevention of Terrorism Act in regard to exclusion orders and effectively bring in a new power of detention prior to operating the exclusion orders.
I am sure that there are other ways in which the Government could approach the issue, but they have chosen to introduce this new power of detention. On my immediate reading of it, it would appear that there is no time limit. It is supposed to be carried out "reasonably quickly", but no specific time limit is placed on the powers of detention. That gives rise to a number of questions.
First, will the detainees have the safeguards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act? Will they be able to consult a solicitor and contact their families? How will the Home Secretary be safeguarded against charges of abuse of unfair executive powers? Finally, who will be
1240
the person nominated by the Secretary of State to conduct the investigation and the review of those powers of the provisional detention order, if I may describe it like that?
In concluding my remarks, I believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Act effectively discriminates against Irish people and acts as a recruiting sergeant for violent Irish nationalists, and that is the reason why I take a principled stand against it.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he accept that this Act would become unnecessary if the IRA would adopt a democratic procedure?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as I understand the noble Lord's question, what he is effectively saying is that, if the peace process in Ireland can progress so that all the parties agree and an effective peaceful situation can be arrived at, then, by implication, there would be no need for the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Unfortunately, we have heard a number of people around the House tonight effectively saying that, whatever happens in Northern Ireland, this is going to carry on. I think we do need to have a very serious look at how we deal with this. Yes, there are problems of terrorism, of international terrorism, of people taking violent acts, but I would hope that we would not ride roughshod over the principles of civil liberties that have been established over centuries in this country in the process of dealing with that problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I am grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these orders. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that I welcome what he said and I understand very well the particular point the noble Lord made when he said that the measure was not so much welcomed as seen as a necessary measure to counter terrorism. I think that is a very appropriate way to describe these measures.
I may also say that we have heard the many voices of the Official Opposition, the Labour Party, tonight. We heard them in another place but we have heard them again tonight. I do want to put it on record that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, speaks with some very real insight, understanding and experience of that land and knows exactly and appreciates, I believe, the importance of these measures. As for the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, we all know in this House of the distinguished service that he gave in very high office in Northern Ireland and of his incredible courage and bravery, and I believe he has been entirely consistent throughout and sees the full force of the need for this legislation.
I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will have given succour to only one set of people tonight. They are the terrorists and the Provisional IRA. Much of what he said was very much more in their interests than in the interests of people who walk free in our country.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, have expressed concern about the exclusion power. They had objections to it on the grounds of civil liberties or as an unacceptable form of

1241
internal exile. As I have already said, this is a power which has been used sparingly and has been used carefully over the past year. There are only 33 exclusion orders currently in force, and that is less than half the number in existence at the beginning of 1995. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, accepted this and recognised it, but he nonetheless believes that they are wrong. However, it would be naïve and irresponsible of the Government to abandon the power completely while the Provisional IRA maintain their weapons and maintain their explosives and, indeed, maintain their will to use them. I wish it were not so, but I am afraid that we have to face hard realities.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the second order as a Henry VIII order. The amendments made by the second order are not Henry VIII provisions. That is a type of provision that I know and he knows well allows you to do whatever you like. The amendments are made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. That provision entitles us to make regulations to implement our Community obligations, and that is what these regulations do in response to the European Court of Justice's ruling in the Gallagher case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, I really do not want to detain the House but of course a Henry VIII order is not one which allows you to do what you like. It is the amending of primary legislation by means of secondary legislation. It is a very specific thing and the reason why I did not object to it was because intrinsically it is right and, although I did not expand on it, also because it is required by the European Communities Act 1972.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has done battle with me across this Box on many occasions; he has always referred to them as being open-ended and sometimes the use of a Henry VIII clause can be seen because one has to rely on the Secretary of State to use a power in the appropriate way.
I confess I am not impressed by arguments about civil liberty if we are talking about the civil liberty of a person to travel around the United Kingdom to commit what acts of terrorism he pleases. The Government and, I am sure, the vast majority of the population are far more concerned with the civil liberty to run a newsagents in Docklands without the roof being blown off on top of you or the civil liberty to catch a No. 171 bus without it and its passengers being blown to bits in the Strand. As for the extensions of the detention order under Section 14 of the Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gives his personal authority for any detention beyond 48 hours. In doing so, he looks at the case put forward by the police, including, for example, the need for further inquiries or for searches to be made or, with foreign suspects, for suspicious material to be translated, and he takes into account any intelligence we may have which might justify the inquiries where an extension of detention is necessary for investigative purposes. It is authorised for that purpose.
This is a decision which cannot he subject to a judicial process, some have argued, since the full intelligence picture, which alone enables an informed
1242
judgment to be made, could not be revealed to the detainee. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, certainly understands this and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, referred to it specifically. It would not be susceptible to examination or challenge. No reasons could be given for a judicial decision and, as Mr. Rowe wisely pointed out in his review of the operation of the Act in 1995, a judge would be acting as such in name only and, in essence, he would—and I quote the report:
"have every appearance of being an arm of the executive".
I am sure that noble and learned Lords would agree with me that this would be a most unsatisfactory outcome. The idea of introducing a judicial element has in fact been rejected in reviews of the Act by Lord Shackleton in 1978, by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in 1983 and by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in 1987.
Perhaps the most difficult area to address is the funding of terrorist operations in other countries. Whatever legislation is in place, it is extremely difficult to get the evidence to secure a conviction. Money is laundered through various routes and some may indeed be used for humanitarian purposes as a cover and, as soon as one supposedly innocent fund raising activity is exposed, I regret to say that the collecting tins will come out under another guise. To tackle this, we need close and careful international co-operation and, in many cases, it may be best to tackle the fund raiser rather than the fund he establishes, excluding or deporting when my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that the activities concerned are effectively funding terrorism elsewhere. It is an area to which the Government will continue to give very close attention and, if there are ways of tightening up our practices which will make a real difference, we will put them into effect speedily.
We all regret the necessity for this Act. It is only on the statute book because of the activities of terrorists. So long as there is terrorism there must be prevention of terrorism. It is a reasonable defence against the very unreasonable acts of terrorists, and I think most people in the country would welcome the renewal of the Act as a way of making life more difficult for the terrorist and helping to prevent further outrages.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell's questions: yes, detainees, as now, are able to seek a solicitor and have an interview with an independent adviser, and the PACE rules, as I understand it, do apply to the exclusion order provision.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act is our principal legislative defence against terrorists of every description. I commend the two orders to your Lordships to make sure it remains so.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I asked her a specific and important question about the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I asked whether it was in limbo because the terms of reference refer to cessation of terrorism and to a lasting peace. I thought

1243
she was going to say—I hope she will say—that it is not in limbo at all but is proceeding. I think we need that on the record.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise. I was trying to avoid going back to some bitty points—not unimportant points but I did not want to go on repeating myself. I apologise most profusely for not referring to that point. I am able to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will indeed take into account as part of the review the possibility of not only a lasting peace, for which we all hope, but also the awful possibility that a ceasefire is not secured and the need for continuing legislation. That will form part of the review.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism (Exclusion Orders) Regulations 1996
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
8.31 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 101.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 80, line 37, leave out from ("programme") to end of line 38 and insert ("does not include an advertisement but includes a teletext transmission (apart from any advertisement on such a transmission) and, in relation to a service, includes any item included in that service, except an advertisement;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will notice that the amendment is accompanied by a star. It is in fact the only amendment on the Marshalled List that is accompanied by a star. The star indicates that it was tabled only yesterday. I apologise to the Minister and to the House that there has not been adequate notice but I was given notice of the matter only a few days ago. I thought it worth while to try to get some clarity on the issue the amendment raises. At this stage of our proceedings it should not take long.
The amendment deals with what I regard as an oddity of the 1990 Act. The Act included for the first time in the remit of what was then the newly-established Broadcasting Standards Council in terms of its statutory position advertisements as well as television programmes. The simple issue I am raising is that there are differences between television advertisements and television programmes and that they need to be dealt with in quite different ways.
Television advertisements are tightly regulated quite separately from the Broadcasting Standards Council. They are much more tightly regulated than programmes. Television advertisements are subject to a pre-vetting arrangement. They cannot go out on the screen unless they have first been approved by the machinery set up by the ITC and the Radio Authority, which both have statutory codes covering advertisement content. Both those bodies have substantial powers of sanction which the Broadcasting Standards Council does not have. They have the right to prevent an advertisement going out; they have the right to stop an advertisement continuing to go out once a complaint has been established; and their ultimate sanction is of much greater severity for those who hold broadcasting licences.
Against that background it seems totally anomalous and undesirable that the Broadcasting Standards Council, which does a relevant job in terms of programme standards in relation to violence, good taste and so on, should have its remit extended to include advertisements. That will produce a good deal of confusion. There have been recent cases where the Broadcasting Standards Council has dealt with a complaint about an advertisement in a way that was totally at odds with what I would call the more serious and substantial regulatory authorities which I have just described.
The way the Broadcasting Standards Council has been dealing with advertisement complaints is in some ways not a matter relating to advertising standards as such but to problems of political correctness. That is an odd thing coming as a form of regulation from this deregulatory government which the Minister quite often recommends to us. I shall not bore him with the details—he has perhaps had details of it—but the Automobile Association recently got into trouble for what was called a sexist advertisement because of the way the woman in an advertisement was portrayed. There are other issues of similar political correctness which seem to excite the Broadcasting Standards Council greatly. I think it is an inappropriate way to deal with this matter.
I am bound to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, were here, as a new and effective chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, and it was suggested to him that he was to have responsibility for the standard of advertisements as well as the standard of what goes into the press, he would think it a very curious concept indeed. It is such an odd concept that I hope the Government will consider whether they might use this Broadcasting Bill to remove it from the otherwise worthy work of the Broadcasting Standards Council. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has explained the amendment and I am pleased to provide some clarification. Even if it does not satisfy him I hope that it will explain the Government's position. We believe that it is natural and reasonable that the BSC considers advertisements as an aspect of broadcasting just as capable of causing offence as programmes and that it should therefore he able to entertain complaints on

1245
advertising, while it is equally appropriate that the commission's other functions—its code drawing, research and monitoring—should extend to advertising.
In 1994–95 the Broadcasting Standards Council received a total of 331 complaints which referred to specific advertisements as opposed to 225 in the previous year. In the context of what appears to be growing public concern at the content of television and radio advertising, we believe that it is right that there should be an independent body to which the public may complain about advertising standards just as they may about television and radio programmes. That is why we cannot support the proposed amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am conscious that the amendment was tabled only yesterday. With the greatest respect to the Minister, perhaps I may say that he is reading the standard brief that is somewhere in the files of the Department of National Heritage. I hope that when the matter is considered a little more thoroughly the Government may feel that the arguments I have put forward may have some substance.
Advertising control in particular is very rigorous. I speak with some personal authority in the matter because I was chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority in the days when it was in control of television advertising and I was previously chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. These are important matters. I am totally in favour of a rigorous control of advertising standards, but they are well and properly controlled in a logical and consistent manner with proper sanctions. In this case the Broadcasting Standards Council is a fifth wheel to the coach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER SCHEMES: BBC UNDERTAKINGS
(" . Where, in consequence of any transfer made in accordance with a transfer scheme, all the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a particular part of the BBC's undertaking are transferred to a relevant transferee—

(a) the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply to the transfer, whether or not they would otherwise so apply, and

(b) that undertaking shall accordingly (whether or not it would otherwise be so regarded) be regarded for the purposes of those Regulations as an undertaking in the nature of a commercial venture.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 38. Both relate to the BBC's transmission services. This is a new amendment but it is not the first time that this issue has been referred to in the course of proceedings on the Bill. It was referred to at Second Reading and at the very end of Report stage, late one evening, we discussed it briefly as well.
Under the Broadcasting Act 1990 IBA transmission services were privatised. At that time there were discussions about whether the BBC transmission
1246
services should also be privatised. It did not happen in the event but I am told that an indication was given that when the BBC Charter came up for review it would he looked at then.
In 1993 an independent report was commissioned from Coopers & Lybrand about the privatisation of BBC transmission services. The result of that review was that, first, privatisation would not really reduce costs and, secondly, it would not increase competition either. We agree with that view and would prefer to see the BBC transmission services remain within the control of the BBC, even if they were with a wholly separate company to the BBC structure itself.
These two amendments take on board the fact that there has been no indication that the Government wish to change their view that the BBC transmission services be privatised. First, in the event that they are, when this Bill has completed its passage through another place, we seek through these amendments to ensure that the approximately 750 employees of the BBC transmission services are treated in no less favourable a way than the IBA employees when its transmission services were privatised.
As regards the application of TUPE—here I must declare very strong reservations about its effect and what protection it gives to employees—at the time of the 1990 Act, it had not been established and accepted as it is today. We feel that because we do not know to whom these services will be sold off, this clause needs to be on the face of the Bill.
The second aspect of the amendments deals with the BBC staff pension scheme. It is a contributory scheme. I gather that employees pay 4.5 per cent. It is a defined benefit scheme with a proper trustee structure not only under the Pensions Act, but before that when there were employee representatives on the scheme. As we know from experience in the past few years, pensions are an absolutely crucial part of overall income.
Equally, one has to bear in mind that a number of employees work in far-flung places throughout the world—places with wonderful-sounding names such as the Ascension Island. I believe that there are also postings to Antigua. There are quite a number of exotic-sounding places. The problem is that the employees are out there and the employment contracts are based in the United Kingdom together with the pension rights. We believe it absolutely necessary for BBC employees, under the Bill, which will eventually become an Act, to have exactly the same kind of provision that exists in the 1990 Act for IBA employees.
I am told that when the 1990 Act saw its passage through this House the view of the employees of the IBA transmission services was, not to put too fine a point on it, that "the Lords did a good job for us". BBC employees are seeking the same kind of attention and concern, and hope that this House does a good job for them too. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised important matters concerning the rights of the staff of the BBC's transmission services which need to

1247
be considered in the context of the transfer of those services to another body. BBC transmission staff have built up a successful and efficient organisation and one of the BBC's priorities in handling the sale will be to ensure that the interests of staff are properly reflected in the arrangements made.
Like Schedule 5 to the Bill as introduced, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness are drawn from Schedule 9 to the 1990 Broadcasting Act which set out the scheme providing for the division of assets of the IBA including the transfer of its transmission services. That relating to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, known as TUPE, is based on paragraph 4(4) and that concerning pensions on paragraph 9 of Schedule 9.
We believe that the amendment applying TUPE provisions is unnecessary. At the time of the 1990 Act it was unclear whether a transfer of this nature was the transfer of a commercial undertaking and so the provision was taken for the avoidance of doubt. It is now clear that TUPE will apply to the transfer contemplated by the Bill and there is therefore no need for the provision.
The position in relation to pensions is more complex. The provisions in the 1990 Act were required because the whole of the IBA's business was to be divided between the ITC, the Radio Authority and the transmission business. The last formed a significant part of the IBA's work. But transmission is a small part of the BBC's overall activities and involves about 750 out of a total of some 22,000 staff. The BBC pension scheme will continue in existence and those staff transferring to the new transmission business will have the same options as other BBC employees moving employment; that is, to leave their accrued benefits in the BBC scheme where they will be guaranteed to increase each year in line with the retail price index up to 10 per cent., or to take a transfer value payment (TVP) to their new employer's scheme, or to take a TVP to a personal pension arrangement.
I understand that the BBC will be offering independent financial advice to all those affected and that the TVP will be a full and fair valuation of the employees' pension rights built up during their period of employment with the BBC.
I also understand that the BBC believes that the provisions of the Broadcasting Bill, as currently drafted, are sufficiently wide for the transfer scheme to include the transfer of pension commitments. But I recognise that this is a matter of critical concern to the staff of BBC transmission and the Government therefore agree to consider the issue further so that we can reach a definitive and satisfactory agreement with the BBC as to the position on pensions. If necessary, the Government will bring forward an amendment for the avoidance of doubt along the lines of what is provided for the BSC at paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness reassurance as to the position as regards the two amendments.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, that was a very detailed reply to an amendment tabled only a short while ago, so I am particularly appreciative of its content and look forward to the result of the considerations that the Minister kindly indicated the Government will apply.
Perhaps I may make one or two points. Although the IBA transmission services were privatised, the fact is that on the sites one finds former IBA staff as part of a company, which I believe is called NTL, and BBC staff working side by side. The IBA services were privatised and, I believe, purchased at something like £70 million; today, they are worth about £300 million. Given that background, their pension scheme, which is still a defined benefits scheme, has obviously been very successful. It has been honoured by the new company and works very well.
The understandable concern of BBC staff is that if the company is privatised to an unknown company, it may not end up as a defined benefits pension scheme but as a money purchase scheme, which would be inferior to the one that exists for the employees. I have heard figures of £100 million rising to £200 million as the possible value of the BBC transmission services. As regards TUPE I received the answer I expected, but it is nice to have it on the record. All that said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 106 [General Interpretation]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 82, line 27, after ("III") insert (", IVA").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to restrictions on holding of licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 88, leave out line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 to 45. Those of your Lordships who were present at the time will recall that in Committee we discussed Amendments Nos. 153 and 154, tabled by my noble friend Lord Chelmsford, as a result of concerns expressed by the cable industry about the attribution of audience time against the 15 per cent. television audience share limit proposed in the Bill. It has not been our intention that programme services provided for local delivery service by another channel which holds a UK licence should count towards the cable services' share. We originally felt that the proposed amendments were unnecessary and this intention was reflected in the Bill as drafted. It is on that basis that the Government resisted my noble friend's amendments in Committee. However, once we had had the opportunity to consider with our legal advisers further representations from my noble friend, we concluded that the Bill was after all

1249
defective in that respect. I am sorry that we got it wrong, and must apologise for any confusion caused by my earlier response.
The amendments, taken together, will ensure that those services which are simply relayed by the cable operator are attributed not to the local delivery service provider but to the holder of the licence to provide the programme service in question. Audience share will be attributed, as intended, to the person having editorial control over the programme, regardless of the means of delivery.
I hope that the amendments will address satisfactorily the concerns raised by my noble friend. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 41 to 45:
Page 89, line 7, leave out (", (0").
Page 89, line 16, leave out from ("provides") to ("may") in line 20 and insert ("one or more satellite television services to which this sub-paragraph applies").
Page 89, line 23, leave out ("service") and insert ("services").
Page 89, line 26, at end insert—
("(3A) Sub-paragraph (3) applies to any satellite television service (other than a non-domestic satellite service) which is provided on a non-allocated frequency and either—

(a) appears to the Commission to be intended for general reception in the United Kingdom (whether or not it appears to them to be also intended for general reception elsewhere), or

(b) is (to any extent) relayed by a local delivery service.").

Page 89, line 27, leave out ("sub-paragraph (3)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 99, line 16, leave out ("20") and insert ("25").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have visited this before. We are considering the question of the arbitrary decision to exclude the Mirror Group, basically, from the benefits of the new broadcasting world. The Minister has replied on this point previously, but perhaps I may raise one particular point now. I mentioned at an earlier stage that there was a legal question about the position with regard to the Government's policy before possible European Court action. Has the Minister had the time and opportunity to consider that? Can he give us a view on it? I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in responding, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised one point so I shall confine my remarks to that particular point. The noble Lord has once again suggested that the Mirror Group may have a case under the European Convention on Human Rights that our policy is in breach of the convention. I can confirm that, having taken legal advice on the application of Articles 10 and 14 of the convention, we are confident that our policy is within the terms and spirit of the convention, and for that reason we do not feel that this part of the noble Lord's arguments takes our debate any further forward.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is now on the record and will presumably need to be tested and considered in another place. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1250
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 102, line 54, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be treated as holding a licence if the licence is held by a person connected with him and shall be treated as providing a service if the service is provided by a person who is connected with him in relation to the licence under which the service is provided.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment which will prevent possible avoidance of the provisions in Paragraph 8 of Part IV to Schedule 2. That paragraph provides that: a person who runs a local newspaper with 20 per cent. or more of the local market may not control local radio or digital sound programme service licensees whose services account for more than 50 per cent. of the radio points attributable to the relevant area. It also sets a corresponding restriction preventing local radio or digital sound programme service licensees whose services account for more than 50 per cent. of the radio points from controlling a corporate body which runs a local newspaper with 20 per cent. or more of the market in the relevant area.
The amendment will ensure that, in calculating the percentage of radio points attributable to a particular local radio licence holder, proper account is taken of the points attributable to services provided by others with whom the licence holder has a close business or personal relationship. Such "connected persons" are defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act. With your Lordships' permission, unless pressed to do so, I shall not weary the House by repeating the definition here. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No, 49:
Page 124, line 7, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 182.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 50:
Line 4, after ("1990,") insert ("to make provision about rights to televise sporting or other events of national interest,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I rise to make three points. First, I express my appreciation for the way in which my noble friend the Minister has handled the Bill. He has deservedly won widespread praise for the way in which he has listened and responded to points made in the House. We are extremely grateful to him for that.

1251
I understand that because of the pressures on officials and parliamentary draftsmen of producing the 2,500 words of the first set of amendments moved today, my noble friend has not been able to bring forward in this House amendments which he had hoped to table on the regional issues which have been extensively debated. I assume that he will tell the House that they will be tabled in another place. Again, I should like to thank my noble friend for the attention that he has given to that important issue. The clause as originally drafted was certainly helpful and it has been improved during the Bill's passage through this House. I believe that one of the great strengths of ITV has been its regional broadcasting. It is extremely important that so much has been done to safeguard that for the future.
I should like to refer to just one other subject. Again, it arises from an amendment which was promised and which will no doubt appear in another place. I was not able to be present on 7th March for our second day of Report stage when there was a curious love-in between all parts of the House in favour of monopoly, and particularly in favour of that monopoly represented by ITN. ITN has provided an admirable news service of which we can be proud. It has also provided good competition for the BBC. However, I am bound to say that the experience of some who have to pay the bills is that it has been quite extraordinarily expensive. It has not had any competitive pressures to bring down its prices, particularly because it is well understood that whatever warehousing arrangements there may be, Carlton and Granada control the company and it is desirable that they should be customers and not just suppliers.
We were told by my noble friend the Minister who responded to the debate that the Government had considered carefully the issue of having a monopoly and had concluded that they could respond to the particular situation by allowing ITN to bring forward other alternative suppliers which the industry could then select. However, that process will happen only once every 10 years. That is a pretty odd form of competition. It was suggested that at least all of the ITN companies are needed to sustain a successful news service. I do not find that a convincing argument.
During the debate there was great praise from a number of noble Lords about the quality of the news service provided by Sky Television. It is a myth to suggest that one must have all 15 of the present ITV customers in order to sustain the service. One of the things we should see is the costs fairly spread, in particular to Channel 4 which will be in a strong financial position after the changes that we debated extensively. At present it pays only prices which reflect marginal costs.
It is an odd arrangement under which the companies which pay the bills have no control over prices. I must say that some of those prices have been excessive and I am surprised that suddenly there appears to be such universal support in this House, in particular from the Government, for monopoly. I hope that the issue will be looked at again in another place and that it will be properly debated, because I fear that it was not in this
1252
House. Having made that one set of critical remarks, I am pleased to support the Bill and I thank my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has presented it to the House.
9 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, tomorrow is the day of the vernal equinox but the real sign that night has fallen is the fact that the Broadcasting Bill is before your Lordships' House. There is something intriguing about the fact that every stage of the Bill has ended late at night before a dwindling band of what I can only call "broadcasting groupies".
With the support of numerous colleagues, I had intended to table on Third Reading certain amendments seeking to achieve the purpose of those which were withdrawn after government objection during the Committee and Report stages. The purpose of those amendments was to bring the BBC under the complaints procedures of the new Broadcasting Complaints Commission, specifically in relation to issues concerning impartiality and objectivity. In the event, I and my colleagues decided not to do so.
During the progress of the Bill it became increasingly clear that the Government, supported and not to say actively lobbied by the BBC and in consultation with the BSC and BCC, were determined not to accept the amendment nor to make any concessions on the issue. Their principle argument of substance was that the BBC Governors should be given the chance to implement effectively the new agreement that accompanied the Charter which passed through this House on a take-note Motion on 9th January. In support of that proposition they point to certain measures already embarked upon by the BBC.
It is said that the corporation has established a programme complaints unit to investigate and rule on serious complaints. There is a strong case to be made on the idea that any complaints unit of that kind should be an independent body not staffed by BBC officials. However, the Charter and Agreement make no provision for that. We are told that the BBC is also drawing up a new impartiality and accuracy code under the new Agreement, which incidentally incorporates the section in the Broadcasting Act 1990 on impartiality.
Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I received a letter in my morning mail today from Mr. Marmaduke Hussey, Chairman of the BBC, for whom I have the greatest affection, admiration and respect. He set out how the system is intended to work. It is clear, and one must accept, that the Governors of the BBC have acted and intend to act in good faith and in the public interest. However, as I have said on numerous occasions in this House and elsewhere, that is not the point. The problem is not the drafting of codes and guidelines, which is not a difficult matter because anyone can do it. I did it for the Radio Authority, and it has been done for the Independent Television Commission and even for the BBC. The point is the enforcement of those codes and guidelines. Unlike the commercial sector, the BBC has no independent regulator. The complaints process is entirely under BBC control.

1253
The complaints process runs as follows. The corporation establishes its own codes and guidelines. If they are ignored, as they frequently are, someone may complain. BBC officials are then asked to advise on the complaint. On that advice the Governors of the BBC make their judgment. There is of course a right of appeal open to the complainant, but your Lordships will not be surprised to know that that right of appeal is to the Governors of the BBC. We understand that there is ultimately the possibility of judicial review. It may well be that in future some person or organisation will have recourse to that in law. It is an unsatisfactory situation and we are stuck with it for the next 10 years. To use the more formal and resonant language of the BBC Charter:
"It shall continue in force until the 31st day of December 2006".
The amendments in my name and those of my colleagues were withdrawn at earlier stages of the Bill in the hope that the Government would at least accept the force of the argument and offer some solution or compromise to deal with the problem. That has not happened. Their resistance to any substantial change in this context has been absolute and it does not appear to me to be based on any convincing argument of principle or of practice. Indeed, it seems to be based on the well-known rubric, "My mind is made up. Kindly do not confuse me with the facts".
The Minister was rightly congratulated on the flexibility which he displayed in listening to the arguments on the subject of televised sporting events, coming back to your Lordships' House with a government amendment designed to resolve the problem. I only wish that I were in a position to congratulate him on showing a similar flexibility with regard to independent regulation on matters of political objectivity and impartiality. I hope that I do not offend the House by saying that some of us regard that issue as marginally more important than sporting events.
This Bill will now go to another place where I hope that the issue reflected in my amendments will be subject to further debate and perhaps even to a change of approach by the Government. In the meantime, I hope that the Government will monitor carefully the implementation of the BBC's new Charter and Agreement.
Finally, I must state my view that the case for bringing the BBC out of the archaic concept of the Royal Charter into the real world of statutory regulation is as strong now as it has even been. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said on more than one occasion, we must understand that that is a closed chapter. I find that difficult to accept.
My colleagues and I—and there are many of us who have not yet spoken—would be reassured, as I said before, if the Government would only agree that there is a real problem. I realise that the Government and their advisers, the officials in the department, may have thought that our amendments would have some unfortunate side effects of a commercial, financial and administrative nature in seeking to achieve their purpose. They may even have thought that our amendments were not the best way in which to achieve that purpose. But if they would only concede the validity
1254
of the purpose and the principle that it is right and proper to bring the BBC, like every other British broadcasting organisation, under independent regulation, it should not be impossible to devise a solution which would be acceptable to all concerned. I hope that we shall not have to wait until—in the words of the Charter—the 31st day of December, 2006.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I was introduced in this House on 9th January. Therefore, this Bill was my maiden Bill. It has been a great experience to follow it through all its stages, not least because I have had the opportunity to act as spear carrier during that time to my noble friend Lord Thomson. I have intervened slightly improperly ahead of him to say that although it is right to congratulate the Minister on his stamina and skill, my admiration for him is matched by my admiration for my noble friend, who has carried out a tour de force in his assiduousness during our considerations of the Bill. I can understand why many in broadcasting still look to him for advice and help.
It has been an interesting Bill. I have been worried occasionally by the way in which the BSC, in its new form, is seen as a solution to almost every problem and seems to have more and more suggestions of powers and responsibilities thrust upon it.
Indeed, to part from what has been in the main close collaboration with the official Opposition Front Bench, I sometimes worry that if places were changed at any time in the future, the new government of New Labour may be just as enthusiastic for a little "nannying" of the broadcasters as are their predecessors. That is where, on a number of occasions at the witching hour, I have come into conflict with, in truth, some old friends, the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Orr-Ewing, because I accept, and on these Benches we have always accepted, the icy logic of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and his colleagues have been proposing. We have been rather happier that the Government have not followed that icy logic to the conclusion. We believe that the BBC, with its responsibilities under the Charter, is worthy of confidence.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, received the letter from Marmaduke Hussey. I remember—and it is somewhere in the archives of the Guardian—that when he was appointed, liberal consciences were aroused because they thought that he was a Thatcherite placeman there to do dirty deeds in the BBC. I actually wrote a letter to the Guardian saying that we should give him a chance and that quite often when people are given such responsibilities they accept them with gusto as a kind of Becket figure. I do not know whether Marmaduke Hussey has become such a figure, although he has certainly become so to Members in certain parts of the House. But I believe that he can leave at the end of his term of office feeling content that he has left the BBC intact and duly protected to enable it to carry out its role as the first bastion of quality television in the country. I believe that he should take great credit for that.
The problem that I have had with my old friends could probably best be summed up in the debate on Report where the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that he found 85 per cent. of the BBC's output to he all right

1255
but not the sex and violence involved. Incidentally, the noble Lord then went on to criticise the broadcasting of a film which, when I later checked, turned out to be an Oscar-winning film of some social content; but of course it offended him. The noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, has consistently criticised the BBC's news content, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, does not like the BBC's coverage of history and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, wants uniformity in regulation. Indeed, if I have followed his remarks correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, would just like to horsewhip all the BBC Governors.
The point is that any public body such as the BBC will have a whole range of people who find fault with it. It is the 15 per cent. overlaps that cause the hostility. The truth is that the BBC and, from what I have seen, the Governors have carried out their duties with great assiduousness. Everyone has praised the work of Marmaduke Hussey and expressed confidence in his successor. The House has debated the BBC's Charter at great length. In contrast to the appeal just made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I advise the Minister to resist, stick by his guns and carry on. I say that because, in contrast to the 1990 legislation, a very practical Broadcasting Bill has been brought forward which is free from the ideological prejudices that warped and distorted its predecessor.
I have one final point to make to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. We are not talking about monopoly so far as concerns ITN or, indeed, saying that it should have a lifelong right to provide news to the third channel. However, many of us are deeply concerned that if news providing to the third channel were fragmented it would not be competition in the way that the noble Lord expressed; it would be a deterioration of service to the viewers in the individual regions. Not only would that be a dis-service to viewers; it would also rob our system of the balance of a good quality news service on that third channel. If for cost cutting reasons—and the noble Lord mentioned costs—the third channel were to lose its high quality news service, the commercial channel would come to regret it. Those are the thoughts of a new boy going through his first Bill. I conclude by saying that the admiration that I have had for the Minister's stamina, patience and good humour leaves me with a great impression of the ministerial quality in this place.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I fully agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said but with practically nothing said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However, I should like to make a few brief comments, especially on Part V of the Bill. Although I shall be critical of the Government's policy, I echo what other noble Lords have said. I should like to make it clear that I intend no criticism of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who has piloted the Bill through the House with great skill and courtesy. It is a good principle not to shoot the messenger who brings bad tidings, as my noble friend has had to do on a number of occasions in relation to government policy.
1256
The trouble started with the presentation of the BBC's Charter and Agreement to the House in a form that could not be amended. In my view, that was a denial of the rights and duties of Parliament and, indeed, of democracy. I hope that no important issue of national importance will ever again be dealt with in such a way.
The shortcomings of the BBC's Charter and Agreement, especially those relating to the handling of complaints on impartiality, could have been rectified by amending Part V of the Bill so that the BSC could deal with such complaints. However, despite the many amendments proposed and apart from a few minor concessions, all the amendments have been turned down by the Government mainly on the ground that the BBC must be allowed to operate under the new charter and agreement on the principle of, "Let's see how it goes".
In my view that is wholly unsatisfactory. The logic of the Government's case for treating the BBC and commercial broadcasting differently is unsound, and the record of the BBC in self-regulation is not all that good. The most recent example indicating a failure by the BBC Governors to instil in their staff high principles and enforce them occurred on the very day after the Dunblane killings when the final line of the comedy "Waiting for God" was,
"Why don't you go out and machine gun some children?".
That the BBC issued an apology through the press does nothing to allay the fears of many of us that all is not well with the direction of the BBC under the largely self-regulatory regime. I believe, sadly, that although we have done what we can to improve the Bill, it leaves this House in an unsatisfactory state. We must hope that its shortcomings will be corrected during its passage through another place.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I do not know whether to be relieved or angry that I am not on the hit list of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, although I must say that I agree with some of the things that he says. I wish briefly to associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Chalfont, who all through this Bill has presented his case on regulation with both skill and tenacity. To other noble colleagues I offer the same congratulations.
This is an important Bill and many important issues have been satisfactorily resolved thanks to the good will and expertise of noble Lords on all sides of this House, and thanks, too, to the understanding—save for one blind spot—and invariable courtesy of the Minister, to whom we are all grateful; though I for one could have wished that just on one occasion we might have been a little higher in the batting order. However, one major issue remains and it will not go away—that of the mechanics of regulation.
The Government have said that all will be well and that the additional safeguards built into the Bill and into the new BBC Charter and Agreement will stiffen the new BSC and the BBC Governors' sinews in this respect. I have, sadly, to say that there are those of us who do not agree with that view and who believe that fundamental weaknesses remain which it is all too likely will emerge during the next few years.

1257
At this late stage it would be counter-productive and entirely inappropriate to regurgitate old arguments. I believe we sang the best songs, but the Government, though perhaps half wanting to hum the tunes themselves, chose in the final event not to listen to them but to their various advisers instead. I hope they will not come to regret that decision. I can promise them that we who have certain views in this matter will continue to take an active and, dare I say, inquisitorial interest in this facet of the Bill. I wish the Bill success as it proceeds in a northerly direction.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I, too, wish to join the gang of supporters who have praised the way the Minister has conducted the Bill through the House. I particularly praise the courtesy he has shown to noble Lords in all parts of the House. However, I can give only three-quarter-hearted support to the Motion that this Bill do now pass. It might have been full support if I was quite sure that the Bill would properly protect the small ITV regional companies. From the outset I have maintained a consistent theme to try to preserve the very best of regional television from the ravages of a rapidly changing industry.
I tabled—and indeed we debated—at Committee stage an amendment designed to involve the Secretary of State in any future attempt to undermine the network pricing system; the industry device that allows small ITV companies to buy mainstream ITV programmes at a fair rate. My noble friend assured me of a compromise proposal to be introduced at Third Reading. Here we are, but here it is not. Although my noble friend very helpfully wrote to say that it will be introduced in another place it seems that the pressure of bigger amendments has squeezed me out. I am afraid that it is a familiar story. The big issue today is to save our big sporting fixtures for viewers of terrestrial television. The big idea in this very big Bill is digital television—another provision presumably framed for the big companies—not to mention the change in the ownership rules which have already sparked mergers and takeovers. The "big" will be allowed to grow into giants. But what happens to the "small"—those who serve their regions with loyalty, commitment and dedication to local affairs?
It is now widely accepted that the Broadcasting Act 1990 contained, if I may put it politely, a succession of flaws. Perhaps it tried to do too much too soon. I should not like your Lordships' House to be responsible for making the same mistake. I am greatly in favour of the principle of the Bill, but the detail requires much more work yet. So today we are sending a half-finished garment with its trailing loose ends—the small bits—to another place. We must rely on its reputation as guardian of the "small" to complete the tailoring and to avoid a stitch-up.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the purpose of my involvement with the Bill, with other Members of your Lordships' House, has been to seek to safeguard the quality, range and time given to regional broadcasting, in the event of a bid, and to ensure the quality of broadcasting through the medium of the Welsh language.
1258
It is satisfying and pleasant to be able to express my appreciation of the Government's response to the anxieties expressed about the future of English language broadcasting in the event of a bid. However, I note the caveat raised by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. I look forward very much to seeing the amendments which the Government have promised to bring forward in another place. I trust that they will be satisfying to the producers and the viewers of regional programmes in England, Scotland and Wales.
As we bid farewell to the Bill, I have a deep sense of frustration about Clause 69. I very much hope that it is not the case that the Government have decided, "This is how it is and this is how it will he". It is still my hope that the Government will come to see as part of the public expenditure on S4C the support of the Welsh language and that they will bring forward amendments to Clause 69. However, I cannot leave the clause without expressing my appreciation of the contribution of all those Members of your Lordships' House who have participated in the debates on it. I refer to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who intervened this evening, the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare—he has been steadfast in his support—Lord Thomson of Monifieth, Lord Elis-Thomas, Lord Geraint and my noble friend Lady Dean from the Labour Front Bench. I am sure that Wales and S4C are very much in their debt.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for the sensitive—that is the word which comes to my mind—manner in which he has handled the Bill and the attention he has given to our amendments. If the rules of the House allow me to say so, I would say: "Diolch yn fawr iawn".
9.30 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, like others, I feel that it is sad that we have spent one day on the Second Reading, four days on the Committee stage, two days on the Report stage and one on the Third Reading. The common factor is that the important amendments all came after 11 o'clock at night. That was to ensure that no one could divide the House. It was purely accidental, of course, because the Chief Whip has been trying to ensure that we make progress with the Bill. However, it has not worked out and we have not had a genuine opportunity to put forward our points. We could well have done so. There is good information and experience in all parts of the House and we could have had a good debate and possibly persuaded the Minister of our case. He has been wonderful throughout, patient and considerate, but he does not seem to have been allowed to persuade people higher in the hierarchy or in the department to accept our views.
It is strange that the Government insist that the utilities like gas, electricity and water have a regulatory authority. However, the one organisation for which there is no regulatory authority except itself, arid which is both judge and jury in its own case, is the BBC. It has more influence on every home in the land than any other element of our civilisation. This must he given proper

1259
consideration in the other place and I hope that the points put forward by everyone in this House will be examined there.
We had hoped that the BSC would be provided with some bite and that was even echoed at one stage by the Benches opposite. There was a general feeling that the time had come to say: "Enough is enough in the last 10 years of the Charter", before we go to other facilities. Many of my friends and I believe that it is right not to go to a Royal Charter. There are 443 other Royal Charters, the idea that it is exceptional and we cannot debate anything that is in the Royal Charter is for the birds. It is not for the Houses of Parliament.
If we have legislation in another place and debate it up here, I and many others will welcome it. How can we have the ITC regulating one half and the other half regulating itself, especially if it receives £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money to operate? I hope that taste, decency and impartiality will all be covered by the BSC.
We discovered last April that the producer guidelines were voluntary. We had all praised the 250 pages of the document on producer guidelines and said that it was good, beautifully worded. The only trouble was that no one ever read it, or if they did, they never took any action on it. All kinds of problems filtered into public service broadcasting.
I wish to give two examples of that. Today I received a letter from Duke Hussey which was sensible and encouraging. I hoped that he would ensure that the governors—responsible, respectable people—would take action. The two examples I take occurred during the last year. One was a programme called "Good Fellows" which was shown last April and repeated in June. The programme occupied 145 minutes in the evening with 212 occurrences of the "f' word. "We uphold taste and decency", we are told, but no one seems to have been ticked off or penalised in any way.
There were other examples, but no action was taken—particularly in relation to the programme on the Japanese nuclear bomb. Previously, six years before, it had shown a Marxist from the United States saying that the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Japan led to the Cold War, which endured for 25 to 30 years or more. An apology was received the first time round. There was no apology the second time, and no rectification of history. Fortunately, six renowned British history professors came forward and said that it was totally untrue. We squeezed an apology out of the organisation the first time round, but not the second time. So this is continuing, even though there are codes of conduct. All of us who are sitting here now sincerely hope that the new governors will be able to take action.
There is another awful example. Alas, the day after the shooting of the children in Dunblane, the amazing last line of a comedy programme was: "Why don't you go out and machine-gun some children?". The Secretary of the BBC apologised when the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, got in touch with him. Apparently, the complaints commission would not take the matter seriously. He admitted that he had made an apology.
1260
However, it turned out that he thought it unnecessary to apologise on the TV channels but had apologised in a newspaper. That was the Secretary of the BBC.
Most of what the BBC does is very good. But certain opportunities seem to filter through to lesser people who totally disobey the rules. Incidentally, I hope that the new code of conduct now being written will be firmer. I also hope, as we once suggested in an amendment, that those people who hold producer or editorial responsibilities, read the code, sign it and activate it, as you have to sign the Official Secrets Act on entering the Ministry of Defence. (And, by the way, when you leave you have to sign it again.) The same should apply to people who have these huge responsibilities for the well-being of the mental state of our nation.
I return to congratulating Duke Hussey on what he has done. He has achieved a considerable amount. He got rid of 5,000 people, and the organisation goes on very well without them. That must have saved quite a lot of money. I believe he now has 20,000 people. The huge list of those taking part in drama of any sort goes on forever. The credit titles seem to pour forth from the screen. I hope that he will make further economies.
Finally, as I ought to have said in my speech last time, some of the young people are responsible for the irresponsibility shown in certain selected items. Many of them enter the BBC when they are quite young and make their mark. After they have been there only a year or two, with no loyalty either to the BBC which they serve or to the nation which they also serve, they go off to Hollywood and get jobs at four times what they can raise in this country. Such people should be disciplined, and perhaps penalised, as a result. I hope that before the Bill leaves both Houses, we shall give some penalising powers to the new BSC.
Lord Renton: My Lords, first, I repeat the congratulations that have been offered to my noble friend Lord Inglewood. He has shown the most amazing grasp of the tremendous detail in this Bill and of the amendments moved in relation to it. He deserves congratulation.
I gladly support the Bill so far as it goes. But it does not go far enough in certain respects. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind over some outstanding matters as the Bill goes through another place.
The BBC has some great achievements to its credit. But there are other matters on which I have to say it fails badly to this day. I shall come to chapter and verse on this in a moment. My main concern relates to the amount of violence and sex on television. Up to now neither the broadcasters nor the staff of the BBC, nor always the staff of the independent companies, nor the British Standards Council between them have succeeded in reducing substantially the amount of violence or explicit sex on television, even though the governors and staff of the BBC all claim that they are dealing with the problem.
At about the time that the Bill was introduced, it produced for public circulation a most interesting document, headed: "The BBC, a responsible broadcaster". It deals with:

1261
"Taste and decency … the watershed … violence … the level of on-screen violence … producer guidelines published and strengthened by the BBC [and] the BBC's responsible approach to buying and classifying films".
I only wish that they would practise what they preach there.
I shall give your Lordships a little of the chapter and verse. The first page is headed:
"The BBC seems to abide by high standards of taste and decency".
It goes on to say that the BBC is:
"required to do all it can to ensure that its services 'do not include anything which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder or to be offensive w public feeling'".
That is splendid, but it has not kept up to those standards.
Only the governors can intervene under the law as it stands and under the law as it will stand. They are to be the only regulators. But they are not independent. The independent television companies have an independent regulator. There is no reason why the BBC should not have one. Yes, the governors are splendid people. The vice-chairman is sitting opposite us and he is a man for whom we all have a high regard. But despite him and all the other governors, those defects have continued week after week. The Government must apply their mind to this matter. They must have a fresh mind on that point.
The next page of the document deals with the watershed. It says:
"The BBC is committed to maintaining the effectiveness of the watershed … The 9 pm watershed works well and is widely understood".
That is not true. There are three reasons why the watershed fails to give the protection to young people that it should give. The first is that some violence is occasionally displayed before 9 p.m. I have seen it myself and been rather surprised. The second reason is that many children, as we all know, sit up much later than 9 p.m., especially if their parents are going out for the evening, and that can often happen. Thirdly, many households have videos. Whether turned on by the children or parents, videos can be used to record during the watershed period late programmes which can be seen by the children on another day or another evening. So what is claimed about the watershed cannot be sustained.
The next page deals with violence on television. It claims:
"Over recent years, the BBC has tackled the issue of violence on television".
I shall not trouble your Lordships with the whole of the contents of that page, though one could pick it to pieces. At the bottom of the page it says:
"sufficient information [is] to be given to viewers to enable them to decide whether they want a particular programme to be watched in their households".
That would be splendid. However, I must confess that, as a widower living alone I often turn on the television, especially at weekends, but I have never once heard that
1262
warning given. If such a warning is needed, I suggest that the programme is likely to be one that should not be shown at all.
The next page concerns the amount of on-screen violence that is shown. It suggests that it has fallen markedly in recent years. I wish that were true. When one studies the complaints bulletins, one knows that violence is still being shown. Many of the complaints are upheld, not only of the BBC but of independent companies also. A rather interesting sentence states,
"Most"—
I emphasise that word—
"violence occurs after the watershed".
That confirms the view I expressed earlier that some violence is shown before the watershed.
Under "guidelines for its producers", the document states:
"The BBC requires producers and directors to avoid sadistic violence".
I do not know whether "Trip-Trap" was a programme referred to as being one that I ment:.oned, but on Saturday 9th March, after we had completed proceedings on Report stage, that film was shown from 9 until 10.30 in the evening. The film concerned prosperous people living in a large house and the husband cruelly assaulted his beautiful blonde wife. He pulled her by the hair when he knocked her to the ground and two quite young children were in the background. I felt so strongly that it should not have been shown, especially after the professions of innocence contained in this document, that I made a formal complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Council.
As has been said, unless something is done, we must suffer 10 more years of uncertainty. I say to my noble friend Lord Inglewood—and I hope he will tell his Secretary of State—that instead of waiting 10 more years, let us deal with the matter in the ways suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others; that is, during the next 10 weeks when the Bill is passing through another place. If we do that, posterity may be grateful to us.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, at this time of the evening I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others who spoke like him. My noble friend Lord McNally gave his views, which follow the traditionally libertarian position of these Benches. When he spoke I thought I was hearing my former colleague, the late Lord Bonham-Carter, on the same subject in the 1990 Bill. However, I shall confine myself to what is the more traditional habit of Third Reading debates after a long Bill, especially since, when I was passing the office of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on my way to Hansard a few moments ago, I happened to glimpse Nottingham Forest playing Bayern Munich. There is still apparently some good football on terrestrial television and it occurred to me that I could be home watching it instead of participating in the final stages of this Bill. Perhaps tomorrow night I shall have that good fortune.

1263
It is with some pleasure that I view the final passing of this Bill from your Lordships' House and an end to the long days and nights that we have experienced. It has been a long and complex Bill. I join with everybody else in paying tribute to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for his stamina, his patience, his good humour and the clarity with which he deployed the Government's case on the Bill. It is a major Bill introduced into your Lordships' House first rather than the other place, as so often happens, and it has been a heavy responsibility.
It is, as has been said, a much better Bill than its predecessor, the 1990 Bill, which was disastrous for independent television. I think we can all say with a modest glow that it is now an even better Bill than it was when it was introduced into your Lordships' House. It is now to be sent to another place, and the fact that it is a better Bill is, first of all—we might as well give ourselves a little pat on the back—due to the persuasiveness of your Lordships on all sides of the House in the arguments that you have put to the Minister. But it is also due to the willingness of the Minister to respond to the arguments and to propose quite a number of improvements to the Bill. However, as has been said in other quarters and from other points of view, there are still further improvements to be made to the Bill which we hope may be made in another place.
I echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, about the position of the smaller regional companies, about which I feel as strongly as he does. The original clause that the Government put in the Bill on these matters was a good clause and a reassuring clause. The Minister was willing to see it strengthened in various ways. I fully accept what he said in his correspondence—that the sheer pressure of the draftmanship of amendments has prevented the promises he made being fulfilled here on Third Reading. But we shall all of us watch carefully what happens in another place to make sure that the strengthening of the regional safeguards does take place. In particular, I echo what the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said about fulfilling the commitment on the network pricing system and giving the Independent Television Commission the necessary responsibilities and powers to safeguard that.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is not still with us. I hope very much that the question of conditional access for analogue broadcasting, which we came very close to introducing in the Bill, will be followed through in another place. Then there is the matter of unbundling, where we became a little unbundled ourselves earlier this afternoon. I hope very much that it may also be pursued and brought to an effective conclusion when it goes to another place.
Finally, I know I carry the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, with me in the hope that another place will do better, not only on the Channel 4 funding system, but on the whole ITV funding system than we were able to with the Minister this evening.
I again thank the Minister for the way in which he has handled us. A great debt of gratitude is also due to those who have been behind him—to the staff in the
1264
department, the draftsmen and the others who have worked very hard on what has been a complicated Bill, dealing with many different aspects of future broadcasting policy.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I shall not conduct another Second Reading debate, although I am not happy with the broadcasting landscape described in this Bill, a landscape increasingly dominated by commercialism and the commercial giants, where quality values are bound to be diminished. However, I want to thank everyone involved in the conduct of the Bill. I join in the thanks to the Minister for the courtesy and positive way in which he has handled it and for the few concessions we have managed to wring out of him—not enough, but I thank him for what concessions there are. I thank the draftsmen who have drafted the Bill, and especially I would like to thank my own team who have done most of the work. Most of them are now, quite sensibly, in bed—
Lord Renton: They are watching television!
Lord Donoughue: They are watching television? Maybe—except my noble friend Lady Dean who, as always, is here to the sleepy end.
It made the Bill more interesting that it came here first and not to the Commons. Someone said to me that that was because it was non-controversial. I was intrigued by that. I have never before seen such a volume of briefing and lobbying. Technically the Bill was complex and involved much homework, which on this side is unpaid homework. It was in some ways a political minefield. The media pressure groups were remarkable to see because they care very much about what we do in their area. It was not possible to please all of them and I am delighted to say that we upset some of them. We had only two Divisions, which is not many for a large Bill. But they were good Divisions. There were 209 votes for the Government and 327 against. That seems to me to be about right, and long may it continue.
Our big vote was on sport, which ironically was not in the Bill at all. The other issue—the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred to it—was conditional access. It was painful that we did not pass the amendment, but I am sure that another place will return to the issue. If we can knock some sense into the Department of Trade and Industry—I know that is a thought of fantasy—we may get progress. There is work still to be done, but the House can be pleased and proud of itself that we have cleared the way. We have identified some of the landmines. There is still the unbundling of sporting highlights to be put right. But I should like to thank all concerned for their contributions to the Bill.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, this Bill will provide a framework for the development of digital terrestrial broadcasting and provide new freedoms for media companies to grow and succeed in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
In introducing the Bill, I pointed out that it covers an enormously complex range of issues, and looked forward to listening to your Lordships speaking with the

1265
plurality of voices we in government are keen to encourage. Our debates have shown that this House fully reflects the range of views that have been aired in the wider world.
I also expressed the hope that our debates would proceed on a non-partisan basis. I believe that this wish has been realised, and I thank all your Lordships, but in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for that. While it may often seem that the apparatus of government is largely switched to "transmit", it can also be tuned to "receive". I hope I have shown the Government's willingness to listen and respond to well reasoned suggestions for improving our proposals, which we brought forward with some speed to enable digital terrestrial to get off to an early start in this country.
Time does not permit me to cover all the contributions that have been made to the debate. Although it may be thought invidious to single out particular individuals, it would be equally remiss of me if I failed to acknowledge the main protagonists and to put a number of points on the record. Perhaps pride of place should go to the movers of the first amendment at Committee stage, whose efforts on behalf of sport briefly secured them pole position in the Bill. They gave the Government a clear indication and they achieved a notable victory in the Division Lobbies which more or less coincided with the Leader of the Opposition drafting the death warrant of your Lordships' House in its present form—or so he hopes. It was an emphatic response which your Lordships gave to our consultation exercise and gave a very clear indication of which of the options in our consultation document your Lordships favour. I believe that the amendments which were agreed earlier today show that the Government have taken heed.
This is a Bill to take broadcasting into the next century. Digital technology will revolutionise broadcasting. There will be more channels and more choice. For the legislators, I fear, that could mean more opportunities for getting it wrong. Our debates on the provisions relating to digital terrestrial broadcasting have shown how difficult it is to legislate for technologies whose potential is as yet unrealised and sometimes unclear. But I believe that Parts II and III of the Bill have been improved in ways which will help give digital terrestrial broadcasting the best possible prospects when it is launched.
There was a danger that these debates might have allowed the technophile sheep to gambol in the glorious fields of digital multiplexing and non-switched broad-hand communication, leaving the technophobe goats to shake their heads and retreat elsewhere to more convivial pastures or even to watch television. I am pleased that that did not happen. Certainly, several of your Lordships have moved from analogue to digital, sometimes simulcasting and sometimes on new specialist channels. I would like to mention in particular my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, with her determination to understand the issues at the technical level in the interests of the lay audience, and on the Benches opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill
1266
who displayed a comprehensive grasp of the complexities of digital audio broadcasting in her first contributions to your Lordships' House.
One of the most important things about our debates was that we did not allow ourselves to he seduced by the technology. Properly, we focused the interests of viewers and listeners, and the future prospects for the British broadcasting industry. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in his customary forthright and vigorous style, cogently argued the interests of those with disabilities, while many others, equally trenchantly drew attention to the proper interests of various categories of viewer and listener. There is a balance to be struck between their particular interests and the need to ensure that we create the right framework for investment in digital terrestrial broadcasting, without which nothing will happen. I believe that the Bill, as it leaves this House, has achieved that balance.
I am afraid that pressure on parliamentary counsel's time—not least in drafting the 5½-page sports rights amendment—has meant that it has proved impossible to table the proposed amendment dealing with analogue switch-off. I assure my noble friend Lord Stockton—and I have written to him to this effect—that the Government will bring forward the necessary changes in another place. Similar considerations apply to the proposed amendment allowing S4C to develop commercial services on digital. Again, that deficiency will be remedied there.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, introduced the debate on the media ownership provisions in the Bill by saying,
"we have now entered the Schedule 2 world of ceilings of 15 per cent., 20 per cent., 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. … and of point systems beyond my capacity to calculate".
Having heard the quality of the debates, I do not believe that the necessary complexity of our proposals proved a barrier to constructive debate, although I suspect that the noble Lord's arithmetic is rather less modest than he may have tried to suggest.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, joined forces with my noble friend Lady O'Cathain to argue for a relaxation in the rule limiting local radio stations to one service on each waveband in areas of significant overlap. I hcpe that the assurances I have given them tonight will demonstrate that we have taken on board the points made in debate.
One of our main aims is to allow British media companies greater scope to respond to technological change while maintaining diversity and plurality at regional and local as well as national level. Some of your Lordships, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Harris, argued for a simpler and even more relaxed regulatory regime than we propose, while the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, invited us to reflect on whether the Mirror Group should benefit from higher thresholds. It will come as no surprise to hear that I believe that we have got the balance about right.
I should like in particular to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for so helpfully bringing his long experience of broadcasting into the debates, not only on digital issues, but also on amendments relating

1267
to particular arrangements in the 1990 Act. Similarly, my noble predecessor, my noble friend Lord Astor, repeatedly put forward helpful suggestions on a variety of topics.
A number of your Lordships—and here I mention the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, my noble friends Lord Kinnoull, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Arran, and the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Prys-Davies, rightly sought to protect the distinctive regional programming which has proved so successful in enriching the lives of viewers and of listeners.
Clause 68 has been widely welcomed for the protection it affords to regional programming and production where there is a change of ownership in a Channel 3 company. Noble Lords will recall that, rather rashly as it turned out, I promised to bring forward at Third Reading several amendments strengthening the clause in line with suggestions by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others. Again, regrettably, pressure on our legal draftsman have made this impossible. It remains our intention—I emphasise this to my noble friend Lord Arran and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—to bring forward these amendments at the earliest opportunity. I have written to noble Lords who have shown an interest in the clause to explain our proposals more fully.
I should also like to thank noble Lords from Wales for their contributions to our discussions on S4C, which for me, a non-Welsh speaker, were particularly helpful.
The question of Channel 4 funding has generated much discussion and numerous written representations from all sides. Without wishing to understate the importance of this issue, I pause only to acknowledge the powerful contribution to the debate made by my noble friend Lord Stockton.
I should offer a further apology to your Lordships that the clauses relating to independent local radio are not yet ready for consideration. However, as I have indicated previously during the passage of the Bill, we shall be making provision for renewal of ILR licences. In addition, we intend to bring forward an amendment to clarify the circumstances in which the Radio Authority need not re-advertise an expiring ILR licence under Section 104(5) of the 1990 Act. It will provide for the authority to invite expressions of interest in an expiring independent local radio licence and for such parties to demonstrate their firm interest with a financial bond. Those amendments will also be introduced in another place.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for bringing to the House's attention the issue of the provision of news on Channel 3 which has in general been supported on all sides of the House. In the Report stage debate on his amendment, Amendment No. 165, on the provision of news on Channel 3, I said that the Government agreed with the purpose of the amendment and were persuaded that there were significant benefits in requiring Channel 3 to have a single news provider. I undertook to take away the noble Lord's amendment and to introduce a government amendment at Third Reading which would enable the ITC to nominate as
1268
many news providers for Channel 3 as it deems fit, but would require the ITV companies to choose a single provider from among those to meet their news requirements. Again, I apologise that the clause is not yet ready and I regret the inconvenience that that may have caused. The amendment will be introduced in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, my noble friends Lord Caldecote and Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised a number of important issues relating to the merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I am grateful to them for their detailed, reasoned and tenacious contributions to the debate, where their views were equally tenaciously opposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. They raised matters of considerable importance relating to how broadcasters in general, and in particular the BBC, should be regulated. They focused particularly on the important matter of impartiality.
I very much hope that the clarification in the BBC's Charter and Agreement and the recent exposition of the way in which the BBC handles such matters now will provide reassurance that the method which the Government believe is right for the regulation of the BBC—that is to say, self-regulation by the governors—not only works but works properly. I should like to emphasise that these, and particularly impartiality, are matters about which the Government and the Secretary of State are very concerned and which they will not allow to pass out of their minds when this piece of legislation leaves Parliament for the statute book.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, played a significant role in our debates and in particular, on the basis of her experience as a member of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, has made a number of helpful suggestions which we have been pleased to take up.
I should like to give special thanks to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who I am sorry is not with me on the Front Bench on the final leg of our journey. Without her indefatigable support and guidance my task of piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House would have been far more difficult.
Finally, I should like to record my thanks to the officials in the department who have done so much work, and to parliamentary counsel, whose life this Bill, and the changes that your Lordships' persuasive arguments encouraged me to accept, have made somewhat fraught over the past few weeks.
In conclusion, I am confident that the Bill has been improved and I thank your Lordships for that and for the constructive and helpful way in which it has been achieved. It remains to be seen what further amendments may flow from its consideration in another place, but we believe that the British viewer and listener, the broadcasters and the wider industry will benefit from what has been achieved in this House. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  Sir David Hannay: Attendance at Bilderberg Conference
  Sir David Hannay: Attendance at Bilderberg Conference
  Taiwan: Chinese Military Exercises
  Taiwan: Chinese Military Exercises
  Torture
  Torture
  Ukraine: ECGD Cover
  Ukraine: ECGD Cover
  Burma: UK Investment
  Burma: UK Investment
  Prisons: Cognitive Skills Programmes
  Prisons: Cognitive Skills Programmes
  Schools Access Initiative: Grants
  Schools Access Initiative: Grants
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Acts of Parliament: Internet Publication
  Acts of Parliament: Internet Publication
  Irish Republic EC Funding: UK Contribution
  Irish Republic EC Funding: UK Contribution
  Armed Forces: Ethnic Minority Recruitment and Promotion
  Armed Forces: Ethnic Minority Recruitment and Promotion
  Paramilitaries: Resettlement
  Paramilitaries: Resettlement
  Prisoners Convicted of Terrorism: Release During IRA Ceasefire
  Prisoners Convicted of Terrorism: Release During IRA Ceasefire