Sitting of 20 May 1996

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

    Theatres
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future of locally funded theatres. [28757]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): Government funding in support of local theatres is channelled through the Arts Council and the regional arts boards. The funding of individual theatres is a matter for those bodies, in conjunction with the local authorities and other funding partners.
    Mr. Banks: Is there any way in which I may entice the Minister to come along to the Theatre Royal Stratford East in my constituency? He knows that the theatre, which puts on seven new productions a year, has a very ethnically mixed audience, which it is building well, and receives local authority support from the poorest borough in the country. Funding is vital to us, especially since theatres in boroughs around us are closing down. Through which of the four channels could the Theatre Royal apply
    2
    for lottery money funding of the arts? That is a genuine question, which makes it unusual, and I actually want an answer.
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I would be very interested in accepting the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation and to return to the Theatre Royal in Stratford to see what it is putting on. I need to look at exactly what might be being applied for with regard to the four channels. I know that the local authority is supporting a lottery fund, which will help the theatre and the leisure centre nearby. I shall look at the matter and let the hon. Gentleman know.
    Mr. Sykes: If we are in the business of offering invitations, may I invite my hon. Friend to Scarborough—
    Mr. Mackinlay: To stay in one of the hotels.
    Mr. Sykes: There is nothing wrong with the hotels in Scarborough. I am sure that many hon. Members would rather visit Scarborough than go to Thurrock for their holidays. Would my hon. Friend like to visit the theatre in Scarborough? He will know that it has just opened and that it is a tribute to my constituents. We have just received £1 million-worth of lottery funding, which has helped speed up the process. I assure my hon. Friend that everybody in Scarborough is extremely grateful to the Government for channelling funding in that direction.
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The theatre is indeed a tribute to the people of Scarborough, but it is also an indication of how successful the lottery has been in channelling money into theatres. I gladly accept his invitation.
    Mr. Fisher: Contrary to the Minister's bland, not to say complacent. first answer, underfunding of regional theatres should concern him, the Secretary of State and the Government. Is he aware that regional theatres have accumulated deficits of more than £6 million as a direct consequence, not of bad management or lack of

    3
    audiences, but of Government underfunding, especially the Arts Council's cuts in real terms in two of the past three years? What will the Government do about the regional theatres' accumulated deficits, which as the Secretary of State knows, threaten the existence of theatres such as Farnham?
    Mr. Sproat: I can give the hon. Gentleman two very direct answers. First, in May last year, the Arts Council produced a green paper on ideas of how funding of regional and other theatres might be improved. As a result, a white paper, as it might be called by the Arts Council, is expected to be published in the summer. We shall study that with great interest. Secondly, a stabilisation fund is being worked out with the Arts Council, precisely to address the type of questions, among others, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    Marble Arch
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for the refurbishment of Marble Arch; and if she will make a statement. [28758]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The repair and conservation of Marble Arch began on 4 March and is planned for completion by the end of June. The enhancement of our built heritage is based on an active partnership involving my Department, its agencies, sponsored bodies, local authorities and the private sector. I shall be publishing a consultation paper on built heritage later this week.
    Mr. Carrington: I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. The appearance of London's historic buildings plays a vital role in making our city beautiful and in attracting tourists. Will she use her powers over the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum to ensure that, if an extension is built to that museum, it is in accordance with the existing fine and historic character of the buildings?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree that London's fine buildings are a great attraction to the many tourists who visit the city.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What does this have to do with Marble Arch?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister extended the question. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-west (Mr. Banks) was not listening.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Investment in many of the major buildings in London has been clearly evident in recent months and years. I suspect that a number of groups will wish to comment on the extension of the V and A, not least the planning authority at Kensington and Chelsea, English Heritage and the Royal Fine Art Commission.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is not the Minister concerned that so many of our ancient and famous buildings are falling into decay as a result of neglect by the Government and related agencies? How does she justify the inordinately long period during which the Albert monument by the Albert
    4
    hall was under drapes? Have not the Government allowed our capital city to run down and neglected much of our national heritage?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman must be wearing blinkers. Throughout London, an unprecedented number of projects are under way—the Albert memorial restoration, with £8 million to be spent in four years, is but one. There are also plans to carry out further improvements to Parliament square and Trafalgar square, and to introduce pedestrianisation outside Buckingham palace. There are endless examples. The national lottery enables us to do even more to refurbish many of our magnificent buildings, not least the major project to restore the Albert hall.
    Mr. Tracey: My right hon. Friend's news on Marble Arch is welcome, as is her grasp of so many of the other heritage memorials of London. But what is she doing to hasten the work on Bankside and the refurbishment of the buildings connected with the Royal Festival hall, which are important to London's culture?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will know only too well that lottery awards are enabling the south bank of the Thames to become a veritable cultural centre, as it includes the Globe and Bankside. In addition, parts of Lambeth and Southwark that were in need of investment are now able to take the opportunity to invest in the future and share in a truly great millennium.

    Broadcasting Transmission Network
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to protect the needs of remoter areas after the privatisation of the broadcasting transmission network. [28759]
    Mr. Sproat: Under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990, and the agreement between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the BBC respectively are responsible for establishing and maintaining the standards of coverage, quality and reliability of the four main terrestrial channels. This will not change with the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network.
    Mr. Dafis: Nevertheless, is not there concern that the availability of digitised services to remote rural regions is very much in question? Will the Department co-operate with the Department of Trade and Industry to develop an integrated transmissions policy, including matters such as education and multi-media as well as television and radio?
    Mr. Sproat: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he knows that analogue television covers 98.3 per cent. of Wales at the moment, and analogue will not be switched off until a roughly equivalent level of service is provided. The second part of his question was interesting. Although we clearly want an integrated policy, we would also need to involve other Departments, such as the Welsh Office.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the BBC operates more transmitters in Wales than in the rest of the United Kingdom put together because of the topology of

    5
    the Principality? The only way to get the further 1.7 per cent. coverage that the hon. Gentleman so much wants is through digital transmission by satellite. Would my hon. Friend be surprised to learn that Plaid Cymru and the Labour party have opposed the introduction of satellite television as they opposed the introduction of cable television, ITV and Channel 4?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has not raised those matters in the Committee that is considering the Broadcasting Bill of which he is a distinguished member, but no doubt he will have an opportunity to do so in the coming weeks.

    Year of the Pier
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her initiative in establishing 1996 as the year of the pier. [28760]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Nineteen ninety-six has been designated as year of the pier by the British Piers Society and the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions. I welcome that initiative. Piers at seaside resorts represent an important part of Britain's built and cultural heritage and a unique element of our national tourism product. I was at the launch of the year of the pier at Brighton a few weeks ago.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's exciting initiative, will she pursue with Lord Rothschild and Jocelyn Stevens of English Heritage the irrational and unfair policy of denying grants to piers that do not have grade 1 or 2 listed status and that are not located in conservation areas? Would it not be fairer and more in accordance with her excellent policies if they considered every case on its merits rather than trying to create a new bureaucracy through English Heritage?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments to Lord Rothschild and Jocelyn Stevens. Several piers have already been supported by English Heritage and by the lottery fund. However, given the success of the heritage lottery fund which has already made 303 awards, it may see scope for extending its remit to incorporate more piers. I very much hope so.
    Mr. Olner: I do not know whether a pier is needed in Greenwich for the planned millennium exhibition, but may I advise the right hon. Lady that no pier is required for the national exhibition centre to mount the exhibition? In view of Greenwich's problems, will she seriously consider having the exhibition at the NEC in Birmingham?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments and I suspect that they would be echoed by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I understand the House's impatience for further definite announcements about the millennium festival. Much work is under way and I hope that it will be possible to make clear announcements before long. I am well aware of the great advantages of the hon. Gentleman's part of the country.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend find time during the year of the pier to visit that pearl of the south coast, Eastbourne pier, which is excellently operated by First Leisure? When she comes, will she also find time to meet local hoteliers and guest house operators to hear their views about the potentially disastrous effects on their businesses of the social chapter and the national minimum wage?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I look forward to visiting Eastbourne again and to seeing the Euginius Birch pier which, I believe, was opened in 1872. Like piers around the country it is very much a seaside attraction. I am only sorry that when I visited Worthing pier, which is the only one to have been burnt down, blown up and blown down, I was not then able to visit Eastbourne.
    When I meet my hon. Friend's constituents, I expect that I will hear from them about their mounting anxiety at the threat to tourism of Labour's proposals. A minimum wage and its approach to endless regulation and the social chapter are the biggest threat to the tourist industry that the country has known.

    Performing Arts
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her Department's policy in respect of the contribution of the performing arts to urban regeneration. [28761]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The performing arts have considerable potential to regenerate urban areas by attracting tourism and inward investment, creating jobs and wealth, and improving the quality of life of local residents.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given that answer, what positive plans has the Secretary of State to encourage young people to move away from criminal behaviour? The latest statistics show that 60 per cent. of young people are involved in criminal behaviour in some form. Will she make some positive plans for those young people in the west midlands, and especially in Coventry, where there is a problem in my constituency?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question because, of all my aims for the Department, it is a priority to encourage youngsters to participate in practical activities, the arts, sport and heritage. That is why we have changed the national lottery rules to enable us to invest in talent and in training and coaching schemes. Only recently, we launched a document entitled, "People Taking Part", which describes the many ways in which different arts organisations have encouraged further participation.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his local organisations to apply to the lottery distribution bodies for the great benefits that are now available, in addition to the 24 awards—amounting to £2.5 million— that have already been awarded to his part of the world.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of the performing arts to rural areas as well as urban regeneration, as many people who live in rural areas find it difficult to reach urban areas? I am thinking in

    7
    particular of facilities in my constituency such as the cinema, which provides an excellent service and is full of character, and the village halls, where a number of amateur productions take place. They would be extremely grateful for support from the national lottery and other funds. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that even the Labour party now reluctantly admits the great success of the national lottery?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to spell out the needs of rural as well as urban areas and the opportunities that can be provided through the national lottery. He will know that, only recently, the Millennium Commission announced the funding of up to 250 millennium halls to provide a focus for community life that brings people together and provides a great deal of enjoyment.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Festival of Britain and not the national lottery brought about the regeneration of the south bank and made it such an exciting magnet to people all over the world who are interested in the arts? It would be a tragedy if the right hon. Lady, presiding over the Millennium Commission, failed to pull off the Greenwich project to regenerate east London. That project—which is to celebrate the millennium—should not depend on private funding.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises the huge regeneration potential of the millennium festival. It involves a great deal of complex planning. He will be reassured to learn that the timetable for decontamination is well under way, although a number of details still have to be addressed. The national lottery enables Britain to fund a celebration that, so far, appears to exceed that planned by any other country.
    The hon. Gentleman will also know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced a ministerial team to support the work of the festival to ensure that, when final decisions are made, Government Departments can respond appropriately and swiftly.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the South Bank centre, including the Royal Festival hall, has made a major contribution to the performing arts in Britain? I know that she is aware that the South Bank centre has proposed an imaginative scheme that not only would improve performing arts at the South Bank centre, but—and perhaps even more crucially—would have a major effect on regeneration of the south bank. As the Royal Festival hall was built at the time of the Festival of Britain in 1951, does she agree that the refurbishment and improvement of the South Bank centre would be a fitting achievement in time for the millennium?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes a strong plea for the merits of the application by the South Bank centre. It is being considered by the Arts Council along with a great number of other projects, many of which are situated in London. The distributing bodies are independent, but they all have to keep a balance between the number of awards they make in London and those serving other parts of the country.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Following widespread press reports published before and after the meeting of the Millennium Commission last week, will the Secretary of State tell the House how much private sector funding has been raised for regeneration or investment in connection with the millennium exhibition at Greenwich? Has more time been allocated to the fund-raising process? Have the Government agreed to underwrite the whole project, as some press reports have stated? If so, will the money come from her Department's budget or from the Treasury?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman full information about the discussions that are under way—many of which are confidential. However, I can tell him that the festival committee, which is chaired by Simon Jenkins, has asked Sir Peter Levene to do more urgent work to take forward the encouraging early commitments and understandings reached. We are all aware that it is a complex and exciting proposal that will give the nation an opportunity to celebrate the new millennium in one place while providing a lasting legacy in the form of the significant regeneration of an underdeveloped, but very exciting, part of London. I shall give more information to the House as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    Tourism (National Parks)
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support her Department gives to encourage sustainable tourism in national parks. [28762]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am committed to the principle of sustainable tourism. The English tourist board has contributed almost £1 million of pump-priming funding to a number of local sustainable tourism initiatives across the country during the past five years, many of which are located in national parks. The Government have published guidance on sustainable tourism in the national parks.
    Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that we should encourage tourism in our national parks without damaging their magnificent beauty and their natural environments? Will she join me in welcoming the £217,000 grant made available last week by the national lottery sports fund to repair and refurbish some 10,000 m of paths in the Peak district? Does not that demonstrate how the national lottery is not only bringing benefits to tourists but contributing directly to preserving our environment? Will my right hon. Friend take a break from visiting our seaside piers and find an early opportunity to visit the Peak district national park instead?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall certainly take up my hon. Friend's invitation. The Environment Select Committee stressed specifically the positive economic benefits of leisure and tourism in rural areas. It said also that, compared with other activities, tourism and leisure do not cause significant widespread ecological damage to the countryside. My hon. Friend is well aware that efforts must be taken to preserve and protect the natural environment in areas that attract many tourists. Like him, I welcome a further practical contribution from the national lottery.

    9
    The Sports Council has made 1,670 awards, and so far it is winning the competition for the number of awards granted. This excellent scheme will protect the countryside and provide facilities for walkers.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most important ways of accessing national parks is via public transport? Would she care to join my family next week when we take the train from Sheffield to Edale in the heart of the Peak district and leave the car at home? Will she ask her colleague the Secretary of State for Transport to stop rail privatisation, which will increase the number of cars entering our national parks?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in commending the Millennium Commission which has announced the construction of 2,500 miles of cycleways up and down the country. That will ensure that we have a truly environmentally friendly means of transport in the next century.

    National Lottery (Art Galleries)
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many art galleries have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [28763]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Art galleries throughout the United Kingdom have benefited from national lottery grants. To date, there have been 34 awards for a total of £74 million, ranging from £50 million to the Tate gallery of modern art at Bankside to £59,865 to the Focal Point gallery in Southend-on-Sea.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for her very encouraging news. Can she confirm that that proves that not only flagship galleries such as the Tate gallery and National gallery benefit from the national lottery, but that dozens of small galleries throughout the country also benefit, I understand, to the tune of £2 million? Can she confirm that there is very much more to come? The decision to make those disbursements is taken by the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is to be congratulated on its excellent work in keeping such marvellous work alive.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I share my hon. Friend's commendation of the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is involved in ensuring that standards are maintained and new developments pursued. She is right to say that we want, not only the big battalions, but the small platoons to be funded by the national lottery. That focus on local involvement and participation is the message of our document "People Taking Part", and on the museum side it is very much the message of what is likely to be an extremely successful national museums week this week.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State accept that museums and art galleries such as Towneley hall in Burnley are extremely important to local people? Will she do everything possible to support them and ensure that they continue to receive support from the national lottery, to help them to provide art locally, where it is accessible to people, near where they live?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Yes.

    School Sport
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress she has made in promoting sport in schools. [28764]
    Mr. Sproat: My Department, the Department for Education and Employment and the Sports Council are taking forward the initiatives, set out in "Sport: Raising the Game", aimed at promoting sport in schools, and beyond. Full details of progress made will be set out in the follow-up sports policy statement, which will be published in July.
    Mr. Brazier: That is extremely welcome news for all those who believe in developing team spirit and character among our young people.
    Is my hon. Friend aware, as a particular enthusiast for schoolgirl cricket, of the connection between this question and question No. 12? Does he remember who said:
    "At cricket, her kin will lose or win—
    She and her maids, on grass and clover,
    Eleven maids out—eleven maids in—
    And perhaps an occasional 'maiden over!'"?
    Mr. Sproat: No. I had either not known or had forgotten the quotation. My hon. Friend is making a tradition of such apposite quotations. I can tell him, however, that I am all in favour of girls playing cricket at school. If the England men's cricket team were as good as the England girls' cricket team, it might do much better.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that he has just given a complacent reply to a very complacent question? Is he further aware that Conservative Governments have allowed school sport to decline to an unprecedented level during the past 17 years, overseeing the flogging off of 5,000 playing fields, halving the number of physical education teachers and presiding over a fall of three quarters in the number of extra-curricular sporting fixtures?
    On the latter point, the Minister will be aware of the understandable statement made by the National Union of Teachers today threatening a complete boycott by its members of participation in out-of-hours school sport until adequate insurance provision is in place, following a recent court decision against a rugby referee over damages. Will he therefore be more proactive than his counterpart in the Department for Education and Employment, and call together all interested parties as swiftly as possible in an attempt to resolve that worrying situation, described as a grey area by an education spokesman today? Otherwise, the objectives of "Sport: Raising the Game" to increase participation in sport in schools will be merely a pipe-dream.
    Mr. Sproat: On the hon. Gentleman's point about insurance, the situation is serious, and I did read with great interest what the National Union of Teachers spokesman said.
    I understand that it is the duty of school governors to take out insurance to cover teachers. That may set minds at rest regarding some problems that beset teachers, but it does not cover the overall problem of the risks of sport in

    11
    schools, which we shall consider closely. We shall have a chance to return to that and other matters when we have a sports debate on Friday 7 June.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend accept that cricket poses particular problems for schools because it takes longer to play than other sports and because school transport arrangements often conflict with the needs of those taking part? Will the Government look for innovative ideas and do everything possible to revive cricket in our schools?
    Mr. Sproat: The lottery can now allocate money to provide transport for schools, as long as it is available to the community as well as to the schools. In addition, under new criteria, every physical education teacher will be required to be equipped to take competitive team games, including one mainstream winter game and one mainstream summer game—and that definitely includes cricket.

    Broadcasting (Equal Opportunities)
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to promote equal opportunities for employees of broadcasters awarded licences under the Broadcasting Bill. [28766]
    Mr. Sproat: Under the Broadcasting Bill, licences issued to television multiplex providers and broadcasters and to national radio multiplex providers and broadcasters will include conditions to promote equal opportunities for all employees and fair treatment for disabled persons. The conditions will be enforced by the Independent Television Commission. All licence holders will be subject to general equal opportunities legislation.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that no body has an obligation to promote equal opportunities among the independent programme producers? Does he consider it satisfactory that 10 of the 16 channel 3 licensees have no female staff at board level, and that four of those have no women at senior management level either?
    Mr. Sproat: No, I am not aware of the statistics just given by the hon. Lady. I can, however, inform the hon. Lady that, in Carlton, GMTV and Channel 4, the majority of employees are women. As the hon. Lady will know from our debates on the Broadcasting Bill, the number of women is increasing in other areas as well—and I hope that that continues.

    Ballet and Opera
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for making lottery funding available for the development of expertise in ballet and opera. [28767]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Support to students of dance and drama is administered through discretionary grants by local authorities under the overall responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment. I share the concern of many hon. Members about the availability of such grants. On 1 April, I announced changes to the lottery rules requiring the Arts Council to take account of
    12
    the need to develop the skills, talents and creative abilities of young people. The council is now considering how to implement the new direction, and it must do so in a way that does not substitute for existing public expenditure.
    Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that that is not satisfactory. I am sure that she will confirm that the Arts Council is not able to make grants for dance students, for drama students and for opera students at the national opera studio. The students are not allowed to apply for national lottery funding, so they must approach local authorities. I am sure that the Secretary of State will confirm that fewer and fewer local authorities are able to fund discretionary awards in these areas—in fact, many have stopped doing so—so many students from many areas will not receive funding for training in dance, drama or opera. There is an urgent need to find a way for such grants to proceed. The experts in these disciplines provide a great deal of income for the country through their performances abroad. I believe that we should continue to make expertise available.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. His part of the country has received lottery awards for significant arts projects, including three for dance. He will know that the number of mandatory grants for dance and drama has increased as the number of degree courses has increased. However, the degree to which local authorities fund discretionary awards is up to them. The hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, last week's announcement by the Arts Council that it has asked the chairman of the London arts board, Clive Priestly, to look at this area to see whether further steps can be taken and whether the new Arts Council lottery direction that I announced recently can be used to good effect.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is it not ironic that, when the success of the national lottery is offering hundreds of millions of pounds of extra support for charities, sport and the arts, the D'Oyly Carte Company—the principal custodian of the unique British tradition of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas—receives only £18,000 a year in public funds? Will my right hon. Friend take urgent action, either by issuing new directions on stabilisation funding or by other means, to avert the closure of that company—its current season ends this week, and its autumn season has been cancelled— so as to ensure the survival of this much-loved tradition for our generation and generations to come?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members in his strong support for the D'Oyly Carte. A number of plans are under way, and I think that the Arts Council is now well aware of the strength of feeling on this matter. A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined the development in stabilisation funds— another way in which we are trying to make the lottery more flexible so as to deal with some of the longer-term needs of arts organisations. We have listened to the concern that capital grants alone may not be sufficient to perform the task. We believe that greater flexibility will mean that more arts organisations will have a more flourishing future.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does the Secretary of State recall the correspondence between her Department and me about Natasha Cornish, a very talented young dancer in my

    13
    constituency, who was advised to contact the Arts Council with a view to receiving grant aid? As the Secretary of State's Department has directed the Arts Council that it should not undertake any long-term funding, how will the Arts Council fund students during two to three-year periods? Does she agree that we must iron out this anomaly if we are to help some of our brightest and best young dancers?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not regard two or three years as long-term funding. It is perfectly possible for the Arts Council, with the changed direction that we have announced for it, to address that issue. Such funding formally remains the responsibility of local authorities, through discretionary grants, and it is for them to decide what priority to give such awards. Clive Priestly intends to report to the chairman of the Arts Council precisely to deal with that interface. It will be a very timely report, and I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to Mr. Priestly.

    Light Opera
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to fund touring productions of light opera in provincial towns in Britain. [28768]
    Mr. Sproat: Specific arts funding decisions are, of course, taken at arm's length from the Government by the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards. Ministers will consider shortly the Arts Council's proposals to use lottery funds to support the financial stabilisation of some arts companies. The Arts Council's chairman, Lord Gowrie, has recently written to me suggesting that D'Oyly Carte might be part of an associated pilot project.
    Mr. Steen: The problem is with the Government— [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] Wait a moment. The D'Oyly Carte has been in touch with the Arts Council for three years, asking for some money. All that it gets from the Government is 10 per cent. of its running costs, whereas grand opera gets 90 per cent. of its running costs. Are the Government going to allow one of the great and most cherished institutions in the country to collapse when there is £300 million of Arts Council money in the lottery that is not being used? It is the Secretary of State's problem—it has nothing to do with the Arts Council.
    Mr. Sproat: The House will be pleased to know that, since our most recent Question Time—after the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—I wrote to the chairman of the Arts Council, who wrote back. The Arts Council will now investigate whether the stabilisation fund can be applied to D'Oyly Carte as part of a pilot project. The Government are of course acutely aware of the great value of D'Oyly Carte and of the entire Gilbert and Sullivan canon. The Arts Council provides those moneys. The Government have no money with which they directly fund organisations, whether D'Oyly Carte or any other, but I hope that the Arts Council will do what the great majority of hon. Members and the country want it to do.

    Rugby Football (Wales)
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to encourage rugby football in Wales. [28769]
    Mr. Sproat: Government responsibility for sport in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Central Government funding for sport in Wales is channelled through the Sports Council for Wales.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important to ensure that young people in Wales have the opportunity at school and outside school to play competitive sports such as rugby and soccer? Will he confirm that he will co-operate fully with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that such opportunities are made available?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I will. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales produced a Welsh document that was the equivalent of "Raising the Game", in which he placed similar emphasis on the importance of competitive games at school. Rugby has received about £235,000 in Wales from Sportsmatch, and another £1.3 million from the lottery. Rugby is doing pretty well in the context of sport in Wales. When Wales has a few rugby league players playing for it again, it might do even better.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Would the Minister and the Secretary of State like to congratulate Buckleigh primary school in my constituency, which reached the finals of its district rugby union competition recently, and to which I had the honour of presenting some awards? Will the Minister consider visiting the school and, in so doing, take into account especially the cost of kit? The necessary sportswear is expensive. If there is unemployment and difficulty in an area, the problems are even greater. Will the Minister comment on that?
    Mr. Sproat: Certainly. I congratulate Buckleigh primary school. It is one of the prime aims of "Raising the Game" that exactly what the hon. Gentleman has described happens. The provision of kit is a difficult problem for many schools. The Sports Council will agree to help fund schemes where schools are linked to local clubs. The provision of kit could be part of such a deal. If the hon. Gentleman would like to get in touch with me, I shall make him aware of the details of the scheme.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the categories of recipients of legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [28787]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I have received many representations recently at local level.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case of a young Old Etonian who obtained legal aid to challenge the terms of his great uncle's £50 million will, only to lose the action? Is he aware also of other cases where poor people cannot obtain legal aid? Sometimes, people obtain legal aid to bring actions against those who cannot afford to proceed as a result of the other side having unlimited legal aid. Does not the system require examination? What are the Government doing to achieve that?
    Mr. Evans: I cannot comment on individual decisions, but I can comment on general policy. A means test operates in the grant of legal aid, and that should apply in each case. Cases are drawn to the attention of the Government from time to time of people who are apparently wealthy being granted legal aid. Against that background, I replied some months ago to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). I stated that the Government had decided to bring forward specific measures to deal with the difficulties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred. Regulations will come into force on 1 June.
    Mr. Skinner: How can the Government justify handing out large sums to seemingly wealthy people such as the Maxwells and various others who have been involved in fraud on a massive scale, whereas a young lad in my constituency, Neil Edwards, who went to work for a fellow who had a sawmill at Clumber park near Worksop—the employer was not insured and young Neil lost a number of fingers and tried to claim benefit as a result of disablement—was refused legal aid on the basis that his employer had not been properly insured for himself or those who worked for him? Those who represented the legal aid scheme said that there was no guarantee that they could get any money out of the employer, even though he had been a small business man for several years. It is a scandal that a young lad can lose fingers yet receive no legal aid while big nobs can get as much as they like.
    Mr. Evans: It is essential that individual decisions on the granting of legal aid are seen to be free of both Government and political interference. There is, therefore, a set means test, which applies to all cases, that it is administered by the Legal Aid Board. The hon. Gentleman is referring to two other tests administered by the board—the test of the legal merits of individual cases and the reasonableness test. Those tests also must be seen to be free of Government and political interference.

    Census Returns
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make the census returns available to searchers at a central London location following the closure of the Chancery lane public record office. [28788]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The Public Record Office is negotiating an alternative central London location at which it will make the census returns available to searchers, following the closure of its Chancery lane building.
    Mr. Lidington: Despite the welcome investment by the Government in new buildings and information technology at the PRO at Kew, which I had the privilege of visiting this morning, may I impress on my hon. Friend the fact that many thousands of people use the census return search rooms at Chancery lane each year and that it is of great importance to them that the Government treat the need for an alternative search centre with urgency and provide it as soon as the Chancery lane office closes?
    Mr. Evans: I am pleased that my hon. Friend was impressed by the facilities that he saw at Kew. Most of the people who have had the opportunity to view the facilities share his enthusiasm for them. He is right that the census returns from 1841 to 1891 attract much public interest and, in 1994–95, some 80,000 individual reader visits were paid to the central London location of the Public Record Office. The Government are determined to ensure that an alternative central London location is made available to enable people to continue to have access to records.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy in providing legal aid in matrimonial cases when one party is domiciled outside the EC. [28789]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The same statutory tests of means and merits apply to all legal aid applicants, regardless of domicile. Provided that an applicant meets those tests, legal aid is available for most matrimonial proceedings, other than most undefended divorce petitions conducted before the courts of England and Wales.
    Mr. Steen: What can be the justification for offering legal aid to fathers who abandon their wives and children and go abroad, having never given their children or wives a penny piece in maintenance? Those fathers not only demand legal aid, but receive it wherever they live in the world. Our taxpayers are paying for fathers who have abandoned, and refuse to look after, their wives and children. Does my hon. Friend support that?
    Mr. Evans: The general view that has been taken is that, if tests of means, legal merits and reasonableness are satisfied, legal aid should be available for proceedings before our courts. As part of the review of legal aid for the apparently wealthy, the Lord Chancellor considered issues such as the nationality of applicants. On that occasion, the majority of responses received by the Lord Chancellor asked for the system to remain as it is, which is why he announced last year that the structure would remain unchanged.
    Mr. Olner: The Lord Chancellor must know that, in cases such as that which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has just raised, legal aid is available for anyone who comes here and invokes The Hague convention, especially in cases of child abduction. Legal aid is not available for our citizens when they go abroad for the same purpose. It is time that the Government looked into that important area of equality.
    Mr. Evans: I have said that the issue of nationality has been examined, but the question that the hon. Gentleman raises turns on the availability of legal aid in other jurisdictions. Some legal aid is available through some countries, but I share his concern about the specific cases that he has raised with me in meetings recently. If we are able to assist, the hon. Gentleman knows that my door is open and that I shall endeavour to be of assistance.
    Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in the recent Sony case, legal aid of £500,000 was given to a German who had paid no taxes in this country. Is not it scandalous that individuals who live abroad, pay no United Kingdom taxes and never intend to pay any United Kingdom taxes should be eligible for legal aid in this country?
    Mr. Evans: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns but, as I have said, the matter was the subject of a review by the Lord Chancellor last year, and the vast majority of respondents felt that legal aid should continue to be available. However, as my hon. Friend well knows, I share his concern about the wider issue—the availability of legal aid to people who appear to be wealthy, and appear to be beyond the means test. The changes that will begin to operate on 1 June will, I think, prove helpful in the effort to deal with some of the cases that have come to public attention.

    Trials
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review (a) the wearing of wigs and (b) the use of the dock in trials. [28791]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The wearing of wigs in trials was considered through consultation papers in 1992 and 1994. The use of the dock in trials was considered by the royal commission on criminal justice in 1993. I have no plans to order a further review of either issue.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that the wearing of wigs in court, particularly by judges, not only makes judges look ridiculous but intimidates the accused? Is it not time that we ceased to take the advice of the judiciary in this regard? Should not common sense prevail? Should we not at least give people the option of not wearing absurd Jacobean garb?
    As for the use of the dock, the person in the dock feels intimidated and that the case is prejudicial. In a modern society and judicial system, an accused person who has not been found guilty should not feel intimidated and isolated. Is that not prejudicial to good justice?
    Mr. Evans: I note the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the wearing of wigs in court, but—
    Mr. Mackinlay: Madam Speaker does not wear a wig.
    Mr. Evans: Indeed, but I shall not be drawn into that line of argument.
    In August 1992, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice issued a joint consultation paper on the issue. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's view is
    18
    shared by a limited number of people: the vast majority of respondents felt that court dress should remain the same.
    As for the wider issue of the use of the dock, the royal commission on criminal justice considered it in 1993—
    Mr. Mackinlay: All lawyers.
    Mr. Evans: With respect, the commission considered the issue in the context of the security of the courtroom. Its decision not to do away with the dock was based on concerns about security—not only keeping the prisoner in secure conditions, but in terms of the prisoner's protection in the court.
    Mr. Ashby: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the consultation by the Bar Council that he mentioned, defendants were consulted, and said almost to a man that they wanted their briefs to be properly tarted up for their day in court?
    Mr. Evans: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater knowledge of these matters.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Is this follicularly challenged Minister aware that many of us, who have worn wigs in court for many years and seen our fine shocks of hair diminished by their wearing properties, would gladly get rid of them? Will he bear it in mind, however, that, as has just been said, convicted prisoners—those who have been found guilty despite being defended by the bewigged— still feel that they are represented better by someone in a wig than by a bald man without a wig?
    Mr. Evans: During my time in practice in the magistrates courts of south Wales, no such observation was made to me.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend use the time that he is wisely not going to waste on this issue to pursue the earlier issue of legal aid? We are not at all satisfied with the answers that we have received this afternoon.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend may be aware that the Lord Chancellor has been engaged in wide-ranging consultations about the future structure of legal aid. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Lord Chancellor intends shortly to announce in the Green Paper "Targeting Need" his proposals for taking forward the arrangements that were the subject of consultation.
    Mr. Boateng: If barristers are to continue to be allowed to wear wigs in court, does the Minister think it fair that solicitor advocates should enjoy the same, perhaps rather dubious, privilege?
    Mr. Evans: I do not know whether that question is asked on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's personal experience—he has chosen to leave the solicitors' profession and to join the Bar. The use of wigs by solicitor advocates was considered in 1994, and the general judgment was that there should be no compulsion on solicitors to wear them.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
AGRICULTURAL PRICE PROPOSALS
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5215/96, relating to agricultural prices for 1996–97 and related measures, and the Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandums submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 3rd May 1996 on supplementary premium payable to sheep producers in non-Less Favoured Areas of Ireland and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome on the price proposals which takes account of the interests of UK producers, consumers and taxpayers alike, and to seek an outcome on the supplementary premium proposal which is affordable, non-discriminatory in the island of Ireland and does not disadvantage other EU sheep producers.

FRAUDS AND IRREGULARITIES
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4512/96 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 7th May 1996, relating to on-the-spot checks and inspections by the Commission for the detection of frauds and irregularities, accepts the need for stronger Commission powers to fight fraud throughout the Community and supports the Government's aim to ensure that such powers are not open to abuse.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Reserve Forces Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Reserve Forces Bill
    New clause 1

      APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR GENERAL RESERVE FORCES AND CADETS
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a senior reservist officer, to hold a rank not less than Major General, or RN/RAF equivalent, who shall have served for not less than ten years in the volunteer reserves and who shall be known as the "Director General Reserve Forces and Cadets".
      (2) The purpose of this post shall be to provide Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff with advice on policy matters relating to the reserve forces and cadets and to co-ordinate with other agencies and bodies to promote the health and well-being of the reserve forces.
      (3) The principal roles of the Director General Reserve Forces and Cadets shall be—

      (a) to support the Ministry of Defence in policy advice on mobilisation strategy as it impacts on the civilian community and on the terms and conditions of reservists;

      (b) to provide input on all aspects of Ministry of Defence policy which affect the reserve forces, including training organisation and deployment, drawing on expertise from the civilian community;

      (c) to liaise with the Department for Health, in conjunction with the senior reservist medical officers, on matters relating to civilian employment of reservist medical personnel;

      (d) to liaise with the Department of Transport and the aviation industry, in collaboration with senior reservist aviation officers from all three services, on matters relating to aviation and reserve force service;

      (e) in collaboration with the National Employers' Liaison Committee to seek to ensure that arrangements for reservist service are made as attractive as possible for civilian employers; this should include designing reporting systems on serving individuals, where they wish, for the benefit of their employers;

      (f) to work with university military education committees and officer training corps both to promote officer recruiting into the reserve forces and to ensure that the structure of officer training is attractive to universities and receives academic recognition where possible;

      (g) to liaise with schools and youth organisations on ways of promoting and enhancing the roles of cadet forces; to take a particular interest in the recruiting of officers and senior non-commissioned officers for the cadet forces;

      (h) to work with the council of Territorial and Volunteer Reserve Associations on all aspects of recruiting and manning;

      (i) to liaise closely with the single service Inspector Generals; and

      (j) to liaise closely with the reserve forces of other English speaking and other European countries to examine initiatives abroad to improve recruiting and retention, with particular emphasis on initiatives in the civilian community affecting employers, reservist families and the wider civilian environment.

      (4) The Director General shall be provided with a regular Brigadier or RN/RAF equivalent (in the first place the present Director Reserves and Cadets) to act as his chief of staff and to assist him in his duties.'.—[Mr. Brazier.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.30 pm
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is ill in Scotland and cannot be here to speak.
      I have supported the Bill all the way and I have been impressed by the way in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who I am glad to see on the Front Bench, has handled it. Essentially, the Bill sets up a welcome legal framework for the use of reserves. The new clause goes to the heart of wider issues which many of us feel cause the reserve forces serious difficulties, and it reflects the frustration that is felt by many middle-ranking reserve officers over the current arrangements for reserve forces.
      By establishing a reservist as the director general of reserves and cadets, the new clause seeks to establish a framework for policy on the management of the reserve forces and the cadet forces which does not in any way interfere with the command structure.
      The Select Committee on Defence has presented an excellent report which outlines in some detail some of the sad difficulties to which I have alluded about the reserve forces. The new clause is extremely relevant to those difficulties. I shall mention a historic one before looking forward to illustrate exactly why we need reservist advice in the centre. The Select Committee on Defence asked why a battalion was down-roled from the best-recruited infantry regiment in the Territorial Army when many units which were poorly recruited and which in one or two cases were almost completely ineffective were being kept. The answer from the Regular officer concerned was that the change was required to achieve symmetry with the regimental pattern in the Regular Army, whatever that piece of gobbledegook means. If there had been proper reservist advice from the centre I do not think that that mistake would have been made. The Select Committee report points to the poverty of officer training in our reserve forces, especially in relation to that in the new world countries of Canada, America and Australia.
      The most important quote in the report states:
      "Assuming that suitable candidates can be identified, we recommend that the Government should give serious consideration to appointing a Reservist as the next Director General of Reserves."
      It was with disbelief that I heard that, far from appointing a reservist, it is intended to abolish the post altogether.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend speaks about the excellent training in Canada for reserve forces. I confirm that. My son was in their reserves for many years and they were eligible for the Gulf war. They are exceedingly well-trained throughout Canada.
      Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend is right. On my last visit to Canada, I found exactly the same. The fact that the Canadian director general of reserves is an academic explains why Canada has built a close link with schools and universities in Canada, a link that is conspicuously missing here.
      Exactly the same problems exist in all parts of the English-speaking world. We find long faces among many reservists in all the countries that I have mentioned.
      22
      Fragmentation of working patterns makes it much harder to reach employers. There is also the breakdown of the family and of the community, and the decline in the volunteer ethos. The fundamental difference, however, between Britain and America, Canada and Australia is that all those other countries, with reservist advice in the centre, have been much more successful at devising programmes—many of them entirely cost-free programmes—to tackle those problems, instead of just complaining about them. Those programmes are illustrated on the amendment paper.
      The director general's duties, which I have outlined in the amendment paper, are based on those of the current Canadian director general of reserves, with ideas also from Australia, America, the Select Committee and territorials here.
      Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that not just people abroad, but many people here—myself included as a reservist—feel that much can be done as a result of this initiative? Many people in this country would like to give information to help to ensure that the voice of the reserves is properly represented at the centre.
      Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He is the only serving reservist in the House. As such, he is someone whom we should—[Interruption.] I apologise. I understand that we have a second. I look forward to hearing the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) as well. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) serves twice a month with the Royal Air Force reserves.
      I shall mention just a few of my suggestions for the duties that such a director general could have. He could give advice on mobilisation issues. It is fine to have machinery in place and I approve of the machinery in the Bill, but anyone who has been involved in mobilisation— not just here, but in Canada and America, where they have done much more of it in the past few years—will say that it is vital to tackle a million tiny details when people are pulled out of a civilian working environment. Reservist advice in the centre is essential in that.
      It is important to liaise with the Department for Health. We have an excellent Secretary of State for Health who is an ex-reservist. His deputy is married to a member of the medical reserves. It is a great shame that no delegation has gone to see them to discuss the problems in civilian life which serving reservists sometimes suffer in relation to trust hospitals.
      We could do so much more with the aviation industry. Two thirds of America's tactical strategic airlift is run by reservists. We need an initiative led not by the RAF, for which I have the greatest respect, but by a prominent civilian figure from the aviation industry, backed by reservists, to persuade the industry that much more could be done to build a proper air reserve in this country, thus releasing funds for equipment: reservist manpower costs are so much lower.
      I mention also the importance of the relationship with employers and with the National Employers Liaison Committee. We built that in successful imitation of the model abroad, but Canada and Australia—and the Canadians have kindly just sent me an example—have a package of standard letters for units on how an individual unit can build a relationship with employers.

      23
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred to her son's experience in Canada. The university regiments in Canada and Australia are fundamental to officer recruiting. One enterprising commanding officer told me last year that he had written to every officer training corps in the country to ask them if any of their output of cadets were coming to his regimental area. I am glad that we are at last introducing a system of automatic notification. Yet such a system has existed in all these other countries for many years—in one case, since before the war.
      We need reservist policy advice at the centre. The reserve forces are full of people who know what needs doing; we cannot expect the Regular Army to advise on the same policy matters.
      Last but by no means least on my list is the important relationship with cadet forces. General Colin Powell, in his marvellous testimony to his experience in the American armed forces, has described the vital change in his life made by one enthusiastic cadet instructor. To make the cadet forces really work well and to give them an exciting future, as the national service generation that used to provide so many instructors disappears, we need people with a foothold in civilian life. We need people who can reach out to the teaching profession and to many other organisations; it is from their ranks that these instructors must come. A reservist is responsible for this activity in Canada and Australia.
      I know that the Minister will have been given a great many arguments by the Regular forces, especially the Regular Army, as to why all this is nonsense and why reservists should not fill senior positions. At this point it may be relevant to mention a submission that General Fay made to the Australian inquiry into the reserve forces. It was a successful submission, in that most of his ideas were adopted. He accepted all the difficulties involved in putting reservists in senior positions in a complicated modern military world, but his final comment was:
      "Failure to provide for senior … reserve officer career progression would result in an inability to attract high calibre personnel into the officer ranks. The impact of such a failure in any organisation is self-evident."
      Our Select Committee concluded that that was one of the key reasons for the weaknesses in our reserve forces officer corps.
      Although we have a minority of excellent units, I find it deeply worrying that we have the worst turnover rate in the English-speaking world. The Army Personnel Research Establishment research into the attitudes of territorials leaving the forces lists boring training and poor officer leadership as important factors, according to the Select Committee's report.
      The Australian paper that I have already mentioned ended with a remarkable quotation from Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blarney, uttered in 1932. He was the only Australian ever to reach the rank of Field Marshal and was himself originally a reservist. He said:
      "If the enthusiasm and sacrifice of time and study of this group of keen officers … is allowed to die out, neither money nor the volunteering of large numbers of gallant but untrained men will enable an effective Army to suddenly be created in a crisis."
      During the last war the Australians had no Regular framework in the sense that we had one. The British Regular Army and Regular armed forces are second to
      24
      none, and have been second to none throughout this century, but when it comes to citizen forces—despite a number of exceptionally gallant reserve units—we can learn much from our brethren in the new world and the Antipodes.
      The Australians listened to Field Marshal Blarney. Rommel testified that the finest troops sent against the Germans in the desert campaign were Australians and New Zealanders. The cat was let out of the bag when Monty's chief of staff, General Freddy de Guingard, commented in 1944, during the attempt to break out after D-day: "The old man is absolutely furious. He's cursing the fact that we don't have the Australian ninth division here to lead the way out."
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre said earlier, these views are not confined to Australia, Canada and America. I should like to quote one voice from Britain, Colonel Tony Sellon. He asked me to stress that he was speaking in a personal capacity, not as chairman of the Greater London Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve. Still, he is the man who, as we all know, led the campaign to save the TA in the last round of defence cuts when others should have been doing that job. He is the man who organised the dinner at London Scottish which 70 of us attended and where this message came across strongly. Recently, he also organised the letter-writing campaign about the Royal Marine reserves. He said:
      "My personal view is that it is extraordinary that a service organisation comprised of over 60,000 members, which is approximately one third of the Army's total strength, some of whom hold responsible positions in industry, commerce and in academia, is effectively precluded from filling its own top slot … In the same way that policy matters in the Board Room can often best be addressed by the non-executive Directors, so too is the right part-timer best placed to advise on policy matters relating to the Reserve Forces. It works well in other countries and in business and commerce; so too would it work here."
      The opportunities from the use of our reserve forces are limitless. In America, more than half of all manpower, excluding regular reservists, is provided by reservists. If they are used regularly—90,000 of them went to the Gulf—so much more money can be spent on equipment because reservists are so much cheaper. Here, less than a fifth of our manpower comprises reservists. If the purpose behind the Bill is to become a reality, and we are to go beyond a few hundred people deployed to Bosnia and achieve the standards that we want in reservists, we must cut the crippling wastage and find out why such wastage is so much lower in all the countries that I have mentioned.
      I end by looking back two centuries to 1757, when a certain ambitious, extremely able and gallant militia colonel approached the War Office to ask whether he could be transferred from the militia to the regular forces since he could not rise beyond the rank of colonel in the militia. Had the War Office of the day had an enlightened Minister like my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and not told him that, in spite of his gallant role under Wolfe it had no more use for him, the young Colonel Washington might have taken a different view of this country and history might have taken a different course.
      We have 60,000 British reservists. They deserve a better voice in government than a single brigadier in Wilton. It is time that, like our English-speaking counterparts, we had a reservist general to advise Ministers and chiefs of staff in the Ministry of Defence.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Mans: I very much support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I genuinely feel that the reserve and Regular forces are moving into a new era, in which reservists will be more important to the defence of this country. That needs to be recognised in a way that will enhance the reserve forces, encourage recruitment and ensure that they can play a more worthwhile part in Britain's defence.
      I strongly believe that the new clause in no way threatens the way in which the Regular forces operate. It is absolutely right that we must ensure that our armed forces speak with one voice. The new clause will not affect the Regular armed forces—notably the chief of the general staff—being able to speak for everybody, reservists and Regulars. Without the enhancement of the status of reservists, we will find it difficult to continue to recruit the calibre of men and women that we need.
      We will also find it difficult to ensure that the particular needs and problems that reservists have in filling two roles will be appreciated at the top. Above all, whatever the outcome of this debate, it is important that the voice of reservists is heard fully and at the top of Whitehall. If we can achieve that, regardless of whether the new clause is accepted, the debate will have been worth while.
      Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly in support of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), and to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). I am enthusiastic about the clause for the reason that has just been given—it will help to enhance the work of our reserves and our cadets. I speak with experience, as someone who spent a total of 24 years either with the reserves or with the cadets.
      It must be right to spend more time debating this subject. After all, we are talking about young people and people who want to serve their country—a positive achievement. We spend far too much time in the House talking about complex regulations that are not understood by people outside. In this case, however, we are talking about the way in which people can volunteer to serve this country with the reserves or the cadets. We are also talking about people who give up their time to volunteer to be officers in the reserves and leaders of the cadets. This is not a party-political matter, but it is a pity that we do not spend more time talking about such people and their achievements. This country would be far better if we saw more in the newspapers and elsewhere about the achievements of our reserves.
      I want to make two other remarks before I sit down. First, the new clause states that the senior reservist who is to become the director general of reserve forces and cadets will
      "liaise with schools and youth organisations on ways of promoting and enhancing the roles of cadet forces"
      and will take a particular interest in recruiting. I very strongly support that.
      My last remark is that it is not just a matter of any military benefit that may come from the reserves or from the cadets—the benefit goes much wider than that. That is why the appointment of the director general is so important. The morale of our country is bound up with cadet force and reserve activity. I see in my constituency
      26
      how much good is being done by young people through cadet activities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is listening, and he will agree that this is not just a military matter. It does not matter what the top brass say, as they may be interested only in the military benefits. This is a national issue. We want more young people involved, not fewer. For all those reasons—and for many others that the House will not thank me for speaking on at length—I am delighted to support the new clause.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted to offer my support for the new clause, and that will come as no surprise to my colleagues on the Front Bench. I believe that we must understand the difficulties of being an auxiliary or a reservist. One faces problems at work and difficulties with one's family when one is required to enter into and accept commitments that impinge on family activities and family life. It is because of that that the House must debate fully and adequately the importance of leadership.
      I have no complaints about the quality of the senior air staff officers who have held the post of the officer commanding the Air Cadets. We have been fortunate, as we have had some superb people in these posts. In addition, the director general of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is a Member of the House—my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has active experience and has served in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. It is the combination of those things and experiences that brings together the people who provide leadership and, more importantly, the understanding of what it means to an individual to be a member of the Territorials, the reserves or the auxiliary forces. That is why we must consider carefully what the Bill does.
      My hon. Friend the Minister knows of my concerns about discrimination, which we debated at some length in Committee. He will therefore understand that paragraphs (3)(a) to (e) of new clause 1 are important because they address some of those concerns. I accept that they will not put into statute exactly what I was trying to achieve in Committee, but they at least begin to address my anxieties. I hope that he will carefully consider new clause 1 and respond in a manner that will convince the House and the country that the Government understand that unless we have the right people in the key posts, it is possible that we will not have the number of reservists and auxiliaries that we need to augment our substantially reduced Regular military capability.
      Many Conservative Members feel that we are cutting things rather fine with our current forces numbers. We welcome the improvement in equipment and believe that our Regular forces are best equipped if their numbers are smaller. However, the Regulars will be effective during hostilities only if they can call on the necessary number of reserves to augment them, or back them up in key posts, when they are sent off to a conflict. It was especially important that we addressed the problems facing the medical profession in Committee. New clause 1 deals with that.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said, this debate is important because it affects the whole country. It is important for the reserve forces but also for the cadet forces. There has been some concern in the air cadets about proposed changes in the command structures and to the position of the air officer commanding. I believe that the top man, whatever the

      27
      field, should be a hands-on man with whom reservists can have regular contact and exchange ideas and whom they can approach easily. That is not in any way to diminish the necessary military environment, which is essential. When we are dealing with volunteers, it is important that they can see that such two-way communication is working. Before we change the structures, especially command structures, it is important to take that aspect into consideration.
      Another vital aspect is often overlooked. While the Ministry of Defence, and therefore the public purse, picks up the bulk of the costs of our cadet forces, the cadets, by virtue of the way in which they operate, are required to raise substantial sums in their own right. That is why they are registered as charities. We should not in any way put at risk that charitable status because it is the mechanism through which the bulk of their extra funding comes.
      We had a good and constructive debate in Committee and I believe that members of the auxiliaries and the reserves feel that the Committee and the House cares. I make that as a cross-party point, not a partisan one.
      If we get the structure and the leadership right, we shall have served the country well. If we do not get it right in the current Bill, it will be a long time before we consider another one. Experience as a reservist has taught me that if one does not take the opportunity to make changes, it can often take nearly a lifetime to bring them about later, as it did in my case. Therefore, we need to get it right this time. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister understands that and I hope that when he replies to the debate he will have something positive to say about the new clause.
      4 pm
      Mr. John Wilkinson: Having made one's maiden speech on the subject, it is gratifying to find the ethos and motivation of that speech coming to fruition some 26 years later in that we are establishing a legislative framework which will enable Britain fully to utilise the potential of the reserve forces of all three services.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has done the House a great service by tabling new clause 1, which is the summation of all we have been seeking to achieve. My hon. Friend is infinitely more experienced than I am in these matters and he holds the Territorial decoration for his gallant service in the reserve forces over many years. Moreover, in this place he can be described as TD—or truly dedicated. He has consistently advocated better use of the reserve forces; he has travelled overseas to conduct research; he has written extensively; he has been active in Committee and on the Floor of the House; and now he has introduced a new clause that not only has merit in itself, but sets out the good grounds for its acceptance by the Government and the House.
      We know that the Bill will not be the last word on the reserve forces—I hope it is not—but the appointment of a two-star officer from the reserve forces as director general in the Ministry of Defence, will mean that there will be in post at the heart of the policy-making machinery on the nation's defence, someone with the experience and the status to make a significant contribution and continue the modernisation process of the reserves which will have been set in train by the Bill.
      28
      I particularly welcome the exceptionally ecumenical nature of my hon. Friend's new clause. It is a genuinely tri-service measure. Like many Conservatives, my hon. Friend holds the Territorial Army particularly dear, but we know that reserves of all three forces are required and that the greatest deficiencies are in the naval and air reserves rather than in the Territorial Army as in recent years, the Army has been more imaginative than the Navy and the Air Force in its use of reserves.
      I shall just re-emphasise a few of the points that my hon. Friends have already made. The first relates to status. When dealing with the Ministry of Defence, one cannot over-emphasise the importance of status—it is jealously guarded and earnestly sought. Once obtained, it has to be earned. The gallant gentleman, the two-star officer who will hold the post will be doubly qualified—he will have authority of all three services within the military community and within the civilian community. This dual role is crucial and will enable him to carry weight in a sense that no Regular officer could ever do, particularly among the civilian community, with which the reservists have to deal and from which they are drawn.
      The officer must carry authority with the Territorial and Volunteer Reserve Associations. There is a risk that the TAVRAs might be a little jealous and think that a two-star officer would intrude on their territory. However, the new clause makes it clear that he would work with the TAVRAs regarding all aspects of recruiting and manning. Therefore, they should not be rigorous custodians of their terrain but instead use their imagination and welcome the appointment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) referred to the medical services. Those services are becoming more reliant on reservists in all three armed forces. I have received a letter from the British Medical Association welcoming the new clause and expressing the hope that it will be carried into law.
      Many of my constituents in Ruislip-Northwood are involved in air transport activities. RAF Northolt is a dual-use station which is also used by civilian aircraft and Heathrow is the biggest single employer in my area. At times of emergency or war, our armed forces may have to requisition civilian aircraft for military purposes and that somewhat sensitive and difficult role must be executed diplomatically. It can only be helpful to have in post someone with experience in commerce—and preferably with an air transport background—when dealing with the Department of Transport and the aviation industry, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The point applies also to the National Employers Liaison Committee.
      The reservist two-star officer would have a proselytising role. He would have to support the university air squadrons, the university sea cadet corps and the university officers training corps in their attempts to ensure that graduates do not simply enter the Regular forces upon completion of their service. He must make it clear that they can play an equally valid role in the reserves. The number of schools liaison officers at the Ministry of Defence has been rigorously cut—like so much else—and their role could be reinforced by the reservist two-star officer.
      The officer would also have an overseas representational role. If the director is merely a seconded Regular officer of one-star rank, it creates the impression that Her Majesty's Government do not give the emphasis

      29
      to our reservists that is accorded to those in other countries where the reserve forces are used more effectively. The United States is a prime example, but I could also cite Switzerland, Israel and others. We have much to learn from those countries about the cost-effective potential of the reserve forces. The Ministry of Defence would do well to have on hand the expertise of a highly qualified, experienced two-star reservist officer who would represent the reserves overseas.
      I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has recognised that Regular officer back-up is essential. It is important to have on hand a one-star officer, such as a brigadier, air commodore or commodore, who would ensure that the Regular forces aspects of the reservist commitment are understood and that reservists are not out of line with thinking in the Regular forces.
      In conclusion, I reiterate the warmth of my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. I note that the co-signatories to his new clause have all worn uniform and have all been members of Her Majesty's Regular forces. From the perspective of their Regular service, they understand the merits of having a reservist two-star officer as director general in the Ministry of Defence.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has worn uniform as a Regular, will join us in supporting the new clause.
      Dr. John Reid: I very much agree with the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who pointed out the importance of this issue, and expressed the wish that we could spend more time discussing such issues, with more hon. Members present, and see them reported more widely. Nevertheless, I must say, as I gaze at the empty spaces in the heavens above us, that, no matter how often we discuss defence and no matter how important the subject, it appears that those who report our debates to the nation have their own priorities and their own agenda when it comes to the military—and unfortunately, matters of great importance go largely unreported.
      On the substance of new clause 1, it will not surprise Conservative Members who spoke in its favour to know that I and my colleagues have considerable sympathy with what they said. Several times in the past few years, I have spoken about the importance of the Territorial Army in particular and reserves in general, which I believe extends far beyond their pure military importance, crucial though that is. There is an increasing gap between civilian society and military society because of the lack of conscription, and the reduced numbers, with every passing year, of those who have served in the armed forces. That gap can be bridged largely, although not exclusively, by the membership of the reserve forces and the cadets.
      The argument, although laid out in detail in the new clause, may be made briefly. Hon. Members who argue for the new clause say two things. First, they say that the director general of the reserve forces should be a member of the reserve forces himself or herself. Secondly, they say that the status of the post should be improved, to generate not only internally but externally—among members of the Regular Army, politicians and the public—an understanding that the post is viewed with importance by those who must take decisions.
      30
      Hon. Members have made a good case for that, for three reasons. First, there is a feeling—justified or not— which I perceive as I speak to members of the reserve forces, that they may sometimes be treated as second-class citizens by the Regular armed forces. Whether that is the result of lack of understanding or of the natural self-interest of members of the Regular forces, I do not know, but there is a good case, at a time when we are discussing and backing a "one army" or "one armed force" concept, for doing everything possible to overcome that perception by telling members of our reserve forces, "Yes, we do regard you as equal partners in this one army, this one armed force. To signify that, we shall make the small but significant change of saying that the leadership of this part of the united armed forces will be drawn from the reserves."
      The second argument was made by every hon. Member who spoke—that we must have at the centre of our policy making, our strategic tactical thinking about doctrine and practical problems like mobilisation, someone who has experience, not only of the positive attributes of our reserve forces, but of the problems that confront a member of the reserve force that do not confront Regulars.
      Family problems, which were mentioned, always exist in the Regulars, but are especially acute in the reserves. There are employment problems, which obviously apply only to reserves, and may apply even more now that we are creating new categories of reserves. There are also general logistical problems. No matter how bright and committed the regular soldier, service man or woman who is appointed director general, with the best will in the world they will not have personal experience.
      My third reason can be put more simply. The Defence Select Committee—people who are well versed, well exercised and obviously deeply knowledgeable on the subject, as was demonstrated by their report on reserve forces and the Territorial Army—feels that this subject is worthy of consideration. If I were Minister, that would be enough to make me think.
      In addition to the Committee's report, I refer to the list of names at the top of the new clause—I am not being patronising—which includes the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), et cetera. When hon. Members who take such an interest in this subject feel compelled to table a new clause, it has to be given the utmost consideration.
      4.15 pm
      I have one reservation: it is neither my style nor my inclination to impose a detailed structural amendment on the armed forces when they appear to be not entirely happy with it. However, I understand that, on this occasion, there may be less ground for such reluctance, because most of the people who have been involved in this are regular members of the armed forces. There has also been wide consultation on this document. However, we should not get to this stage and not give the Minister one more chance to consult people. That would be pushing it a little too precipitately, as there will be other occasions on which the Bill will be discussed in the House.
      Obviously, I am an Opposition Member and I do not have access to consultations of this nature—yet. My colleagues and I will listen attentively to what the

      31
      Minister says tonight. I urge him to take full consideration of the arguments that have been put by his hon. Friends and by the Defence Select Committee, and of the views that are widely held by members of the reserve forces. We value the reserve forces, and we are saying to them that they are part of a "one armed force" concept. This small step would be symbolic, and would show that we are prepared to say that and to do it in practice.
      The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) who, over the years, has campaigned assiduously on behalf of the volunteer reserves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, hardly a day goes by without a new pamphlet about the reserve forces emerging from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury.
      My hon. Friend has a tremendous energy and an endless stream of ideas about how to make the best use of part of the armed forces of which he is enormously proud and to which he has devoted a great deal of time. He is full to overflowing with ideas for these energetic, well-qualified and well-informed young men and women, all of whom have a greater role to play than perhaps they are able to play now—and everything that we would like to do in future recognises that fact. The legislation seeks to make greater use of our reserve forces.
      My hon. Friend is well known as a former serving officer in the Territorial Army. His opinions and advice have always been of great value to us. I pay tribute to him for his unstinting support for the Bill. He was one of the first hon. Members to tell me of his personal and wholehearted support for the legislation. I thank him for the hard work he does in the interests of the reserves.
      As I said, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that the Territorial Army has an extraordinary abundance of people with the enthusiasm and desire to serve their country. I hope that he will feel that that is precisely what we are trying to facilitate within the overall spirit of the legislation.
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Minister consider one small point during the Bill's passage through the House? Although TA regulations currently make it clear that the commanding officer of a TA unit should be from the reserves, only four units have such commanding officers, whereas the rest are commanded by Regulars. I think that there is a real problem about the type of message we are sending to those who aspire to run such units and to have an alternative career structure. Will the Minister consider that matter?
      Mr. Soames: I will consider it. If my hon. Friend will let me develop my argument, perhaps he and I could discuss that matter in the light of some figures that I plan to lay before the House later in the debate.
      I agree entirely with the spirit behind the new clause, and I acknowledge—again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said—that it is supported by a number of my hon. Friends, all of whom have served in the armed forces, and by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).
      32
      I acknowledge that, in moving the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is seeking to help to improve the arrangements for advice on reserve matters to Ministers and to the Chiefs of Staff. I hope that he will not think that I am being patronising if I say that I know that his heart is entirely in the right place, and I have every sympathy with his sentiments. I share his anxieties that such advice should be given well and effectively, and that it is currently not as well or as effectively given as it should be.
      It may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and to other hon. Members if I were to outline how matters are, I believe, already improving. I hope that this will be of some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith).
      First, 35 major units out of 107 of the Territorial Army are commanded by TA officers. They hold the rank of lieutenant-colonel or, in certain cases, of colonel. As well as being a significant achievement in its own right, that ensures that advice to the chain of command is given in the normal way, from officers with a reservist perspective. I wholly agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury about the cadet forces.
      Mr. Brazier: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous words, but I honestly wonder what he meant by what he said. Is he saying that it is a significant achievement that less than one third of our TA units are commanded by reservists, whereas the TA regulations say that a reservist should always command such units unless there is no suitable candidate? Only four units out of 31 in the infantry are commanded by a reservist, while the comparative figures for Canada, America and Australia are more than 90 per cent.
      Mr. Soames: I shall come to comparisons with Canada and America later in the debate. I believe that our achievement is remarkable. I am not saying that we cannot do better, but, in itself, that is a remarkable achievement.
      As I said, I wholly agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury about the cadet forces. There are, additionally, no fewer than 39 TA officers currently serving at colonel level in staff appointments. That provides a further source of influence and advice at senior level from a reserve perspective.
      The strength of the TA, however—as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North quite rightly said—lies in it being part of the British Army. We have one Army, not two, and it is therefore right and proper that Ministers receive advice on TA matters through one Army chain of command. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury knows, however, Ministers seek direct advice from the brigadier TA at land whenever it is appropriate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will agree that that is just the sort of advice that Ministers need.
      I take great pleasure in being able to respond to this debate, which is the denouement of 26 years of loyal and hard service by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who made his maiden speech on this subject. It must be very satisfying for him, after 26 years in the House, to see all this brought to fruition. I have been in the House for half that length of time and have been nowhere near any such achievement. He should be very pleased. I very much endorse what he said, and I note his experience of this matter and his support for my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury.

      33
      I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)—to whom I wish also to pay tribute for his many years of service, not only in the reserves and in the cadets—that I wholly agree with him that this is a national question, not a partisan question to do with some small section of the armed forces. The TA—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Motherwell, North is being summoned by his pager, perhaps from on high. He is being called for, Madam Speaker. I hope that it is not bad news.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood rightly said that this is a national matter. It is not something that involves only a chunk of our service life. The matter goes much further than the TA. Indeed, it goes to the ethos of service, to the encouragement of cadets and the importance that cadets, territorial and regular service life play in our national community.
      In some excellent debates in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) encouraged, among other things, greater use of the reserve forces. I am pleased to announce that the Royal Air Force Reserve has come forward with an innovative concept that will enable reservists to take their rightful place alongside Royal Air Force personnel who are engaged in operations.
      The development of composite squadrons was foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who, alas, cannot be with us today because he has been struck down by flu. He presaged the development of such squadrons on Second Reading. No one has been more unstinting nor more devoted in pressing for this important change in legislation. I know that the House will want to wish my right hon. Friend well.
      I am delighted to be able to announce—I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will be delighted to hear—that the Royal Air Force intends to form a Royal Auxiliary Air Force helicopter support squadron on 1 October 1996, which will be based at RAF Benson.
      Initially, the concept of working in an operational environment alongside regular personnel will be tested to establish how a composite squadron might augment the support helicopter force in times of crisis, if successful. The concept may well be extended to other operational roles. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be pleased that the RAF has been able to come forward with an admirable further use of reserves in an extremely important area.
      Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making an announcement that will be widely welcomed in the House and throughout the country. Will the concept allow an overdue opportunity for one of the existing Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons to be resuscitated, together with a squadron badge and a colour?
      Mr. Soames: I am not able to make that announcement today; the whys, wherefores and hows are being examined. As my hon. Friend knows, nothing would give Conservative Members greater pleasure than to be able to do what he asks. I am sure that he can think of suitable numbers and badges. We may decide not to go into those matters today.
      As an example of the sort of advice we receive from the TA and through the chain of command, I remind the House and those who served in Committee that I quoted
      34
      from a letter from the Brigadier TA, Richard Holmes, who wrote to me on whether an anti-discrimination measure would be useful. Those present in Committee will recall that he expressed himself forcefully and, I believe, correctly.
      In addition to the Brigadier TA, there are corresponding roles in the other volunteer reserves. The Royal Naval Reserve has the Commodore Royal Naval Reserve. The Royal Marines Reserve has the Colonel Royal Marines Reserve. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force has the Inspector Royal Auxiliary Air Forces. Ministers, senior officers and officials regularly receive and seek advice from these officers. In addition, there is a TA colonel on the staff of the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets, who advises specifically on volunteer reserve matters.
      As my hon. Friend knows, I regularly see serving TA officers. I take the most careful note of their advice, which is often invaluable. I have extensive contacts in my capacity as Minister of State for the Armed Forces with the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Association and with many serving TA officers at all ranks.
      We wish TA officers to achieve higher ranks and to fulfil the demanding requirements of command and staff appointments. That means that they need access to relevant courses and appropriate opportunities for career development in the TA. We are therefore considering opportunities to increase the scope of TA officers to obtain the necessary qualifications for command and staff appointments. We intend especially to encourage a further TA presence at the junior command and staff college.
      In addition, I am actively considering the possibility of TA officers attending the higher command and staff college. I aim to increase the number of TA staff appointments at lieutenant-colonel and major levels, which will help to broaden the range and experience of serving officers, and so fit them for a wider and higher range of command.
      A further development, with which I hope the House will be pleased, is our intention to appoint TA brigadiers to a post in the directorate of development and doctrine some time later this year, and also the post of Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets in the Ministry of Defence in 1997. I hope that it will be possible to announce the appointment to the doctrine post before the summer recess. It goes without saying that all appointments will— and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury entirely understands—be subject to the availability of candidates of the appropriate calibre.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Brazier: Of course, the appointments must be subject to the availability of candidates of the appropriate calibre. Will my hon. Friend give a pledge here and now that the posts will not be confined to candidates who are available full-time? Given that counterpart posts in Canada, Australia and many individual American states are ably filled by part-timers, can my hon. Friend confirm that part-timers will be allowed to fill those posts?
      Mr. Soames: If my hon. Friend can contain himself for one minute, I hope that I will be able to give him some news that may give him more pleasure than he has a right to expect.
      It goes without saying that all appointments will be subject to the availability of candidates of the appropriate calibre who are able and willing to take up the post.

      35
      The post of Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets was intended to be full-time. However, it is often difficult to find suitable candidates from the reserves to take up full-time appointments.
      The high-calibre individuals we would seek almost invariably have a challenging, rewarding and extremely demanding civilian career. It is not easy for them to drop that career for a two or three-year tour in a reserve job. The higher the rank, the greater is the difficulty, especially if candidates have been expected already to devote considerable time to command and staff tours.
      The difficulties would have prevented us from appointing a reserve officer to the post of Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets on a full-time basis. I have therefore decided that the post should be filled on a part-time basis. That will give the services a number of possible candidates from whom to pick the officer best suited for the job. I hope that that will lead to an early decision on the appointment, which could take effect in 1997. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that as a significant and important development. It underlines our determination to make the best possible use of the expertise available to us in the reserve forces.
      The new clause envisages the creation of a part-time two-star post. The incumbent of such a post would find it, in our judgment, extremely difficult to undertake the tasks. He could hardly be held accountable for the activities of a large full-time staff, and he therefore could not hold executive authority. The post might be regarded as purely advisory, but the terms of the new clause are not consistent with that. In any event, such a senior adviser could hardly avoid interfering with the real responsibilities of the chain of command.
      As I have mentioned, many sources of advice on reserve issues are available to Ministers. I receive frequent advice from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries from my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury, for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), for Ruislip-Northwood, for Tayside, North and other hon. Friends, as well as from many other areas of what is now known as the reserve community.
      It is also difficult to see how a TA officer who, by the nature of his life, will inevitably have spent only short periods in full-time military appointments, could obtain the necessary experience and qualifications to fill a two-star post with responsibilities that will necessarily go wider than purely reserve matters. To do an executive job effectively in the Ministry of Defence needs a different background and experience from that which a reservist will, with the best will in the world, by circumstance be able to possess.
      We already have a two-star focus for reserves in the post of the Defence Services Secretary, to whom the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets reports. As a regular officer, the Defence Services Secretary has the experience and depth of knowledge to integrate the advice he receives from reservists into the wider picture.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will be aware that the Supreme Allied Commander Europe— SACEUR—is looking for input via the NATO national reserve forces committee on much wider issues connected with the establishment and use of reserves. To make an effective contribution to such discussions requires a
      36
      knowledge and understanding of military issues of doctrine, training and resources that inevitably goes wider than the experience that a volunteer reservist would have been able to gain, unless in exceptional circumstances.
      Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way for the third time.
      The posts on that committee are filled by American and Canadian reservists. Although we welcome what my hon. Friend said earlier, many of us remain committed to the view that, if a Canadian or American reservist general can fill such a post, there is no reason why a British reservist general cannot do so.
      Mr. Soames: I find myself in polite and deeply respectful disagreement with my hon. Friend. As he and I have established in discussions on a number of occasions, comparisons with Canada and the United States are not particularly helpful. Comparisons with the United States are unhelpful because the United States reserve forces are very much larger than ours. They have a different staff structure; in particular, they have a large cadre of full-time reservists. A reserve general in the US forces almost invariably has a career of full-time service behind him.
      In Canada, many factors—geographical, historical, cultural and strategic, to name but a few—combine to make the Canadian position very different from ours, as I discovered when I went to Canada last year and spent quite a long time with the reserve forces there. We have frequent staff discussions about reserves with the Canadians, and, indeed, with our other NATO allies. The NATO national reserve forces committee provides a specific six-monthly forum for meetings, but there are other important informal contacts. Each of us seeks to learn from the practice of the others. It would, however, be wrong to think that any particular aspect could be simply transplanted from one nation to another.
      Most important, I believe that it would be highly damaging to the high reputation and credibility of the Territorial Army if a special two-star post were created merely as a token gesture, especially if it were subsequently filled by an unsuitable candidate. Furthermore, I am convinced that it would be difficult to justify the creation of such a post at a time when the number of two-star posts in the services is being reduced.
      For example, in April 1993 there were 56 two-star posts in the Army; there are now only 38, and there are plans to abolish another four by the end of 1997. There is also little evidence that many TA officers aspire to two-star appointments, or consider that the absence of a two-star appointment adversely affects the management of the TA.
      Altogether, I consider that the creation of a two-star reservist post is both unnecessary and, at this stage, inappropriate. However, I share my hon. Friend's view that the TA needs to feel that its views are taken fully into account in, perhaps, a more obvious way, and to see that its wishes have been translated into action. Considering that we make such play of the one-army structure, that is only fair. I am considering how I may achieve such a result, and I shall discuss the matter further with the Chief of Defence Staff.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I realise that much of the debate concerns the Territorial Army, but my hon. Friend will realise that the Royal Air Force has its different structures. Indeed, he touched on that in connection with the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). There is also the question of the air officer in command of the air cadets, who is a full-time regular RAF officer. Let me make it clear that I am not unhappy with that appointment; what concerns me is that we may be contemplating changes, and may not have looked at where all the ripples are going. It is vital that we do so before finally pledging ourselves.
      Mr. Soames: I hope that my hon. Friend knows that, as a keen fisherman, I always look where all the ripples are going. At least 10 per cent. of a speech that I have tried to make as brief as possible was, in fact, devoted to making a major announcement about the RAF, so my hon. Friend has had quite a good go of it.
      Irrespective of what I have said, there are a number of technical reasons why I cannot accept the new clause as it stands. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand. I feel obliged, out of courtesy, to list those reasons briefly. [Interruption.] I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) apparently does not want to know those reasons, but I am sure that he will find them interesting.
      First, the Crown has always had the power to decide how to organise the armed forces and, in particular, to create or disestablish particular posts.
      As a matter of convention, parliamentary control over the armed forces has been limited to the numbers that may be maintained, matters of supply, the powers that are necessary to maintain the armed forces and, as we have recently done, review of the disciplinary powers that accompany the Armed Forces Bill. As far as I am aware, there has never been any post in the armed forces, regular or reserve, that has required to be established by statutory power. We should not create a precedent in this case.
      It has also always been within the Crown's prerogative powers to decide which officers to appoint to particular positions, what their duties should be and the staff they should have. The new clause would dictate the appointment, its role and the support it must have. It would even specify the identity of the first incumbent of the proposed chief of staff post. As far as I am aware, there is no precedent for laying those matters down in statute. For that reason if no other, I feel bound to resist the new clause.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has done a signal service for the Territorial Army and for the wider reserves in instigating this debate. His enthusiasm and support for the reserve forces is truly appreciated by us all. I trust that, in the light of what I have said, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Brazier: I welcome the strong progress in the right direction that has been announced by my hon. Friend. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 6

      PERMANENT STAFF OF THE RESERVE FORCES
      Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, at end insert—
      '(3) Parliament shall authorise a maximum number of members of the permanent staff of the reserve forces.'.
      The debate on new clause 1 was interesting and well informed. The thread running through the debates in the House and in Committee was a determination by all hon. Members to ensure that their speeches were well informed.
      Parliament has already given powers to authorise the level of the reserve forces, and the amendment refers specifically to the number of permanent people in those forces. They are the non-regular permanent staff or NRPS and the permanent staff administrative officers or PSAOs. As the House knows, those are uniformed administrators. Some months ago the Select Committee on Defence criticised the high number of administrators.
      Since 1991, there has been a 17 per cent. increase in non-regular permanent staff, compared with a 33 per cent. decline in the size of the Territorial Army. To pay for those permanent TA members, the nation has to spend nearly £39 million in the current year. No one is suggesting for a second that those officers are in any sense bad at their jobs. We suggest, however, and the Select Committee recommends, much closer monitoring and scrutiny of the number of non-regular permanent staff. The Select Committee report states:
      "We look to MoD to monitor closely the tasks carried out by Regular and NRPS staff, to civilianise those with no genuine military content, to make full use of the commercial contracts available to the Regular Army and to seek to reduce the current levels of administrative support wherever possible."
      Together, the NRPS and the PSAOs account for the most substantial portion of unit pay and expenditure. It is an additional tier of administration with its own career structure, allowances, housing, subsistence, travel, leave and pensions, and it has relatively unlimited tenure. We have a greater proportion of non-regular permanent staff in our Territorial Army than any other Commonwealth country or the United States reserve forces.
      Our probing amendment asks the Minister to reassure the House—as he reassured the Committee, but we need further reassurance—that there will be much closer scrutiny and monitoring of these matters with separate accounting to the Regular Army and to the Territorial Army. The non-regular permanent staff should be on fixed-term postings and should be rotated between units and answerable to the commanding officers of TA units. The issue is of grave concern to us all because of the amount of money spent and the number of people involved. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a matter that we discussed in Committee. He is right to air it again in the House. After considering what was said in Committee and hearing the arguments, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I disagree on any material point. However, I hope that he will agree that his probing amendment would not be helpful; nor would it

      39
      have the effect that he desires. I shall assist by going into a little more detail about the origins, background and present role of the permanent staff.
      The origins of the Territorial Army's non-regular permanent staff go back to the setting up of the TA in 1907 when provision was made for there to be permanent staff. Normally, they were to be members of the regular forces, but in special circumstances they could be members of the TA. When setting up the Territorial Army Lord Haldane recognised that it was essential for it to be competently trained and administered, and those requirements hold good today.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) would agree that the size of the permanent staff should not be at the expense of the operational strength of the TA. He made that point strongly in Committee and we all share it. He will also agree that it is important that the volunteer reserve should be appropriately administered and trained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) made plain in Committee, volunteers want to join the TA to do real soldiering, not to carry out purely administrative tasks. The permanent staff frees volunteer reserve officers and senior non-commissioned officers from routine administration, permitting them to concentrate on arranging interesting and challenging training for their units, which surveys have shown to be crucial to improving retention in the TA.
      Despite our broad agreement, I do not think that the amendment will do what the hon. Gentleman wants it to do. Regular numbers are already subject to strict control and it would be novel for Parliament to seek to control how they are posted or employed. Moreover, the dividing line between permanent staff and ordinary training and staff functions can sometimes be difficult to define. Some Regular service men who are not classed as permanent staff may spend a significant amount of time in direct or indirect support of the TA. The amendment would therefore be unworkable, but I accept that the hon. Gentleman is merely seeking clarification.
      I am happy to repeat the reassurance that he seeks, and which I gave in Committee, that we fully accept the need to watch the numbers in the permanent staff, whether Regular or non-Regular. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to assess the level and nature of full-time support in the TA to suit its circumstances. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will feel able to seek leave to withdraw his admirable but probing amendment.
      Mr. Murphy: On the basis of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 27

      VOLUNTARY TRAINING AND OTHER DUTIES
      Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 12, leave out lines 21 to 24.
      This matter was discussed in Committee and relates to voluntary training and other voluntary duties in Britain and elsewhere. This is a probing amendment with the aim of urging the Minister to tell the House the reasoning
      40
      behind the clause. Voluntary training is unpaid, of course, and sports, competitions, social events and the raising of funds for charities might be described in the normal run of things as voluntary and unpaid. However, training which is individual, which is for the purposes of the trades concerned and which is promotional and regimental should be matters for payment.
      Where Territorial Army facilities are hired on a private or on a commercial basis by reservists, the individual is off duty and military law should not apply. The danger is—the Minister referred in Committee to a number of examples which could be regarded as voluntary training, including moving ammunition by truck—that the line between what should be voluntary and what is paid can sometimes be an interesting and delicate one. Our fear is that if we are not careful we could end up with training for our reservists on the cheap. That is undesirable. It is not the Bill's purpose and I look forward again to the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Soames: Again, we discussed this in Committee, and the hon. Member for Torfaen is right that it is a difficult matter. I hope that we have done enough in the Bill to put on the record the fact that there is little between us. Again, it may help if I repeat the explanation that I gave in Committee on the background to clause 27.
      If each volunteer reservist carried out only his or her 19 or 27-day annual commitment, the volunteer reserve forces could hardly function. That means that reservists, especially officers, warrant officers and senior non-commissioned officers, need to do more than that.
      Clause 27(1)(a) replicates the effect of section 43 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. It permits reservists to undertake additional voluntary training. The effect of the Act has been to restrict reservists' activities when not called out to those activities which can be classified as training. That has proved irksome and the purpose of clause 27(1)(b) is to extend the power to include "voluntary duties".
      The wording makes it clear that the provision applies irrespective of whether the initiative comes from the individual or from the services and irrespective of whether the activity could be described as training. Voluntary duties would cover a wide range of activities. A most mundane example might be, as we said in Committee, collecting a new truck from the storage depot—an example mentioned by hon. Gentleman. Towards the opposite end of the scale, it might involve a Territorial Army regiment moving ammunition from a depot to a port ready for loading for an operation. The list is endless.
      As I have said, the formal restriction of reserve activities when not called out to those which can be classified as training has proved irksome. The wording makes it clear that an individual is allowed to perform such training or duties and can lawfully do so irrespective of whether the individual asks to perform the training or duty concerned or is asked to do so by the services. It is lawful for an individual to perform such tasks, regardless of whether the activity can be described as training or duty. That allows the deep well of enthusiasm for such tasks within the volunteer reserve to be tapped with minimum bureaucracy.
      Without the clause, it would not be explicitly clear that individuals are permitted to undertake such additional voluntary training or duties. It would be a pointless restriction to prevent the reserve forces from harnessing the enthusiasm and keenness of the volunteers, but

      41
      without the words in the clause, it would not be beyond all doubt that such activities were permitted. That ambiguity should be avoided. I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to persuade the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Murphy: I understand the reasoning behind the clause and I do not intend to divide the House on the matter, but I still think that it is important for this country's reservists to understand that there is a difference between voluntary training and what they should properly be paid for in terms of training. There could sometimes be very considerable grey areas. That is not the Bill's intention. However, I am encouraged by the Minister's words and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 36

      PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF NUMBERS AND REPORTS
      Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 17, line 34, leave out 'from time to time' and insert
      'at least every five years'.
      The amendment refers to the parliamentary control of numbers and reports. Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been considerable reference to the need for the House and the other place to have the opportunity from time to time to debate the number of men and women in our reserve forces. Again, the amendment is a probing one. However, the period suggested in the amendment— that reports should come to the House every five years— has not been simply plucked out of thin air.
      The Minister has spent the past few months as a leading member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, so he is aware that that legislation comes before the House every five years. The amendment refers to the same period. What happens, for example, if the number of reservists falls below the number that is healthy for the proper running of the reserve forces in this country? Do we have to wait an indeterminate length of time before the Minister talks to us in the House about the position? From time to time, and every five years as of right, the House should have the opportunity to discuss not only the number of reservists in all three armed forces, but any problems which might arise in those forces.
      The second point of the amendment is this. What method of control will the House of Commons have, and what mechanism does the clause envisage, in relation to, for example, over-staffing, as much as to under-staffing? How does the Minister envisage the House debating the issue? It is not made clear in the Bill and we did not have the opportunity to discuss it in Committee. We therefore look forward to the Minister's comments on this important matter.
      Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important point. We should start with the basic premise that Parliament will be interested in call-out. The Bill therefore rightly requires the use of the call-out powers to be reported.
      The principal call-out powers, in clauses 52, 54 and 56, are activated by the making of an order, which is to be reported
      "forthwith to each House of Parliament".
      42
      The arrangements for high-readiness reserves in part IV of the Bill are different. They might be required in small numbers at short notice. They might also be required in circumstances in which a formal declaration of call-out might be an unhelpful political signal.
      A further consideration is that each individual will voluntarily have entered into a special agreement and his or her employer will have consented to that. They will therefore not need the safeguard that immediate reporting to Parliament provides. The Bill therefore provides for reporting to be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It specifically mentions, in clause 36(4), that reports may be made before or after the use of the power.
      I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's points. I remain unconvinced that the amendment is appropriate, but I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to something which is perhaps not made so plain as we would like. However, I cannot conceive and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman cannot conceive of any circumstance in which a report would not be made to the House of Commons.
      The pattern of reports and what they contain may, of course, vary. For example, the Secretary of State might report the commencement of an operation and the associated call-out of reservists under part IV, and then not make a further report until there is some change to that report. There may be successive call-outs of individuals to provide continuous manning of a small number of posts, as sometimes happens during major call-outs now. Such events would not be of sufficient interest to be reported, although at present all those are placed in the Library. However, if the operation was prolonged, there might be occasional written reports on the call-out of further reservists. At the conclusion of the operation, when all reservists had been released from service, the Secretary of State would probably wish to report that fact and record any successes or lessons learnt. It would, of course, always be open for hon. Members or Peers to request information on any aspect of the use made of the powers by tabling questions.
      In those circumstances, the Bill as drafted is satisfactory. It allows for the level and detail of reports to be tailored to the needs of the situation prevailing at the time. I hope that—as in the spirit of the debates on previous amendments—in the light of my assurances as to the pattern of reports that we envisage, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Murphy: The Minister's hopes will be realised now that we have those reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 37

      INTERPRETATION OF PART IV
      Dr. Reid: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 18, leave out lines 13 to 15.
      The amendment would delete subsection (3), which refers to the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide
      "as to when a contract of service is to be treated for the purposes of this Part as normally involving or not involving employment for 14 hours or more weekly."

      43
      We have a number of questions about the clause, and a number of concerns to do with the relationship between this provision and the recent legislation on the jobseeker's allowance.
      5 pm
      Despite having received an explanation in Committee of where the 14-hour period comes from, we would like to hear it again. The Minister said in Committee that it was not wholly arbitrary, but had been chosen because it represented two working days. For most people, I should have thought, that would be 16 hours. Certainly that is the number used by the Department of Social Security, but for some reason the Ministry of Defence prefers 14 hours. The basic Territorial Army commitment is for more than 16 hours a week, pro rata, so why is there no TA part-time employment protection?
      We also seek explanations of several other issues to do with the relationship between unemployed reservists and state benefits. Under the current rules, travelling and other expenses, allowances or bounty are disregarded when assessing unemployment benefit and income support. While daily earnings above a certain amount affect unemployment benefit and income support entitlement, the first 16 training nights are excluded from such calculations for reservists under current—that is to say, pre-jobseeker's allowance—legislation.
      Weekly net earnings above £61 negate a full week's benefits; but the benefit week for DSS purposes usually runs from Sunday to Saturday. That means that pay earned by a TA soldier over a training weekend will affect his or her benefits in two consecutive weeks; hence the benefit entitlement in both weeks will be affected by any money received by weekend training.
      Reservists attending camps are usually allowed to sign off the register and re-sign when they return. As far as I know, jobcentres acting as agents of the DSS have the flexibility to amend benefit weeks. There is also evidence, under current implementation of DSS benefit regulations, that different offices interpret regulations in different ways when dealing with reservists.
      In response to some of our inquiries, we were grateful to receive a letter, from the Minister to me, dated 21 April. It reassured us on some points; it is worth noting them here since it is always useful to put these things on the record in Hansard. We welcome the fact that the Minister pointed out that the DSS had agreed that reservists claiming jobseeker's allowance should be able to benefit from a number of special rules. First, most jobseeker's allowance claimants will be able to keep the first £5 of weekly earnings, but it has been agreed that reservists— after all, they serve their country—will be able to keep the first £15.
      We also welcome the fact that any annual bounty will be treated as capital, not income; so, for the vast majority of claimants, bounty will have no effect on their benefits. No doubt the Minister will confirm that today.
      Most important, reservists will be exempt from the 16-hour remunerative work rule that will operate with the jobseeker's allowance. If that exemption were not offered, entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance would automatically be lost if the claimant spent 16 hours or
      44
      more on his duties in any week. We agree that these arrangements provide for what the Minister called a significantly more generous treatment of the earnings of reservists. That is only right, as they are prepared to sacrifice their free time to the service of their country and, on occasion, to make the ultimate sacrifice.
      One or two other small points in the great scheme of this 132-clause Bill will affect individual reservists. I refer to the idea of travel expenses being regarded as income when entitlement to the JSA is assessed. This would badly affect reservists who had to make long journeys to their units. It would be particularly unwelcome to Territorial Army Volunteer Reserves that recruit over large areas. In any case, the money will not go into the pocket of the reservist. If it is deemed under DSS regulations to be income for most people, it certainly should not be for reservists.
      Although the fine details of the jobseeker's allowance have not been finalised, we believe that the Sunday to Saturday benefit week will again be the norm. If so, that will affect reservists' benefits if they are unemployed for two consecutive weeks. We would consider that unfair. Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will confirm today what he outlined to me in writing about the £5, for a single person, and £10, for a married couple, disregard for earnings. The benefit week should be rephased for reservists, and travel expenses should be disregarded. They are bona fide expenses, not income. We hope, too, that jobcentres will be given a clear rule for dealing with reservists who attend camps. That would allow for parity of treatment. It is wrong that claimants should be treated differently according to the part of the country in which they reside.
      Reassurances on these matters would enable us to withdraw our probing amendment in the knowledge that the rights of unemployed reservists had been safeguarded as far as lies within our power.
      Mr. Soames: For a Jock, the hon. Gentleman bowls a jolly good googly: he is plainly a cricketer. That was rather a low ball at this stage of our proceedings. I shall answer his points as well as I can, and write to him about any on which I cannot give him satisfaction this evening.
      I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's points with great interest. Perhaps it would clarify clause 37(3) if I explained the thinking behind it. First, the terminology. The Bill refers to a contract of service—the legal term for what we might more loosely call a contract of employment. The purpose of subsection (3) is to cope with the fact that a contract of service need not specify the hours to be worked in terms of hours per week. An individual may be on a flexible working hours agreement, or may have to work a certain number of hours or days a month rather than hours a week. A contract may even specify work measurement by output, like the old system of piecework. In many cases work could be performed for more than 14 hours a week even though the contract did not stipulate that.
      Individuals with such flexible working patterns might find the high-readiness reserve particularly attractive, and we would not want to inhibit them from joining. The reasons why an employer's consent should be obtained are equally valid in those circumstances. We would not want to place an employer whose employees were on a more flexible working pattern at a disadvantage to another

      45
      employer whose work force worked a set number of hours a week. Regulations under the subsection would require an individual who worked in a flexible employment pattern broadly equivalent to 14 hours a week to obtain his employer's consent in the same way as if his contract specified 14 hours a week or more. That should serve to reassure the employers affected. All I can say is that I hope that they understand it more than I do.
      I should like to cite an example that was used in Committee, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will remember. It would be inappropriate if a reservist who had a part-time job working behind a bar for a few hours occasionally had to obtain the consent of the publican. That is why clause 28 introduces the concept of qualifying employment. It provides that only employers for whom the reservist works for more than a threshold of 14 hours a week are required to give their consent. That is wholly preferable to requiring a reservist to obtain consent from every employer for whom he may work only casually or intermittently. We chose 14 hours as a good period, equivalent to just under two normal working days of eight hours.
      The points that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North made about the jobseeker's allowance are important. As he will understand, there is a close dialogue between Ministers and officials in the Departments for Education and Employment and of Social Security and the MOD on the special arrangements for reservists receiving jobseeker's allowance. That dialogue has focused on the impact of part-time service on eligibility for the allowance. My understanding is that a period of called-out service, during which the reservist would of course receive full service rates of pay, would be treated under the JSA rules in just the same way as any period of full-time employment. A person who had been called out for service could not receive JSA in that period. At the end of his service, his eligibility for JSA would be reassessed on the basis of his national insurance contributions record. The detailed rules are—thank God— too complex to explain here.
      It is possible for the benefit week to be adjusted. DSS officers have flexibility to do that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North for giving me a chance to clarify the matter. Any cases of difficulty should be referred at once to the MOD, and they will be taken up with the DSS. In fact, we have just resolved one such case, and a benefit week has been changed so that a weekend's pay affects only one week's benefit.
      I am aware that reservists who are claiming unemployment benefit and/or income support feel aggrieved that their travel expenses from home to their unit are treated as income. That causes particular difficulties for reservists who travel long distances to attend training at their units. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), and asked him to review the matter when drawing up detailed regulations for the JSA. I can give a categorical assurance that the power will be used solely to clarify the position where the contract of employment is not specific about hours.
      I hope that I have been able to deal with the points raised entirely fairly by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, and that, in the light of what I have said, he will
      46
      withdraw his amendment. If there are other points with which he wants me to deal, I would be happy to do so formally by letter.
      Dr. Reid: For all the Minister's modesty, he batted— if that is the correct expression, since I am not a cricketer—very well. He dealt with the two main points and gave me assurances on both of them. I take it that that is a result of what he called an extremely close liaison between the Departments for Education and Employment and of Social Security and the Treasury. I am glad to see that that goes on. We in the Labour party make such liaison a practice between our shadow Departments. Such practice has obviously reaped some fruit for the Minister. Given his assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 95

      OFFENCES AGAINST ORDERS AND REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 4
      5.15 pm
      Dr. Reid: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 53, leave out lines 18 to 22.
      The amendment refers to terminology relating to discipline which we think is ambiguous and could lead to more trouble than we expect unless it is more clearly defined. The amendment would leave out subsection (l)(b), which refers to the penalty that may be brought if a member of a reserve force
      "uses threatening or insulting language or behaves in an insubordinate manner to any officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or petty officer".
      The amendment's general intention is to extend military law, outwith the sphere of officers or non-commissioned officers, to 60,000 more people—members of the reserve forces—24 hours a day, whether on or off duty.
      The Minister has been good enough to write to members of the Standing Committee to clarify the position. His letter has been useful so far as it goes. His letter of 2 May said:
      "the offence of clause 95(1)(b) only applies where the superior is carrying out duties in pursuance of orders or regulations under clause 4."
      He added that that is an important qualification of the phrase
      "acting in the execution of his office",
      which had been quoted to him. He said:
      "The offence would not apply in ordinary civilian life, and specifically not to matters arising in the ordinary course of employment of a sponsored reservist. On the other hand, it would apply where a superior was, say, properly attempting to serve some notice connected with a reservist's duty on him."
      We find that paragraph useful in limiting the scope for ambiguity and problems further down the line. However, another paragraph in the Minister's letter seemed to extend the scope. Referring to the same clause, he said:
      "Generally, members of the reserve forces will be subject to those Acts"—
      the service discipline Acts—
      "only when they are on permanent service, on full-time reserve service under clause 24 of the Bill, on the permanent staff, or when undertaking training and duty."

      47
      The use of the word "generally" seems to create all sorts of problems right away, and it naturally follows that there are an unspecified number of exceptions to that general rule.
      We are also concerned that subsection (l)(b) covers not only insubordination or threatening language, but insulting language. That is the second point of ambiguity. Threatening language is already a civil offence. The use of threatening language off duty is already covered by civilian law, yet it is my understanding of the definition of insubordination that it can occur only when on duty since it must be in response to an instruction or an order. Nevertheless, both the use of threatening language and insubordination can be fairly well categorised and defined. The problem is that the use of insulting language in the circumstances in which the Bill may be applied seems to be extremely ambiguous. The use of insulting language as a possible transgression of discipline in circumstances that, in the Minister's words, might "generally" apply, seems to give a double ambiguity. Subject to his answer, we reserve the right to withdraw the amendment, but we want the Minister to give a clearer definition of the word "generally" as used in the first paragraph of his letter of explanation regarding the circumstances under which the charge would normally apply.
      In addition, what is insulting behaviour? I mention this because of the difficulties of defining such an offence, even when someone is on duty. Many of us will have seen a recent series on BBC Television entitled "HMS Brilliant". One particular cameo in that series—which looked at life in the armed forces and, in particular, the Navy—was an attempt to try under military law a rating for making comments that were deemed to be denigrating to an officer, but the rating had made the comments when he was off-ship and onshore. The difficulties involved— although the rating was on active service, but offshore—in trying to apply military law to a clear offence of insulting behaviour were clear.
      If we were to extend the charge from those on active service to the reserve forces in circumstances that are "generally" defined, we can imagine the difficulties that will be encountered, not only with the offences of threatening behaviour or insubordination—which can be dealt with—but insulting behaviour. The proposal would seem to open a wide avenue for already well-heeled lawyers and, possibly, to create a well-trodden path between here and the European Court of Human Rights. Anything we can do to prevent that is surely a good thing.
      Mr. Soames: In answering the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), I am inclined to remind him that identifying insulting behaviour is roughly the same as finding an elephant in one's bedroom and wondering whether it is an elephant. If it is there, one knows it. I agree with him that this matter deserves a proper answer, and I shall do my best to satisfy him. I wholly applaud his determination with regard to the European Court of Human Rights, which he knows the Government wholly share.
      Clause 95 was the subject of detailed discussions in Committee on 23 April. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who has
      48
      made a significant contribution to the Bill. At that time, I promised that I would offer him reassurance in writing, and I wrote to him on 2 May. I sent copies of that letter to the other members of the Committee, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I briefly set out the background to clause 95(l)(b).
      The offence is designed to close what would otherwise be a loophole in the reserve forces disciplinary code, and does so in what I believe to be a wholly proportionate way. It is necessary because members of the reserve forces are subject to service law only when they are on duty. The sole exception is that officers in the Territorial Army, Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve who are not sponsored reserves are subject to service law at all times.
      The men and women of a Territorial Army unit will generally cease to be on duty when dismissed at the muster parade at the end of the evening. They will thus not be on duty when they repair to the bar. Such social activities are vital to the coherence of a unit and an extremely important factor in retention and morale. However, those activities are not duty, and those concerned will therefore not be subject to service law. The senior officer present will have a duty to ensure that the bar is closed at the proper time in accordance with the orders or regulations. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North may find it hard to believe, but it is not unknown for TA soldiers to object to the bar being closed. A certain amount of banter is clearly wholly acceptable—more so than when I was in the Regular Army, when regimental sergeant-majors managed to charge soldiers who had said nothing with "dumb insolence".
      In the TA context, there comes a point where banter becomes divisive and where it damages the cohesion and morale that social activities are intended to build. The provision in clause 95(1)(b) allows appropriate disciplinary action to be taken in such cases. The most usual penalties would be a small fine as a token punishment for those who were subsequently repentant, or discharge from the TA for those who were not. That does not constitute an interpretation or limitation of the words in the Bill.
      In practice, discipline in the voluntary reserves—as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North will understand— rests very much on self-discipline. Because those who are unhappy with the requirement placed on them can resign easily, disciplinary cases are proportionately much less common than in the regular services. We would therefore not expect many cases under this clause, and we believe that its mere existence will deter those few barrack-room lawyers who like to test the system and who know where the loopholes are.
      The application of the offence and of clause 95 as a whole to all reserve forces seems to us to be a sensible and proportionate step. It is a far more precise way of dealing with actual and potential problems than the alternative, which would be to extend the circumstances in which reserves are subject to service law. I very much hope that, following that explanation, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Dr. Reid: I am not entirely sure that we have made much progress on the amendment. This is the one occasion when we moved from lawyers to soldiers being

      49
      called to the bar. However, I think I see what the Minister is aiming at. I am reluctant to allow to pass through both Houses a measure which, in practice and not in theory, seems to offer all sorts of problems further down the road. We do not need these problems, because there are already enough people who are only too willing to take the opportunity—as they are perfectly entitled to do—to criticise the fairness or the practicability of military law.
      This is the second time that the Minister has had to apply his mind to the matter, and I suspect that he may have to do so on a third or fourth occasion. It was encouraging that he said that it is envisaged that the clause will have a deterrent effect, although whether clause 95(1)(b) of the Reserve Forces Bill will have an immediate deterrent effect on a squaddie retiring from the bar and objecting to its closing remains to be seen.
      In view of the attempts that have been made by the Government to answer the queries that were raised by Opposition Members, I will, in the spirit of our discussions, seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      5.27 pm
      Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I intend to speak extremely briefly and will mention only the key points that have arisen as we have debated the Bill. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will have heard me say this at each stage of the Bill, but I would like to emphasise that this is clearly an important piece of legislation. It brings the law on reserves up to date, and it will permit those reserves to be used more flexibly.
      A principal expression of that flexibility is in the call-out powers. The Bill retains the existing power of call-out in times of national danger or great emergency, and extends the power when war-like operations are in preparation or progress to all reserve forces. The Bill introduces a new power of call-out for peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations.
      The Bill removes all existing statutory stipulations that one element of the reserves be used before another. A similar restriction in TA regulations stemming from an undertaking in a 1965 White Paper will also be removed. The Bill has received widespread support, and quite rightly so. The comments from Members on both sides of the House and the favourable response from around the nation indicate that the extensive consultation exercise that was undertaken was extremely worth while. The consultation has permitted the Bill's provisions to be widely debated. The House will acknowledge that that has contributed in no small way to its smooth passage during its proper and careful scrutiny in Parliament.
      I express my sincere thanks, and those of the Territorial Army and all the reserve forces, to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on the Bill. I extend particular thanks to the Opposition spokesmen for the sensible and coherent way in which they have sought to probe the Government's intentions. They have been fair and honourable throughout and, for my part, I have greatly enjoyed conducting the Bill in that spirit. I know that their efforts have always centred on improving the Bill and representing the interests of those affected by it.
      50
      I thank the officers and staff of all three services, who have devoted much time to legislation that will be important to them. I thank the Bill team at the Ministry of Defence and my private office for their forbearance and skill. It is not generally known, but the Ministry of Defence rarely has to introduce legislation—normally, it is only once every five years. It is my very bad luck that in my second year as Minister, muggins should have fallen in with two Bills. I am pleased that this Third Reading pulls down the curtain on an interesting and eventful Bill. However, I have had enough of it and I am glad to move on to other pastures.
      I am truly grateful for the wide support that the Bill has received. Hon. Members have shown that they recognise its importance. New legislation for the reserve forces is long overdue and will be widely welcomed by all those affected. We are committed to using our reserves more flexibly. The Bill makes that possible and introduces important safeguards for employers and reservists.
      In conclusion, I acknowledge the vital role that the reserve forces play in our defence capability. As we know from their work in Bosnia, they provide vital support to our Regular forces in the most difficult times as well as on an everyday basis. The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the commitment and dedication of the men and women who make up our reserve forces. They do it wholly voluntarily and are a credit to their nation and a beacon to the communities in which they serve. I know that they are waiting to take up the new challenges and opportunities that the Bill offers. I warmly commend the Bill.
      5.31 pm
      Mr. Murphy: I add the Opposition's congratulations to those who have been involved in passage of the Bill, which could be regarded as an example of a better way in which to deal with Bills—especially non-controversial ones.
      The consultation was the most extensive on a Bill for many a year. It is perhaps time that the Government listened to what people—in this case in the reserve forces—say about legislation. The consultation has created a consensus on the main issues involved and on the principles that underlie the Bill. Despite that, there was proper and thorough scrutiny both in the other place and in Committee.
      The Committee stage was short but thorough. We dealt with several important issues that require brief mention. We considered safeguards for employers and employees, especially for when people are called up, and in respect of pensions and benefits. It was important that we considered financial compensation for people who were called up. The experience of the Gulf war was less than happy and we had to cut out unnecessary bureaucracy and delay. The Ministry of Defence is now aware of that important message, as are the reserve forces.
      We considered the level of permanent staff, which needs to be monitored carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) mentioned the concern about extending military law. Hon. Members raised the vital issue of possible discrimination against reservists, on which the Committee spent much time. We were grateful for the Minister's reassurance on that. It must be emphasised and repeated that we can have no truck with those who discriminate against men and women who seek to serve their country as members of the reserve forces.

      51
      We discussed the role of the Royal Marines Reserve, which is especially important to hon. Members who represent constituencies near the sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North raised the question of the Ministry of Defence police and I asked about the Maritime Voluntary Service. All those important matters were discussed at great length but with great interest in Committee.
      It is important that there should be a greater link between the Regular and reserve forces, especially in respect of training. That should include the use of Regular forces' facilities when they are not in use at weekends. I hope that the Minister will consider that link. There is a training deficiency that must be addressed.
      Some people have argued that the widening of the role of our reserve forces is defence on the cheap. I do not share that view, but any Government should heed the warning. The reserve forces should enhance and complement our Regular forces. We have considered at length the new category of high-readiness reserves. They illustrate graphically how our country and its armed forces are likely to play a new role in the next century. As a member of the United Nations Security Council and a leading member of NATO—the cornerstone of our defence—we will take part increasingly in humanitarian and peacekeeping exercises, as is right and proper, to ensure that our world is a better and safer place. The reserve forces will play their part in that.
      The defence and security of our country and of the world should be a matter for consensus among the parties. We should all pay our warmest tribute to the men and women of our reserve forces in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. As the Minister said, they are the link between our local communities and the armed forces.
      When a Royal Artillery Territorial Army unit in my valley was forced to move because of reorganisation some years ago, the whole community—led by me and the mayor of my borough—protested because of the work that the Gunners had done for local charities and the affection and esteem in which those men and women were held. That was not untypical. Across the country, there are examples of how the Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Auxiliary Air Force boost the link between the armed forces and local communities. That link has inevitably declined because we no longer have national service and because people who served in the second world war have died.
      We look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent. All Labour Members wish our reserve forces well.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    5.38 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    The Commonwealth Development Corporation, or the CDC as we all know it, is a success story. The purpose of the Bill is to build on that success and to give it the powers that it needs to continue its work in promoting sustainable development. The CDC's fundamental objective, as established by statute, is to contribute to the economic development of poorer countries. Everything that it does, and will do in future, must contribute to that single purpose. In so doing, it makes a valuable and distinctive contribution to Britain's overseas development effort. In particular, it is our main instrument in promoting private sector development in support of economic reform and in enhancing productive capacity—two of the key aims of the United Kingdom aid programme.
    The CDC's achievements are familiar to right hon. and hon. Members and it has won many friends and supporters by its excellent record since it was established in 1948. It has won many more friends overseas in countries where its investments have made a tangible difference to the lives of local people.
    The CDC's annual report and accounts for 1995 were recently laid before the House. They confirmed the growing contribution that the corporation is making to poor countries. It has comfortably beaten the strategic targets that were set in the 1993 quinquennial review. It was agreed with Ministers that 70 per cent. of board approvals for new investments should be in the poorest countries. In 1995, the CDC achieved 90 per cent. Of those, 47 per cent.—representing about £153 million— were in sub-Saharan Africa and 47 per cent. of approvals were in the form of equity or quasi-equity against a target of 25 per cent. The CDC was asked to make an 8 per cent. return on capital employed and in 1995 it achieved 9 per cent. Overall, new investments were at a record high of £276 million—an increase of 15 per cent. It may also interest the House to know that around 30 per cent. of the total portfolio is currently invested in the public sector and 40 per cent. of that is invested in power and water.
    As I have said, the CDC continues to achieve its return on capital employed targets. The returns provide resources that the CDC recycles into new investments. Just last month, the CDC announced the sale of the BAL plantation in east Malaysia for about £98 million equivalent—an example of selling mature investments to local interests to raise funds for reinvestment in other development projects worldwide. At the end of 1995, the CDC had investments—before provisions—totalling £1.487 billion in a global spread of 50 countries.
    I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that those statistics are impressive, although they do not guarantee the developmental effectiveness of the CDC's operations. To gauge that, I shall explain briefly how the CDC achieves development impact and adds value to its investments.
    The CDC promotes growth by investing in, and supporting, the operations of commercially viable and developmentally sound business enterprises. First and

    53
    foremost, the CDC creates economic value in developing countries. That is tested not only by its profitability, but by measuring the economic rate of return of its projects.
    In undertaking those activities, the CDC is committed to ensuring that the environmental policies of the businesses that it supports accord with internationally accepted standards. In its own managed projects, which directly employ some 44,000 people, a range of education and health benefits are also provided for the local community.
    The CDC is a hands-on investor. It exists to add value to an enterprise, typically by providing longer-term finance than is available on the commercial markets, improving the design and structuring of investment proposals, contributing management expertise and moderating risk in countries that normally attract only a small proportion of private flows. By such means, the CDC has a powerful catalytic effect. In 1995, a total of £1.7 billion was committed alongside the CDC's commitment to produce a ratio of 1:6 of CDC funds to those of other investors.
    That brings me to the proposals in the Bill. The most recent review of the CDC highlighted a number of constraints preventing more active participation by the CDC in sustainable development overseas. The Bill is particularly relevant to ensuring the success of the Commonwealth private investment initiative, in which the CDC has agreed to take a leading role. That initiative by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth was warmly welcomed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference at Auckland last year. The CPU has the potential to benefit many poorer Commonwealth countries by mobilising investment from within member states.
    The first phase of the initiative—the Commonwealth Africa investment fund—will focus on sub-Saharan Africa. It is expected that it will formally be launched in July and should be ready to start at the time of the meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers later this year. The initial capital target for the fund will be $75 million, of which the CDC will provide $25 million.
    I am delighted to say that the fund has attracted a particularly positive response from Governments and Government agencies in south-east Asia and southern Africa. Prominent representatives from the international business and financial sectors have agreed to serve as independent directors. Following the launch, it will be the CDC's intention to bring in other institutional investors from the major financial centres of the world, thus mobilising long-term, private-sector funds that are not otherwise available to sub-Saharan Africa.
    The CDC will be the fund manager—a role that it is uniquely well placed to perform, with its long experience and network of offices in sub-Saharan Africa. If it is to play a full part in the funds investment activities, however, it will need enlarged powers. The focus of the fund will be on finance for the start-up, expansion and restructuring of business in a wide range of sectors and there is expected to be particular emphasis on rehabilitation and restructuring. Without new powers, the CDC would be placed in the invidious position of being unable fully to participate in the activities of the fund. That could seriously undermine the long-term development of that important Commonwealth initiative, as I shall explain in a moment.
    54
    Hon. Members may find it helpful if I outline briefly what are inevitably somewhat technical provisions, the substance of which is within clause 1. At present, the CDC is empowered to promote or expand new or existing enterprises. Accordingly, the CDC's funds are applied primarily to creating new or additional assets or capacity. That is, and will remain, central to the CDC's work, but it undoubtedly significantly limits the CDC in assisting host Governments and major businesses which wish to divest themselves of, or rehabilitate, enterprises where change of ownership is a necessary preliminary step to regeneration.
    Frequently, the change of ownership and the consequential changes of management are vital to transforming the enterprise for the benefit of the economy. Increasing numbers of Governments recognise the need to reorganise and rationalise existing enterprises that are usually under-performing and that they perceive would have a more successful future in the private sector. The Bill addresses that need in developing countries and would allow the CDC to play its full part in the development process.
    The limitations imposed by the CDC's existing powers have been evident for some time. For example, the CDC has been unable to participate in a number of worthwhile projects in southern Africa because they would involve reorganisation rather than immediate expansion.
    The development of effective money and capital markets in developing countries is imperative if business is to have access to finance and savers to investment opportunities. They are important for the efficient allocation of funds into productive investment, but the CDC is just as constrained here as in the other activities to which I have referred by the statutory requirement to assist only in creating new or additional capacity. For example, the CDC should be able to provide the initial investment in country or sector funds leading to larger private sector investment in due course, to manage such funds and to encourage the formation of stock or securities exchanges or dealings mechanisms. By those means, the CDC could become more involved in improving financial services that are important to economic growth.
    Under existing powers, the CDC is already setting up and frequently managing investment funds to assist small and medium enterprises, particularly in Africa, but the new power will give it greater ability to invest in a wider range of funds.
    In case there is any doubt in anyone's mind, I stress that the CDC has no ambitions to become a bank; nor is it looking for quick and easy returns on its investments. The CDC will continue to focus on poorer countries. As I have said, the CDC is a hands-on investor and it wishes to promote successful funds that will attract private capital. The powers that I have described are part of the normal armoury of the International Finance Corporation and other development institutions. It is right that they should also be available to the CDC, as its overriding purpose is to assist the development of the economies of host countries.
    The third change proposed in clause 1 relates to so-called "dry" consultancies that are not linked to the provision of CDC finance or management services. The corporation's ability to share its considerable knowledge and expertise through consultancy services is currently

    55
    limited to those projects where it has an interest, or in which it is expected to participate. However, the expertise that the CDC has gained from its core activities should occasionally be made available without that link. That is a logical extension of the CDC's current activities: the CDC would not compete for contracts with the private sector or develop an extensive consultancy capacity, but merely use its specialist skills for the benefit of others on a full cost-recovery basis.
    I repeat that we do not intend to change the character or the fundamental purpose of the CDC. It will remain a public sector body which will continue to operate within the strategic framework of controls agreed with Ministers. Key operational targets were set in the context of the 1993 quinquennial review and the CDC's performance against those targets is regularly monitored and reviewed. As I have said, the CDC enjoyed a most successful year in 1995. It achieved that success by directing its efforts squarely at poorer recipient countries in regions of the world where it has acquired much expertise over the years and where it is a widely respected partner.
    Those fundamentals will not change if the Bill passes into law. There will be no radical, overwhelming departure from present practice. We shall see instead a careful and logical extension of the corporation's existing role, which will allow the CDC to take advantage of new and better ways of solving the old problems of poverty and deprivation. The Bill will assist the CDC to continue its fine work, which I know commands support among all parties. I commend the Bill to the House.
    5.52 pm
    Miss Joan Lestor: This is the third Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill to come before the House in 14 months and, on each occasion, we have enjoyed the unusual experience of agreeing about something—at least initially. As the Minister said, the CDC should be congratulated on its successes: its financial performance, its attainment of agreed targets and, above all, its continuing important contribution to the strengthening of economies in some of the world's poorest countries.
    However, we part company over the question of future plans for the CDC. The Labour party believes firmly that the CDC has a distinct and expanding future role to play within a Government-directed overseas aid programme. I am not sure that the Government hold a similar view— sometimes I am not convinced that they have thought about the CDC in the longer term, although the Minister's comments have reassured me a little. I look forward to further illumination in the winding-up speech regarding several issues that I shall raise during the debate.
    The CDC makes a vital contribution to the United Kingdom's development programme. It pump primes private investment in some of the world's poorest countries, reaching the countries that other investment organisations will not even consider. Its activities are complementary to the Overseas Development Administration's efforts to provide bilateral and multilateral development assistance through Governments and non-governmental organisations and in partnership with international institutions such as the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union.
    56
    Against the background of a steadily declining aid budget, Ministers may point to increasing flows of private investment to the developing world; but where are those market-driven private funds headed? They flow not to south Asia or to sub-Saharan Africa but mainly to a very narrow band of middle-income countries in east Asia and in Latin America.
    In 1994, 90 per cent. of private investment went to just 10 developing countries. Private capital flows to sub-Saharan Africa have amounted to less than 2 per cent. of the developing total since 1993. According to World bank figures, in 1992 to 1994, only 1 per cent. of private capital flows went to the most severely indebted countries. In 1993–94, 19 per cent. of the CDC's investments were in projects based in those severely indebted countries. Not only does the CDC target some of the poorest countries, but its investments are medium to long term and offer much needed economic stability.
    The globalisation of the economy poses yet another threat to poor nations, widening still further the gap between the debt-ridden and the middle-income countries. That is why the CDC is, and will continue to be, an important tool in the delivery of development assistance in partnership with the private sector. We believe that properly managed, directed and focused private investment will play a key part in future development programmes under a Labour Government.
    The CDC has carefully carved out its own market over the years. A CDC board member, Sir William Ryrie, writing in his organisation's magazine in December 1995, said:
    "It is not our role to finance companies which do not need our help and can raise the funding they need themselves—that is a waste of our resources. This would seem to leave only a narrow area for us to operate in, avoiding on the one hand unwise investments, which no-one should undertake, and on the other those which the markets will finance without our help".
    However, the channel is not narrow. Sir William went on to recognise that most developing countries have a long way to go in cultivating their own capital markets. The CDC's role is assured well into the future.
    Against that background, I welcome the Minister's assurances this evening that the CDC will remain in the public sector and that the widening of the CDC's powers as proposed in the Bill is not a prelude to privatisation. I ask him to reiterate the statement made by the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), on 3 May 1994 that the CDC would stay in the public sector because it was generally felt that privatisation of the CDC would result in a financial structure, aims and objectives that were inconsistent with its development role. I share that view.
    In my opening remarks, I referred to previous Bills that had come before the House. Concern about the Government's plans for the CDC undermined Labour Members' confidence that proposed new powers would not signal either a CDC sell-off or a noticeable shift in market focus away from the poorest countries and towards emerging markets in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. The way in which the Government chose to present the Bills did nothing either to speed or to smooth their passage.
    The first Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, which was presented last March, was quite straightforward. However, it was swiftly followed by a

    57
    private Member's Bill originating in another place which we were assured was absolutely essential to the continuing success of the CDC. In that case, why was it not a Government Bill? If the new powers in the Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill— which are largely presented again in the current legislation—were so significant, why were they not in the first Bill? I have never understood that.
    The key to CDC activity is the triggering of genuine additional investment. However, the proposed new powers to purchase equity funds did not meet that criteria automatically. We did not see why the CDC should get involved in asset trading relating to buy-out if such activity did not lead directly to new investment.
    We were also worried about the reference in last year's corporate plan to a strategy aimed at targeting
    "turning-point countries … with their higher growth potential".
    No one would quarrel with the idea that it is sensible to concentrate scarce resources where the best effect can be obtained, but we were concerned that the concentration on pump-priming privatisation programmes might shunt the CDC away from the Commonwealth countries and towards emerging democracies in eastern Europe.
    That is why I commented last year that the debate that we had was unfinished business. I recognise that there are immense commercial and financial opportunities with which the CDC would like to involve itself—even a cursory reading through its annual report and current corporate plan reveals that it is straining at the leash—but there is one major hitch. I quote the CDC:
    "The volumes of new business forecast by Representatives are at a higher level than can be funded".
    The Bill does not address that fundamental dilemma.
    The CDC is therefore seeking ways to churn its assets to raise funds for new projects, and I note its intention to hasten equity realisations. The Commonwealth private investment initiative, which triggered the request for a change in legislation, is another mechanism to raise funds against a background of financial restraint by Government.
    The Commonwealth private investment initiative was welcomed by the heads of Commonwealth Governments last November, and we join them in that support. They recognised, as we do, the dearth of private investment in Africa and the need for rehabilitation and rejuvenation of businesses in the continent that has suffered wars, chronic indebtedness and natural disasters for so long. In the African continent, private investment has concentrated on oil-producing countries, with Nigeria taking 30 per cent. of total flows. Obviously, market forces do not serve the poorest at all well.
    The CDC was the obvious candidate to act as an investment catalyst, with its established reputation throughout the Commonwealth. I was delighted to note that the CDC's new business investments in sub-Saharan Africa increased from £41 million in 1994 to £154 million in 1995. We all welcome that. Against that background, we are asked to consider the Bill, which we are told is essential if the CDC is to participate fully in the operations of that new Commonwealth initiative and its first African investment fund.
    Given our enthusiasm for that project, we would have liked to put our full weight behind the legislation, had it been more project specific. Why was legislation tailor
    58
    made to the needs of the CDC in relation to the Commonwealth initiative not forthcoming, and why has the Overseas Development Administration fallen back on resurrecting much of the Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill from last year? Surely it cannot be for lack of drafting time. Such a move would have resulted in the enthusiastic cross-party endorsement that it warrants.
    The new powers proposed in the Bill will impact on all the CDC's activities, not only within the limits of the new initiative. Once again, the privatisation fear is raised.
    Mr. Hanley indicated dissent.
    Miss Lestor: I know that the Minister has said—he shakes his head again—that there is no such fear, and I welcome that. Will he assure the House that the new powers will be applied to the CDC's activities only in the operation of the Commonwealth initiative? An alternative interpretation is that the Government have no plan for the future of the CDC—an organisation operating in a commercial environment, under Government constraints, yet remaining in the private sector. There is some confusion in that regard.
    In Government, the Labour party will look forward to a long and successful relationship with the CDC—similar to that which a previous Government had. I welcome the emphasis in its current annual report on the development impact of its projects and on the need for assessments of their impact on the environment and of health and safety. I hope that the CDC will add workers' rights to that list. I also want stronger development input at board level. Would the CDC really miss one of the many bankers in situ if he were replaced by a development expert?
    Earlier, I mentioned the Government's failure in the Bill to address the crucial issue of how the CDC is funded. There should be a review of the orthodox policy towards the CDC funding, and specifically a re-examination of the policies that prevent the CDC having access to private sector funding.
    The CDC's current main method of funding new investments is to generate financial surpluses. The French attitude is different. Electricité de France, the state-owned power company, derives all its borrowing from the private sector. Perhaps the Bill, too, is unfinished business. Only time will tell.
    In conclusion, the Opposition wish the CDC and the CPU regional development fund initiative well, although we deeply regret the rather shoddy way in which the initiative and the CDC have been treated by the Government, and we look forward to a not-too-distant time when a more transparent, constructive and supportive partnership can be established.
    6.5 pm
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I shall be brief.
    We are great admirers of the Commonwealth Development Corporation and I pay tribute to it. For many years—ever since my ministerial days—I have been deeply impressed by its work.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), I shall pose a question arising from the fact that, for the third time in 14 months, we are discussing a

    59
    piece of legislation relating to the CDC. We seek from the Minister, when he replies, at least an assurance that the CDC now has all the powers that it needs to fulfil the tasks that it wishes to undertake. We had the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1995, and now we have this Bill. Like my hon. Friend, I do not understand why those two Bills could not have been brought together as one package. Having accepted that those additional powers are needed, I ask the Minister: are the two Bills the final instalment of the CDC's legislative requirements to carry out its work, or has it made outstanding requests for legislation? We should at least be told that.
    I ask the Minister and my hon. Friends to consider the CDC's role in the context of a much more imaginative view of our relationships with the Commonwealth and of relationships within it. I draw attention to the report on the future role of the Commonwealth which I, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, helped to prepare and write. One of the most astonishing aspects of our work in preparing the report was that all the members of the Select Committee were struck by the changing character and potential of the Commonwealth—and no more so than in commercial and economic relations. Contrary to the image that many people may have of the Commonwealth as an organisation living on sentiment and past attachments, we discovered that the Commonwealth had a very important modern role in economic, commercial and aid terms.
    We felt, as we said in our report, that the CDC had a vital role in developing what we considered to be the new networking possibilities of the modern Commonwealth, as opposed to old and sentimental attachments and ties. I hope that the Minister will ponder on our observations about the role that the CDC might play in bringing to fruition some of our ideas and our vision.
    I draw the attention of the Minister and of the House to paragraphs 56 to 58 of our report where, in the context of the Commonwealth as an economic forum, we drew attention to the fact that contacts between that enormous network of countries are facilitated by the fact that a common heritage has resulted in the development of similar legal systems, accountancy procedures and business practice—and, of course, a widespread understanding of the English language.
    The traditional relationships within the Commonwealth have enormous economic and commercial potential. While we have turned our backs on Commonwealth and imperial preferences in the context of our membership of the European Union, new opportunities, new connections and new networking can be achieved in developing economic and commercial relationships between Commonwealth countries. Paragraph 58 points out that
    "there is scope for the Commonwealth to act as a broking house for mutual interaction, both on a multilateral and bilateral basis."
    The CDC has a crucial and central role in the development of new ties within the Commonwealth, as opposed to the traditional Commonwealth ties. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office presented evidence to the Committee, but we believe that it does not realise the new potential. Some of the richest and fastest growing countries are in the Commonwealth, as are some of the poorest countries. In terms of gross national product per
    60
    capita, Singapore is at the top of the list and Mozambique—the most recent country to join the Commonwealth—is at the bottom.
    There has been a fantastic level of growth in many of the Asian Commonwealth countries. We believe that that experience could be utilised, through the Commonwealth network, to assist the poorer countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. The Committee therefore made a series of recommendations in relation to bridging the gap between the richest and poorest Commonwealth countries. We decided that we should not have a United Kingdom-centred view of the Commonwealth, but that we should look at the network of relationships that exist between other Commonwealth countries.
    I ask the Minister and the CDC to look at the role of the CDC. It may be able to play an even greater part in the criss-cross of relationships that exist, or could exist, in the Commonwealth within an economic and commercial forum. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraphs 93 and 94 of the report as they are directly related to the role of the CDC. In paragraph 94 the Committee draws attention to the fact that the CDC told us that it was being under-utilised and expressed concern about future pressure on the bilateral aid budget which might cause it to reduce its activities.
    On this occasion, I do not want to raise the relationship between the CDC's programme and our aid programme. Changes have occurred in our aid programme, particularly in our bilateral aid programme, and it appears that in the next year or so our bilateral aid programme will be smaller than the contributions that we make to the European Union aid budget, which will have considerable rippling effects on the operation of the CDC. As I have said, the CDC believes that it is being under-utilised. The recommendation contained in paragraph 94 states:
    "We commend the work and potential of the CDC. We recommend that the Government examines the case for it to play a greater role in investment in developing Commonwealth countries, thus giving greater weight to the investment component of the bilateral aid programme."
    I ask the Minister whether, in the context of the Bill, the CDC will be able to play a greater role in the Commonwealth, as the Select Committee envisaged. We believe that economic and commercial networking has tremendous potential within the Commonwealth. For example, we could link the incredible experiences of the growth economies of Singapore and Malaysia with the experiences of the poorer, sub-Saharan economies. It is sad that while some developing countries in the Commonwealth have taken off in a variety of ways, others have been left behind. Sub-Saharan Africa stands out as a classic illustration of this—in terms of GNP per capita and every other form of assessment of poverty and need.
    Is it not possible somehow to bridge the gap? The experiences and know-how of the growing Asian economies could help sub-Saharan Africa. The CDC could play an important bridging role in passing on that experience. It could borrow and utilise the knowledge and understanding of the successful developing economies in the Commonwealth and link them with the countries that are least successful. That was one of the great themes of the Committee's report—that there are new and novel ways in which the Commonwealth could be networked. A Eurocentric view of society and the world misses these other visions and opportunities. There are also market opportunities for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

    61
    I hope that the Minister will reassure me as to the type of role that the Commonwealth can play at the end of the century—which would be different from the role that it played in the first part of the century. The CDC could be an important bridge and link in relation to these new experiences. It could cross-fertilise the experiences between the economies within the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom does not necessarily have the experience of some of the growing Asian economies. That experience would be of enormous value for the sub-Saharan economies and could help to lift the economies, welfare and prosperity of some of the poorest countries within the Commonwealth.
    6.16 pm
    Miss Emma Nicholson: It is a pleasure to welcome the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
    It was sad last year when the Bill fell due to Government lack of time—indeed, the minuscule debate on the CDC gave no indication of the extent of its work. The Government appeared to be ignoring the CDC. I am glad that the Minister of State has put that right today. The Bill is particularly interesting because it focuses on the title of the organisation, and the words "development" and "Commonwealth". Commonwealth Development Corporation investment has been expanded to accommodate the widening boundaries of the Commonwealth of nations and to invest in countries which are not part of that grouping.
    The definition of "development" was also constrained. In the past, the CDC was constrained by its stated object of development, which was rightly interpreted as new physical assets. This has been a hindrance to real development in the sense of investing in privatisation and in management rehabilitation projects. Without new assets, that would have been against the letter of the law.
    The Bill replaces the words "promotion and expansion" with the words "creation, promotion, expansion, reorganisation or rationalisation", which widens the definition of "development" and allows the CDC to invest in the Africa fund. For all the commendations that the fund has received in the debate, it seems to be somewhat modest.
    This is a welcome beginning, which gives us the chance to congratulate the CDC's staff and governors on achieving sound economic development in many countries. This is a model of how to approach the development challenge. It improves management expertise and it improves and creates capital flows to make valuable sustainable businesses in the countries involved. The CDC offers a highly professional valued-added and results-based approach.
    The Minister has talked about the magnificent way in which the CDC works in so many different countries. I should like to pay tribute to the staff, who work in some very difficult situations. It is so easy, with this excellent annual report, to expect the CDC's achievements, but let us not forget that its staff work in very difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. I was in Papua New Guinea with a regional director, for example, watching some of the work that is being done across that country. A couple of days after I left, the manager, Carl Edwards, was killed by one of the local people, who had mistaken something that had been done. We perhaps understate,
    62
    in a typically old-fashioned British manner, the dangers, difficulties and strains that CDC staff face every day in so many places internationally.
    It is welcome to be able to comment positively on the targeting of resources in developing countries in the sub-Saharan countries of the Commonwealth, which are particularly poor. The importance of that region has already been recognised and commented on in this debate. The fact is that 47 per cent. of the CDC's worldwide investment approvals made last year relate to that area. It is good to know that business has increased from £41 million, in 1994, to £157 million, in 1995, and that new offices have opened in Mozambique and Uganda.
    It is excellent that this Bill will enable the CDC to continue such good work in the more needy countries of sub-Saharan Africa. I particularly welcome—I questioned the Minister about it a week ago—the opening up of the possibility of investment in South Africa, where funds to enable franchise operations for disadvantaged groups will assist nation building.
    It has been very interesting to find how well the CDC can perform with such various investments. Figures with which we have been provided show that Zambia Sugar now has a 34 per cent. input from the CDC. Contrast that with the CDC's 2 per cent. investment holding in Sakthi Sugar, which I perceived in operation in southern India. It was a very interesting exercise to have the opportunity to see some of the CDC's work in a number of different countries.
    I welcome the Bill from the Liberal Bench. The Bill will allow the CDC to fulfil its role in assisting development even more than it has already done. Perhaps the only downside to the Bill is that it reminds the House that, for the past eight years, the CDC wanted to facilitate better management and investment—not only in the new or expanded projects that it has been able to undertake, but also of existing assets, such as selling off state-owned agricultural assets in sub-Saharan Africa. Such projects offers great potential.
    It is good to know that the CDC no longer turns aside from activities that it has wished to do for so long, when it needed to concentrate solely on new development. It can now assist in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of such promising sectors. I welcome the Bill.
    6.22 pm
    Ms Diane Abbott: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the importance of the Commonwealth and on the creative role that the Commonwealth Development Corporation has played and can potentially play.
    My first comment on the Commonwealth should be to say that my family originate from a Commonwealth country, Jamaica, and that my constituency of Hackney has quite a sizeable community of people who originate from across the Commonwealth.
    I notice that in many ways, as we approach the millennium, people in the Commonwealth countries value the Commonwealth link rather more than do the British people. I would not miss an opportunity to speak in the House about the Commonwealth and to stress the fact, for the benefit of hon. Members and of those who read the record of our proceedings, that the Commonwealth link and its potential are very much undervalued by public opinion.

    63
    The Commonwealth fell into disrepute in the 1980s because of some of the tussles that Britain had with other Commonwealth countries, on issues such as South Africa, when it became commonplace to read rather disparaging comments and articles about the Commonwealth in the tabloid press.
    The Commonwealth is a great underused asset in Britain's relationship with the world. The first reason why it is an underused asset was mentioned earlier in this debate: some of the strongest and fastest developing economies in the world, such as the Asian tiger countries, are in the Commonwealth. It would be foolish for the British public and British politicians to ignore the tremendous economic and development potential of Commonwealth links with some of the strongest economies, such as Singapore, because of tussles and struggles in the 1980s over certain matters.
    The Commonwealth's other merit is that it is unique. In an increasingly divided world—with the rise of refugees and migration, where people are increasingly fearful of each other—it is a club in which black, white, Asian and Muslim nations join in a genuine family of nations. International politics are too often ruled by fear and by threat, and an international club in which nations that vary widely in cultural and religious origins can come together is a tremendous force for good.
    I can remember how, in the Commonwealth of the 1980s, the most unlikely alliances sprang up—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have been able to resist intervening on the hon. Lady's speech so far, but I remind her that this is a debate on Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. Although an introduction is entirely in order, perhaps the hon. Lady will now deal with the Bill.
    Ms Abbott: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    One of the reasons why the Bill is so important is that it will strengthen the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has been responsible for the emergence of many creative international alliances, such as that in the 1980s between Canada, under Pierre Trudeau, and Jamaica, under Michael Manley. Those alliances would never have emerged without the context of the Commonwealth.
    The Commonwealth is an underused resource, and the CDC will help this country to maximise and strengthen its links within the Commonwealth. Another important aspect of the Commonwealth, which touches centrally on the Bill, is that we have seen, sadly, in many of the international financial institutions—such as the International Monetary Fund and the World bank—a redirection of monetary flows away from Africa and from some of the poorest countries towards eastern Europe and Russia. I believe that the CDC has the potential to ensure that some of the poorest countries, which happen also to be Commonwealth countries, receive their share of investment and attention.
    Once again, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about the importance of the Commonwealth link. To the extent that the CDC will help to build and develop those links, much of the Bill's contents is very much to be welcomed.
    6.27 pm
    Mr. George Foulkes: This has been a short, but very well-informed and good-natured, debate. I hope that Conservative Members do not now say, "Up till now." I must say that I found the Minister's speech almost statesmanlike—
    Ms Abbott: No; never.
    Mr. Foulkes: Well, almost statesmanlike. As he was speaking, I think that he was almost revelling in the fact that he is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and no longer the chairman of the Conservative party, given today's scandal over the financing of the Conservative party by friends of Radovan Karadzic. I can see that he is on much safer ground with the Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
    The debate has been graced by the presence of hon. Members who know a great deal about the Commonwealth—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who was for a long time a very distinguished Minister of State for Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs. Indeed, when I was a shadow foreign affairs Minister and visited countries in the Caribbean and central America, the first question I was asked was, "How is Ted Rowlands keeping?" I was able to reassure them. Even though my hon. Friend's distinguished service took place some years ago, he is still a relatively young man in the context of the House. Indeed, my hon. Friend has a great deal to give the House in future. He has a special role now in the work of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I was glad that he brought the discussions and debates of that Committee to the notice of the House. My hon. Friend talked about the new role of the Commonwealth, which is an essential part of the developing role of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
    I liked the way in which my hon. Friend spoke about networking and a broking house for Commonwealth countries, with multilateral and bilateral contacts. No longer is the United Kingdom the spider at the centre of the web; it is an equal partner.
    I am glad to see that the Government Whip is wearing his Commonwealth Parliamentary Association United Kingdom branch tie. As treasurer of the UK branch of the CPA, I, like him, am keen to encourage the Commonwealth's role in Parliament. I am glad that that has been achieved through the CPA. I should like there to be greater co-operation between all the Commonwealth organisations, including the CPA and its sister organisations.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will agree that the new relationship with our fellow members of the Commonwealth must not be patronising or neo-colonial in any way. There must be an equal partnership. I am glad to see the Minister nod in agreement.
    Nothing that is said today should detract from the good work that is carried out by the corporation. The Minister's remarks were positive and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) praised the corporation's work, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said a great deal. The

    65
    Opposition are supportive of the corporation's contribution. It is a public corporation and it will remain even more so under the next Labour Government.
    I agree with what the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon said about the corporation's staff. Events over the past year have shown us that those who are involved in development overseas can find themselves in extremely dangerous situations. People who are not on military operations have faced kidnappings and other problems. They are on missions of mercy, not on holiday; often, they are providing help, aid and assistance, but they sometimes find themselves in extreme difficulties. I pay tribute to the work that is carried out by the corporation's staff and to the work of all those who are overseas and engaged in development work.
    The purpose of the corporation is to promote economic development in the countries in which it operates. We have seen its work develop in other countries, and we must be cautious about further development. We do not want to dilute the corporation's effectiveness. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney nod in agreement.
    The corporation's primary role is to provide equity and long-term loans on concessional terms to promote productive investment in the private sector. It invests about £200 million a year in developing countries. It is work that we agree with, support and encourage.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, in her usual, kind way, spoke gently about the way in which we have dealt with legislation for the corporation in this place. Other hon. Members have alluded to that. I am rather more direct about such matters. The approach has been something of a dog's breakfast, culminating in today's reintroduction of a Bill that was introduced by Lord Trefgarne last year. There has been chaos and confusion, which underlines the need for a Cabinet sub-committee to deal with development and to liaise between Departments to discuss issues that have a bearing on the Foreign Office, the Treasury, the Overseas Development Administration and other Departments.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles on successfully steering through our policy forum at Manchester over the weekend. It is now the Labour party's policy to establish a development sub-committee so that, under a Labour Government, after the next general election, we shall not have confusion over the legislation that involves the corporation.
    Why were the Government unable to insert all the measures that are before us into the original Bill, which was discussed in the House and in Committee, and which could have been amended? There could have been an overall, rather than a piecemeal examination of its operations.
    The Government's record in other areas makes us suspicious. That is why we have been worried about their real intentions. I understand that there has been some in-fighting between the Treasury and the Foreign Office over the original Bill. I know also that that created some problems. Bearing in mind, however, what has crept in, we have a right to be suspicious.
    We are still suspicious of the rationale and the implications that lie behind the Bill, but we have no hesitation in welcoming the introduction of the Commonwealth private investment initiative. During the Government's dying months, however, we want to be kept
    66
    fully informed of developments. When the Labour Government take office after the next election, the House will receive an annual report. It is—[Interruption.] Some Conservative Members laugh. I am glad to give them some amusement.
    Conservative Members should have been with me this morning in Dunfermline to witness the pathetic performance of the Secretary of State for Social Security at the Scottish Grand Committee. They would have seen the Government on their last legs. Indeed, some Ministers are on the chicken run because their majorities are smaller than 10,000. They know that they are on the way out. I am not indulging in fantasy, and none of my right hon. and hon. Friends is complacent.
    Miss Lestor: It is hysteria.
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend understands the hysteria of Conservative Members. It is—[Interruption.] I thought that I might stir up some Conservative Members.
    We are worried about "unshackled", a word that has been used by Ministers. It has been used in the context of the corporation. In other contexts, it is a euphemism for the removal from the state sector of an effective tranche of public sector finance, which finds its way instead into the hands of financial vultures who make a quick killing at other people's expense.
    I reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles. We want the Minister to give us some assurances that the financial vultures will not benefit in this instance. The Minister has told us that the Government do not want the corporation to be yet another bank, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, the membership of the corporation's board is similar to the membership of a bank's board. Will the Minister tell us something about the board's membership? We have had some discussion with the present board members and with Baroness Chalker about getting on the board people who are especially interested in development. I would appreciate some assurance from the Minister this evening.
    I want also to emphasise something my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said. We firmly believe that the CDC has a distinct and expanding role to play in a Government-directed overseas aid programme. That is why we have had some discussions with the CDC about the role that it will play under the next Labour Government. As my hon. Friend said, we will continue those discussions to see how we can develop the role of the CDC positively to help the development of the countries concerned.
    From our discussions with CDC members, we have gathered that it will continue to build on the good work that it has undertaken over the years. However, the need for the Government to retain a close interest in the way in which public bodies operate must always remain. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance when he replies this evening that the Government and the ODA will work closely with the CDC and continue to take an active part in the future. The passage of the Bill should not be a signal for any kind of disengagement by the ODA from the oversight of and co-operation with the work of the CDC.
    The Opposition are worried about the dangers of progress towards privatisation, because we have seen that happen to other organisations. Indeed, the water quangos

    67
    have not been privatised yet in Scotland but if, heaven forbid, another Tory Government were elected, they would be ripe for privatisation. I notice that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is nodding. He obviously agrees that if another Tory Government were elected, that is exactly what would happen. We are worried that the Government might be testing the waters for fattening the company and selling it off, so it would be helpful and reassuring for all those involved in development if the Minister were to give an assurance that the Government do not intend to move in that direction. If I am more sceptical than some of my hon. Friends, it is through experience.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, the Labour party accepts that the private sector has an important part to play in development. We have never denied that. We want a genuinely indigenous private sector, not a dependent private sector. We must ensure that capital flows remain in the developing world and are not siphoned away from the developing world so that it becomes increasingly dependent on foreign investment. Such a scenario can be envisaged if the financial managers and City fly-boys prevail over the genuine managers and those involved in development who have experience of running businesses in the developing world. We expressed that concern last year in similar debates on the CDC. The CDC has been very thorough in its briefings to us and it has assured us that the hands-on element that has served it well over the years will not be lost to the excesses of privatisation and the financial markets.
    The CDC has, carefully, found a niche for itself in promoting investment over the years. Both the Opposition and the Government have acknowledged that this evening. Attempts to move into areas run by bigger fish—other organisations that are doing a good job—would be a dereliction of the CDC's duty to its original purpose and its current role. I hope that that role will be assured into the future. Any change would inevitably result in the CDC having to compete on terms that are not favourable to the enhancement of the developing world.
    I cannot understand why, despite repeated requests by the Labour party, a Bill that would allow projects such as the Commonwealth private investment initiative, but would not give the CDC powers as wide as are proposed today, could not have been drafted quickly to avoid wasting parliamentary time. The Labour party is going along with the extension of powers today, but we need assurances from the Minister. We are going along with the Bill because of the enthusiastic support given by Commonwealth countries, through their high commissioners and directly, to'the CPII.
    I hope that the Minister can reassure us on the points that have been raised in today's debate. While we have reservations about the extent to which the CDC will be given freedoms by the Bill and the fact that the Government have lessened its role in the future, we wish it every success in the CPII.
    Development for countries, especially in Africa, must be appropriate to their needs, and should be without exploitation. It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, to recognise the new role of the Commonwealth. We do not accept that the physical colonialism of the past should be
    68
    replaced by financial colonialism. With those reservations, we are prepared to go along with the Second Reading of the Bill this evening.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Hanley: We have had a useful and interesting debate on the Bill. I expected there to be support from both sides of the House for the work of the CDC and I was not disappointed. Hon. Members have raised a number of points and I wish to deal with them.
    The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) mentioned that few resources go to the poorest countries. I have to admit that private sector flows are low, but they have increased significantly recently. The flows concentrate on a small number of middle-income countries, mostly Latin America and east Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia account for 30 per cent. of the world's population, but attracted only 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively of private sector money in 1992–94. During that period, however, the CDC invested 50 per cent. of its investments in those areas, which augments the private flows.
    The hon. Members for Eccles and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) mentioned privatisation of the CDC. Following the last quinquennial review, it was confirmed to the House in May 1994 that the CDC was being retained in the public sector, and that remains the Government's belief. I am happy to confirm that the present position—in which the CDC is a public corporation run by the board in a framework of targets agreed with Ministers—is the right one.
    Much has been said about why the new powers were not included in the original Bill. After what became the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1995 had been introduced last year, we concluded that we could not add measures to it within the long title. That is why Lord Trefgarne introduced a private Member's Bill in the other place. Two hon. Members stated that that Bill failed because of lack of Government time, but it failed because of a mistake by Labour Front Benchers. It is amazing how they will not apologise for having killed the Bill off and instead try to make some high-minded excuse about a matter of principle. It was not a matter of principle: it was a mistake.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: The Minister may not know that I tried to speak in the CDC debate last year. I was firmly told by the Conservative Whips that the Government did not want anybody to speak from the Conservative side in favour of the CDC.
    Mr. Hanley: It was not that the Government wanted no one to speak in favour of the CDC; quite the reverse. The hon. Lady might not remember, or her memory is selective. The deputy chief Whip of the Labour party objected to the Bill, rather as the Opposition objected to the Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Bill just 10 days ago. They did so by mistake, and I am pleased that, today, both sides of the House have recognised the wisdom of the Bill and that we have been able to put the matter straight.
    Miss Lestor: There has been a feeling of agreement for much of the evening, but we did not make a mistake; it was quite deliberate. The Bill was not killed off, but

    69
    opposed, because we were not receiving the assurances that we sought about the future of the Bill and the CDC. We are receiving those assurances tonight.
    Mr. Hanley: I have heard that one before. Here, at least, we have a Bill that has now worked, and we have shown that progress can be made when two or more people who are friendly towards a Bill's objective act together sensibly in the interests of those whom we are all trying to serve. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the fact that we are now discussing this Bill, and I believe that, God willing, it will be given its Third Reading as well. Let us leave the other issues to history, which is where they ought to be buried.
    The hon. Lady mentioned the "poor country" target. We need to allow the CDC to play a role in countries where it usefully can, but we should also remember that the target for poor countries relates to countries eligible for International Development Association funding. The definition of a poor country involves a per capita income below $1,300 in 1992. We must allow the CDC to play a role wherever it can, but some countries may fall outside that limit.
    South Africa, in particular, is not defined as a poor country for our present purposes. Other countries, such as Namibia, Botswana, Jamaica, Fiji, Belize and some small Caribbean Commonwealth islands do not fit the definition of a poor country, either, but are helped by the CDC. In all cases, the CDC targets areas and sectors that may have difficulty gaining access to other sources of finance, or helps to diversify economies. That allows some diversification of risk in the portfolio.
    Mr. Rowlands: I should have interrupted the Minister earlier. Will he confirm that the Bill represents the CDC's full legislative requirement?
    Mr. Hanley: Yes—and I will repeat that later, when I deal with the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
    The current coverage of the CDC's activities is pretty comprehensive. We are now doing significant business in India and Pakistan; more recent additions include South Africa and Vietnam. The main driver of the CDC's country coverage is the 70 per cent. target for poor countries—as it should be, given the corporation's developmental role. That target has not changed. The CDC is not planning to divert activity to middle-income countries; on the contrary, it is no longer making new investments in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong, but is extending its activities into pre-emerging countries.
    The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) popped into the Chamber for a few minutes. I am sorry that she missed the opening speeches from the Front Benches, and that she is now missing the answers to her questions, but I hope that her hon. Friends will point her towards the answers. She mentioned the Commmonwealth countries. The Government no longer set a formal target for investment in traditional Commonwealth countries.
    Up to 1993, the target was to make two thirds of new investments in Commonwealth countries. That target was comfortably exceeded. In practice, the CDC still makes a large proportion of its new investments in Commonwealth countries—in 1995, the proportion was 71 per cent.—and
    70
    it has an internal target of making not less than 30 per cent. of its new investments in sub-Saharan Africa, where there is a concentration of Commonwealth countries. In fact, it achieved 47 per cent. in 1995.
    Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that too much was going to eastern Europe. The CDC does not currently invest in eastern Europe or in the former Soviet Union, and there are no plans to ask Ministers' permission to do so. A number of other bodies, such as the European bank for reconstruction and development, already exist and have a remit to promote investment in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The CDC and the Government would need to consider carefully whether the CDC had any comparative advantage. Resourcing implications would also need to be considered.
    The CDC is not currently working in Nigeria, or planning any new investment. Old projects are there on a care and maintenance basis only.
    The hon. Member for Eccles suggested that there should be more development experts on the CDC board. There are currently four vacancies on the board, but I believe that the chairman and members have considerable experience of service in finance and development in various capacities. Indeed, that can be seen from the annual report. We are very grateful for the public service that they have given. The chairman recently established a sub-committee of the board specifically to review development issues, comprising the chairman himself, Professor Carruthers, Professor Faber and, I believe, Sir William Ryrie.
    The board contains people with a wide range of experience, as does the proposed board of directors of the Commonwealth Africa Investment Fund, the first fund that I said would be invested in. The chairman, Mr. Pillay, is a former managing director of the Government of Singapore Investment Agency; Sam Jonah is the chief executive of Ashanti Gold Fields in Ghana; David Gill is a former senior director of IFC in Washington; David Phiri is a leading Zambian business man; Pen Kent is the executive director of the Bank of England and a banker, but a non-executive director of the CDC; and Nicholas Selbie is the managing director of CDC Investments. I am grateful to those people, and, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, no one could describe Sir William Ryrie, Ian Carruthers, Carolyn Hayman, Michael McWilliam, Michael Faber, Pen Kent and Russell Seal as investment fat cats.
    The hon. Member for Eccles asked whether the new powers would apply only to the CPII. The powers will assist the CDC in taking part in the CPII, but there is no reason not to allow the CDC to invest directly in projects involving reconstruction that are covered by the Bill.
    I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for its report, and we welcome the Committee's support for the CDC. We expect the corporation to continue to play a major part in the UK development effort, both in the Commonwealth and in poorer countries. It is very successful in generating its own resources for new investments on the basis of accumulated funding from Government, and it is able to lever in substantial private sector finance. We have

    71
    already discussed that. By widening the CDC's power, the Bill will allow the corporation to enhance and extend its investment activities in future.
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney also asked whether the CDC had all the powers that it needed. I said that I would return to his question. The corporation has naturally been fully involved in discussions on the Bill. I was very pleased to meet Lord Cairns and the rest of the staff when I visited the corporation, and I believe that they are fully content with the range of powers that they will have, as are we. Indeed, they urged us to be speedy; what frightened them most was the possibility that the Bill might not be passed during this Session. Both they and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth have spoken of the importance of the Bill.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the scope of Commonwealth co-operation. The CPII is an instrument that will involve countries such as Singapore in the development of sub-Saharan Africa, and it is therefore greatly to be welcomed.
    The CDC is a well-respected organisation that deserves our support. Its services are much sought after in the developing world, where there is widespread appreciation of the quality of its investment and the real contribution that it makes to economic growth. The Bill provides for a logical extension of the CDC's existing powers, which it has used prudently and responsibly over the years. It will continue along its established path, but it is right to enable it to join its partners so that it can respond flexibly to the changing needs of poor countries. I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Brandreth.]
    Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    7 pm
    Mr. Hanley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I thank hon. Members who have taken part in the debates and who have contributed their wisdom and experience to our consideration of this short but important Bill. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for his knockabout pantomime act on Second Reading. We expected such from the hon. Gentleman: other contributions were more thoughtful.
    72
    We examined some key issues relating the role and achievements of the Commonwealth Development Corporation in promoting sustainable development in poor countries and, in particular, in supporting the development of the private sector. The Government presented the Bill to update and clarify the CDC's powers so that it may join its co-investors in the future and encourage the development of effective money and capital markets.
    The Overseas Development Administration and the Commonwealth Development Corporation will continue to work closely together to ensure that the CDC's new powers are used to complement its existing activities within the strategic framework that has been agreed with the Government.
    7.2 pm
    Miss Joan Lestor: I agree with everything that the Minister has said about how the House and others have dealt with the Bill. We wish it well. I commend the Whip for his beautiful diction and I hope that he will get a better speaking part at some time in the future.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed.

    DEER (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.50A(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in any sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    Question agreed to.

    AGRICULTURE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Gordon Prentice be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Warren Hawksley be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Graham Riddick be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Sergeant Trevor Walker
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    7.3 pm
    Mr. James Couchman: I am pleased to have been granted this debate and that the House has reached the Adjournment at such an early hour. That will give the Minister and me due time to consider an important matter.
    The debate provides an opportunity for me to bring to the House once again the vexed question of compensation for our service personnel who were injured while serving in a peacekeeping role in Bosnia—or rather, the lack of such compensation. This issue has been raised on previous occasions, and I regret that some of my speech will repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said in his debate about his constituent, Corporal Stott, on 5 December 1994. The record of that debate is in columns 117 to 124 of the Official Report.
    I am also aware of the attempts in 1992 by the former Member for Winchester, John Browne, and Lord Swinfen in, respectively, an Adjournment debate on 31 January 1992, which is in columns 1267 to 1274 of the Official Report, and in a private Member's Bill on 9 June 1992, the report of which is in the Official Report, House of Lords, columns 1193 to 1204, to introduce the concept of no-fault compensation payments by the Ministry of Defence to injured service men.
    Furthermore, I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces answered a question by hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 13 February on the issue of compensation to service men who had been injured in Bosnia. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has told me that, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, he is worried about that issue, as are other members of the Committee.
    The common thread that runs through the three debates and the parliamentary question that I have just mentioned is the unswerving consistency of the relevant Defence Ministers. They have been consistently compassionate and laudatory, but they have consistently refused to alter the anomalous position of service men injured in Bosnia compared with those injured by similar criminal acts in Northern Ireland, Germany or Hong Kong.
    At about 20.30 hours on 3 May 1995, Maglaj school in Bosnia was hit by a single tank round, which was fired, it was thought, by a Serbian T34 tank. That school was a United Nations peacekeeping force accommodation unit housing a detachment of our forces. Six men were wounded, sustaining a variety of injuries.
    The most seriously wounded was Sergeant Trevor Walker, at that time a corporal, of 21 Engineer Regiment. Sergeant Walker, who is now my constituent, sustained serious injuries to both legs, but particularly to his right leg. For reasons of time and possibly a certain amount of squeamishness, I will spare the House a reading of the medical report by the consultant at Queen Elizabeth military hospital at Woolwich on Sergeant Walker's injuries. I can confirm that it makes horrifying reading.
    As a result of his injuries, Sergeant Walker has undergone 13 operations, the last of which was in January, when, after doctors had tried for nine months to save his
    74
    leg—nine months of great suffering for Sergeant Walker and his wife—his right leg was amputated above the knee. Sergeant Walker's duties in Maglaj were to help to build a road for the civilian population, a job that is done well by the Royal Engineers, whose spiritual headquarters and Royal School of Military Engineering I am proud to have in my constituency. Such projects are the epitome of peacekeeping.
    There is a question whether the incident in which Sergeant Walker was injured would have happened if there had been a more robust response to a similar attack on the school building a few days before. However, an air attack response was denied by the United Nations command, and the Bosnian Serbs felt safe in making their murderous attack on the peacekeepers. I say "murderous" deliberately, for that is exactly what it was, and the initial investigation by the special investigation branch of the military police was made on the basis of attempted murder.
    If Sergeant Walker had sustained his injuries as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, it is beyond doubt that he would have been entitled to compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Under the new tariff, compensation for the loss of a leg above the knee would have been substantial.
    Under the Ministry of Defence's parallel scheme for criminal injuries overseas, a similar but ex gratia sum would have been payable if Sergeant Walker had sustained his injuries in Germany or Hong Kong as the result of criminal activity. If he had been injured as a result of negligent behaviour by a fellow service man, he could, since the repeal in 1987 of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, have sued the Ministry of Defence for negligence in the way that Private Harness was successful in doing after he was accidentally shot by a fellow soldier.
    It is possible that, if Sergeant Walker's injuries had followed an accident between two Army Land Rovers in Bosnia, he would also have had a possible case for negligence. That is significant, as many of the 18 service men killed and 41 seriously injured on UN operations in former Yugoslavia to mid-December 1995 sustained their injuries as a result of road accidents.
    I understand that, since that time, the injuries sustained under North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command have also tended to be from road accidents. Had Sergeant Walker been serving directly for the UN rather than for his national force—perhaps as a military observer—he would also have been eligible to receive compensation for his injuries.
    I have listed the circumstances under which Sergeant Walker might be eligible for compensation for his serious injuries. My hon. Friend the Minister is likely to tell me, however, that, because Sergeant Walker's injuries were sustained as a result of war or warlike operations, or military activity by warring factions, he is not entitled to compensation. That is wrong, because it is anomalous.
    When they sign on, service men understand of course that, if they are required to serve their country in circumstances where the UK is actively engaged as a combatant—as in the Falkland islands or the gulf war— they may be asked to lay down their lives or to sustain serious injury, and they will not be compensated beyond the terms of the armed forces pension scheme and of the Department of Social Security war pension scheme.

    75
    In Bosnia, however, the UK has not been and is not a combatant, and nor was the UN, whose beret Sergeant Walker was wearing during his service in Maglaj. He was building a road for the civilian population as a peacekeeper when he and his colleagues were subjected to a murderous attack, which may constitute a war crime.
    Sergeant Walker is still serving, and he has been constrained from speaking out, but I have seen him as a constituent on two occasions with his wife, and they have told me their story. He still receives his Army pay, and I have no doubt that he has received and will continue to receive every proper and compassionate consideration from the Army, but his injuries may prevent his fulfilling his engagement and, if he is discharged early on medical grounds, he will qualify for all the benefits under the armed forces pension scheme and under the DSS's war pension scheme.
    Sergeant Walker will receive an index-linked pension for life, together with a tax-free lump sum equal to three times the annual rate of that pension. If his disability is assessed at 20 per cent. or more—which, in view of his injuries, seems highly likely—he would qualify for an enhanced tax-free pension, as well as an additional gratuity under AFPS. My hon. Friend will tell me all that, as he did when he wrote to me on 20 February. He will also tell me about the PAX-plus insurance scheme, which is available to service men going into a hazardous theatre of operations. Sergeant Walker had contributed to PAX, and will have received payment.
    What my hon. Friend will not tell me is why it is necessary for our service personnel to purchase private insurance for death or personal accident cover when they are serving in our forces as peacekeepers under UN or NATO command. He will probably not tell me why it is that, when our troops are deployed as peacekeepers, they are not told in advance that they will not be eligible for compensation if they are killed or injured during their duties.
    Sergeant Walker is a fine non-commissioned officer— one of the finest in his regiment, according to his former commanding officer, who foresaw promotion, certainly to warrant officer and possibly to a commission. Sergeant Walker's career cannot have been enhanced by injuries and may have been detrimentally affected, even curtailed, although he is working hard to get fit to return to duty. In that, he has been helped enormously by his determined and courageous wife.
    For the sake of Sergeant Walker and for those like him who have been injured while serving as peacekeepers, my hon. Friend must reconsider either a no-fault compensation scheme, as Lord Swinfen proposed, or making service personnel serving as peacekeepers eligible for ex-gratia payments under the MOD's criminal injuries compensation overseas scheme.
    Otherwise, our forces serving throughout the world on behalf of the UN as peacekeepers—increasingly, we have detachments serving in very unpleasant places throughout the globe—will be inequitably treated if they are killed or injured. Perhaps Sir Michael Bett's review of service conditions will offer an opportunity for such reconsideration, and my hon. Friend may wish to await his report to say what he might do in these circumstances.
    76
    Our forces are without equal. They serve selflessly and heroically, not just for the UK, but in the interests of oppressed people in many lands. If, during their duties, they are tragically killed or injured, as has befallen my constituent Sergeant Walker, they have a right to expect that they will be treated as generously as if they had received their injuries as the result of terrorist action in Northern Ireland. In short, there should be absolute equality of treatment for all our serving personnel. As I said, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject again, but I regret the necessity to do so. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    7.15 pm
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on securing this debate on a subject of profound concern not only to the House, but to the public at large. This is not the first time that my hon. Friend, who represents a constituency with a rich military heritage—I do not suppose that any other constituency in the land has a richer one—has raised the matter with me. He, other hon. Members and members of the general public have written to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I know that my hon. Friend has a genuine, warm and real concern for the welfare of all service personnel.
    Let me start by reaffirming that the safety of British forces, wherever they are deployed, is of paramount importance to the Government. In Bosnia, that is clearly something that we must, and do, take extremely seriously. I know that hon. Members will wish to join me in commending all the people who have served, or are serving, in former Yugoslavia for their courage and fortitude in just getting on with their everyday life, under what are regularly the most difficult circumstances, undertaking vital tasks in dangerous conditions with distinction and skill.
    No one who has been to Bosnia in any weather, at any time, would come away with anything but the most extraordinary feeling of pride in what those young men and women have achieved. I consider myself deeply fortunate to have seen at first hand their outstanding work, both as part of the United Nations protection force and now as part of the NATO-led implementation force.
    It is, of course, an inescapable fact of life that, in a theatre of operations and on the place of honour, there will be casualties. So far, some 24 UK service men have lost their lives since operations began in the region. To them, their families, friends and colleagues, we all offer our deepest sympathy. I hope that they will feel justly proud of the sacrifice made by those men in helping to save thousands of innocent lives and in the cause of peace.
    It is also an inescapable and sad fact that 342 British soldiers have been injured while serving in Bosnia—some of them, like Sergeant Trevor Walker, seriously. I have immense sympathy for them and their families, and offer them my best wishes towards a speedy recovery.
    My hon. Friend has referred to what he rightly considers to be an anomaly between payments made to service men injured in Bosnia and other warlike operations, and those injured in Northern Ireland. It may help him if I set out my Department's policy here, which I realise he already knows but which, for the sake of good order, I am obliged to do.

    77
    Members of the armed forces in Northern Ireland provide support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism. They are not deemed to be involved in war operations while serving there, and are subject to the normal constraints of civil law. As terrorist acts are a criminal offence, any soldier or civilian injured in such attacks is entitled to apply to the Northern Ireland Compensation Agency for the award of criminal injury compensation.
    In the past four years, 1,123 service personnel have applied for compensation under this scheme. The average settlement figure in 1995–96 for the scheme as a whole was about £6,000. My Department also pays criminal injury compensation to members of the armed forces and their dependants who are victims of crimes of violence while serving overseas on a similar basis.
    However, where war operations or warlike operations are in progress as a result of military activity by warring factions, as in Bosnia, the normal process of the civil law will have broken down. Operations may be undertaken resulting in death or injury, which, if committed by someone subject to civil law, would constitute a criminal offence. It would therefore be impractical to try to extend the provisions of the criminal injury compensation scheme to cover the conduct of warlike operations in Bosnia.
    As I have explained, members of the armed forces who are invalided from service receive for life the tax-free index-linked benefits of the armed forces pension scheme and the Department of Social Security war pension scheme.
    Turning now to the case raised so compassionately by my hon. Friend, I should like again to say how deeply sorry I was to hear about Sergeant Walker's terrible injury, which he sustained last May when his observation post in the Maglaj school was hit by a tank round. My hon. Friend will understand that I feel truly for Sergeant Walker since I have on three occasions sat in the observation post in question for long periods at a stretch, and I have probably seen the tank that did the awful damage to Sergeant Walker.
    My hon. Friend will understand that I am constrained by reasons of medical confidentiality, and I cannot comment in detail on Sergeant Walker's current medical condition. I can assure him, nevertheless, that the defence medical services are doing everything within their power to help him. It is too soon, however, to say whether Sergeant Walker will be able to continue with his Army career. In the meantime, he continues to serve on full pay. I am sure that hon. Members wish him well. I join my hon. Friend in praising the courage of Mrs. Walker, who has been a tower of strength to her husband.
    Should Sergeant Walker be invalided out of the service, he will, of course, be entitled to a service-attributable lump sum and pension benefits from both the armed forces pension scheme and the DSS war pensions scheme. As I have just said, service-attributable invaliding pensions are tax-free, index-linked and payable for life. I cannot say at this time what the rate of pension will be, because that will depend upon date of final discharge and assessment of long-term disability. However, some illustrative examples may help the House to understand that Sergeant Walker will be properly provided for.
    A sergeant aged 30 who is medically discharged after 12 years' service, and who is assessed by the Department of Social Security as 70 per cent. disabled, would be
    78
    entitled to pensions under the armed forces pension scheme and the DSS war pension scheme totalling £9,204 a year. He would also receive tax-free lump sums amounting to £19,904. The estimated total capital value of these awards, assessed over the expected life of the recipient, would be likely to be about £220,000.
    A corporal aged 25 medically discharged after eight years' service, who is assessed by the Department of Social Security as 50 per cent. disabled, would be entitled to pensions from the two schemes totalling £6,548 a year. He would also receive tax-free lump sums amounting to £13,561.
    I fully understand—and share—the concern eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend that the arrangements that I have outlined should be as fair and comprehensive as possible. Sir Michael Bett's independent review of the armed forces' manpower, career and remuneration structures has recommended that the level of benefits payable to those who retire or die as a result of an injury attributable to service, and the procedure for determining whether an injury is attributable, should be reviewed. My Department is currently engaged in a thorough review of death and injury benefits for service personnel as part of our work on the detailed study and development of the independent review recommendations.
    As part of this work, we have considered the feasibility of introducing a special scheme whereby additional lump sum compensation is paid where death or injury arises from warlike activity. I have already explained why it would be impractical to try to extend the provisions of the criminal injury compensation scheme to cover the conduct of war operations. In practice, it would also be very difficult to arrive at a fair and defensible definition of what constitutes a warlike operation. Would a soldier employed on a humanitarian relief mission who was killed or injured because his truck skidded and fell down a ravine be deemed to be engaged in warlike activity?
    Extending cover to hazardous military training would be equally difficult. Accidents can and do happen to service personnel when they are not training; and accidents can happen in training which could be shown by statistics to be no more hazardous than civilian work. In practice, it would be very difficult to distinguish between hazardous military training and other everyday service duties.
    We therefore believe that the right approach is to concentrate on a review of the current rates of attributable death in service and invaliding gratuities. This review may need to include the study of a number of representative case histories. Our objective would be to ensure that these benefits properly reflect the special needs of the bereaved and the most severely disabled, in all cases where death or injury is attributable to military service. This work is now in progress. I will keep my hon. Friend and the House informed of that progress.
    We acknowledge that some ex-service personnel have special requirements as a result of their service with the armed forces. Of course, we recognise the particular needs of disabled ex-service people, for example, and the Government have not only preserved the preferential provisions of the war pensions scheme, but have done much to enhance it. War disablement pensioners are given priority when referred to the national health service for treatment of their pensioned disablement, both as out-patients and as in-patients, subject only to the needs of emergency or other cases.

    79
    My Department has developed a comprehensive resettlement package, which includes an extensive range of briefings and training courses, incorporating arrangements for on-the-job training and the introduction of national vocational qualifications.
    Service personnel due to be invalided out of the armed forces on medical grounds are eligible for the full range of resettlement provisions after only one year of reckonable service. That is a concessionary entitlement for disabled personnel, as the resettlement package is usually available only to those who have completed at least five years' reckonable service.
    Personnel who are medically discharged are given priority over all other service leavers for places on resettlement briefings and training courses; in addition, a medically discharged service man or woman may seek further resettlement and employment advice for up to two years after discharge.
    As my hon. Friend knows, the armed forces have always prided themselves on, and have long been envied for, their service family system—it is at the very core of the ethos of the service man's life. Care for serving personnel and their families is essential to the well-being of the forces. The after-care of those who have served and of their families is equally important, as is the special care that must be provided for those medically discharged, particularly the seriously disabled, and for the widows and widowers, children and parents, and the friends, of those who die in service.
    The duty to provide after-care for those who no longer serve but who remain part of the wider military family, continues, as the many regimental and corps associations bear testament. We are truly fortunate to have the many
    80
    service and welfare organisations, and, as my hon. Friend knows, the many veterans' organisations, including the regimental associations, the Royal British Legion—I visited West Mailing in Kent only last weekend—and others who continue to provide advice, help and support to the ex-service community with great skill and enthusiasm.
    Her Majesty's Government are truly conscious of the tireless work undertaken by the dedicated teams of voluntary workers throughout the country, and of the highly professional way in which they assist their colleagues. We very much value their advice and hold in high esteem the work they undertake.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham on advancing his case on behalf of Sergeant Walker in such a measured, sympathetic and compassionate manner. My hon. Friend knew very well what I was bound to say. The situation is not as satisfactory as we would like it to be. I hope that he will be reassured by the work that we are undertaking in the course of the Bett review.
    We shall continue to ensure that Sergeant Walker and his family receive the very best care that is available. As my hon. Friend so rightly said, we have first-rate service men and women, and it is not only important but critical that we do all we can to assist them when they most need our help.
    Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the measured way in which he has presented the case to me. I shall be happy to continue to follow Sergeant Walker's case with my hon. Friend, and I very much hope that the matter will come to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Vessel Decommissioning
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the fishing vessels St. Benedict, St. Jerome and St. Jasper were decommissioned; how much was paid by his Department for each; to what(a) company and (b) liquidator; and who owned the vessels at the time they were decommissioned. [29568]

  Mr. Baldry
  The fishing vessels (financial assistance) scheme 1983 provided for the payment of decommissioning grant in respect of vessels which were either scrapped, exported for fishing outside Community waters or assigned permanently to another use.

  In the case of the St. Benedict, the St. Jerome and the St. Jasper, the applicant was Thomas Hamling and Co. Ltd. The St. Benedict was sold for the purpose of fishing outside Community waters. The St. Jerome and the St. Jasper were permanently assigned to other uses. Once the conditions had been met in respect of the three vessels, payment was made to Mr. W. F. Ratford, joint receiver of Thomas Hamling and Co. Ltd. The table sets out the other information required.

  Vessels

  Amount £

  Date of decommissioning

  Owner at the time of decommissioning

  St. Benedict

  581,504

  17 February 1984

  Thomas Hamling and Co. Ltd. (in receivership)

  St. Jerome

  515,280

  2 October 19841

  Thomas Hamling and Co. Ltd. (in receivership)

  St. Jasper

  51,484

  6 August 1984

  Thomas Hamling and Co. Ltd. (in receivership)

  1 Vessel sold for alternative use on 2 October 1984, but not removed from the fishing vessel register until 19 November 1984. It is not now possible to determine the reasons for this discrepancy.

  Sugar Beet
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is undertaking to find a means of sterilising soil in which sugar been has been grown, to avoid the necessity for its disposal in landfill. [29766]

  Mr. Baldry
  Maximising potential uses for soil such as landscaping is more likely to be cost effective than sterilisation.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to relieve sugar beet growers of the landfill tax on soil. [29767]
  2
  Mr. Baldry
  MAFF officials stand ready to explore with the sugar beet industry ways in which the volume of waste soil returned to farmland, and therefore not subject to the landfill tax, can be increased.

  Beef and Suckler Cow Premiums
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Council of Ministers for increases in payments under(a) the beef special premium scheme and (b) the suckler cow premium; and if he will make a statement. [30140]

  Mr. Baldry
  The 29 to 30 April Agriculture Council asked the Commission to suggest measures at this week's Agriculture Council to assist beef producers affected by recent market turbulence and seek guidance on how and where the additional support should be targeted. This may include proposals to supplement the 1995 suckler cow and beef special premiums. I am determined to explore all possible ways of assisting producers and will be pressing for the implementation of such measures as soon as possible.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has fixed the 1996–97 Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges; and if he will make a statement. [30458]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The industry was notified by the Meat Hygiene Service in a letter from the MHS chief executive dated 15 March, of proposed increases to inspection charges for 1996–97. Bearing in mind the current crisis in the abattoir industry however, I have decided to defer the application of increased rates until 1 August 1996. In the light of BSE developments, we will be reviewing the proposed charges over the next few months against the aim of achieving full cost recovery for the Meat Hygiene Service in 1996–97. Should any change to the already notified charges prove to be necessary to meet that aim, they will be subject to further notification in accordance with statutory requirements. In the interim, the current charges will continue to apply.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29430]

  Mr. Boswell
  No records are held centrally of how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20, and (d) 10 employees were used by the Department in each of the last five years. The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the legality of(a) the original Fischler ban on United Kingdom beef, (b) the ban by individual EU countries on United Kingdom beef and (c) the Commission ban on United Kingdom beef (i) within the EU and (ii) internationally indicating how, whether and when the

  3
  Government may seek to challenge any of the above; and under what circumstances and to whom compensation may be payable. [23997]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The EU ban on the export of British beef is not justified on the basis of science as a measure necessary to protect public health, and it is totally disproportionate. We are pressing at every opportunity in the Council of Ministers for this ban on the export of British beef to be lifted. We are also intending to challenge the legality of the ban before the European Court of Justice.

  Compensation is a matter to be pursued by the private parties affected either before the domestic courts or the European Court.

  Sandeels
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to call for a precautionary total allowable catch for sandeels at the forthcoming meeting of EU Ministers in Bergen; and if he will make a statement. [29883]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: I called for the introduction of precautionary total allowable catches for sandeels at the last meeting of EU Fisheries Ministers on 22 April.

  Industrial Fishing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the scale of industrial fishing in the North sea; and what is the Government's policy in respect of industrial fishing in sensitive areas. [29886]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: The fisheries scientists of the International Council for the Exploration of Sea advised last year that annual landings from the industrial fisheries of the North Sea increased to approximately 1.8 million tonnes in the early 1970s but have fluctuated around 1 million tonnes in recent years.

  The UK applies a precautionary total allowable catch for sandeels in the Shetland territorial waters, taking account of the sensitivity of the area. The Government have also called for the introduction of TACs under the common fisheries policy for sandeels throughout the North sea, in the Skagerrak and west of Scotland. We have asked ICES to provide advice on the appropriate level of precautionary TACS and have urged that account be taken of the need to protect local aggregations of sandeels in sensitive areas by consideration of seasonal and localised catch regulations.

  EU Ministers Meeting
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who will represent the United Kingdom at the meeting of EU Ministers scheduled for 10 June to discuss agriculture and fisheries; and what is the agenda of the meeting. [29887]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: I plan to represent the United Kingdom at the meeting of EU Fisheries Ministers on 10 June, along with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
  4
  The draft agenda of the Council currently includes multi-annual guidance programmes 1997–99, technical conservation measures, fisheries research, redfish quotas in the north-east and north-west Atlantic, the sprat fishery in the Skagerrak and Kattegat, preparations for a conference on Mediterranean fisheries and a communication from the Commission on small-scale coastal fishing. Other items are likely to be added.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on industrial fishing in the North sea; and what proposals his officials plan to present at the meeting in Bergen on 13 and 14 June on steps to address industrial fishing in sensitive areas. [29888]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: I have recently received representations from Greenpeace on industrial fishing in the North Sea.

  The officials attending the Committee of North Sea Senior Officials in Bergen in June will report on the United Kingdom's initiatives on sandeels and my call for a greater collaborative research effort to increase understanding of the impact of industrial fishing on other species.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Unfilled Teacher Posts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many unfilled teacher posts there are currently in(a) the primary sector, (b) the secondary sector and (c) total, giving the numbers per subject in the secondary sector; and what are these figures as percentages of (i) the primary sector as a whole and (ii) secondary teachers grouped according to subject. [29636]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on teacher vacancies as at January 1995, the latest currently available, were published in press notice 110/95 on 24 May 1995. A copy has been placed in the Library. The figures were published as provisional but they have since been finalised without any amendments being necessary.

  Provisional figures for January 1996 will be published in a press notice on 23 May 1996. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of teachers sought early retirement in each of the last five years in(a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary sector and (c) overall, broken down by the grounds on which early retirement was sought and given in total. [29635]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on teachers seeking early retirement is not collected centrally. The following table shows the latest information on members of the teachers' superannuation scheme obtaining early retirement.
  5

  Number of percentage of nursery, primary and secondary school teachers1 obtaining early retirement. Retirements in each financial year

  Numbers2

  Percentages3

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools4

  Total

  Nursery and primary schools Per cent.

  Secondary schools4 Per cent.

  Total Per cent.

  1990–91

  Efficiency

  3,450

  2,710

  6,160

  1.7

  1.3

  1.5

  Redundancy

  300

  1,230

  1,530

  0.2

  0.6

  0.4

  Ill health

  2,360

  1,550

  3,900

  1.2

  0.7

  1.0

  Total

  6,110

  5,490

  11,590

  3.1

  2.6

  2.8

  1991–92

  Efficiency

  2,760

  2,060

  4,820

  1.4

  1.0

  1.2

  Redundancy

  360

  1,150

  1,510

  0.2

  0.6

  0.4

  Ill health

  2,120

  1,460

  3,580

  1.1

  0.7

  0.9

  Total

  5,240

  4,670

  9,910

  2.6

  2.3

  2.5

  1992–93

  Efficiency

  2,540

  2,200

  4,740

  1.3

  1.1

  1.2

  Redundancy

  700

  1,310

  2,010

  0.3

  0.6

  0.5

  Ill health

  2,080

  1,560

  3,650

  1.0

  0.8

  0.9

  Total

  5,320

  5,070

  10,400

  2.6

  2.5

  2.6

  1993–94

  Efficiency

  2,410

  2,380

  4,790

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  Redundancy

  920

  1,710

  2,630

  0.5

  0.8

  0.6

  Ill health

  2,280

  2,000

  4,290

  1.1

  1.0

  1.1

  Total

  5,610

  6,090

  11,710

  2.8

  3.0

  2.9

  1994–95

  Efficiency

  2,560

  2,260

  4,820

  1.3

  1.1

  1.2

  Redundancy

  780

  1,240

  2,020

  0.4

  0.6

  0.5

  Ill health

  2,630

  2,110

  4,740

  1.3

  1.0

  1.2

  Total

  5,970

  5,610

  11,580

  2.9

  2.8

  2.8

  1 Excludes peripatetic teachers, supply teachers and teachers providing nursery, primary or secondary education other than in school.

  2 Includes only members of the teachers' superannuation scheme some of whom were not working as teachers immediately prior to retirement.

  3 The numbers of early retirements from the TSS shown as a percentage of teachers in service in schools at 31 March, prior to each financial year. The number of teachers in service includes some who may not have been members of the teachers' superannuation scheme.

  4 Excludes sixth-form colleges throughout.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of children in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in January of (i) 1980, (ii) 1991, (iii) 1992, (iv) 1994, (v) 1995 and (vi) 1996 were being taught in classes of (1) 30 and (2) 40 or more in each local education authority in England and in total. [29641]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is contained in a number of tables which have been placed in the Library.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  B Ed Non-completers1

  Number of Students

  1,539

  1,924

  2,316

  2,588

  2,500

  Percentage of intake

  19 per cent.

  22 per cent.

  24 per cent.

  24 per cent.

  21 per cent.

  PGCE Non-completers1

  Number of students

  1,191

  1,391

  1,493

  1,451

  2,445

  Percentage of intake

  11 per cent.

  12 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  9 per cent.

  13 per cent.

  1 These figures include students who failed, as well as those who dropped out. The calculations are based on the assumption of all PGCE courses lasting one year, and all B Ed courses four years. Figures are for England and Wales.

  6
  percentage of those enrolled on teacher training courses in each of the last five years failed to complete the course; and what estimate she has made of the cost of the training which they received. [29638]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The only information centrally available is calculated from the difference between the numbers embarking on bachelor of education and postgraduate certificate of education courses and those successfully completing them four years or one year later. The numbers and percentages of entrants failing successfully to complete initial teacher training courses in the last five years for which such calculations can be made are as follows. The table includes those failing examinations as well as those dropping out voluntarily. We do not know how much of the course was completed in each case, and cannot therefore calculate the costs of training.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the average pupil-teacher ratio(a) for each LEA and (b) for England (i) in the primary sector, (ii) in the secondary sector and (iii) overall as of January in each year since 1980. [29634]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is contained in a number of tables which will be placed in the Library.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of running the Funding Agency for Schools in 1995–96, and what is the provisional cost for 1996–97. [29637]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Grant for the agency's running costs was £11.5 million in 1995–96. Budget provision for 1996–97 is £12.5 million.

  New Technology
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to increase the resources available to universities for investment in new technology for teaching. [29852]

  Mr. Forth
  Higher education institutions receive their funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England as a block grant. It is for institutions themselves to decide their priorities for investment.

  The funding council is investing more than £16 million over three years in a programme of metropolitan area networks to improve institutions' access to the higher education and research broadband network SuperJANET. The higher education funding bodies are contributing around £33 million over four years to the UK teaching and learning technology programme which develops innovative approaches to teaching and learning using modern technology.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library the guidance issued to local education authorities in respect of the proper use of exclusions; and what plans she has to update it. [29683]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A copy of the Department's circular 10/94 on exclusions from school is already in the Library. That guidance will be updated as necessary in the light of policy developments, including possible legislation, which are presently under consideration.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what procedures are in place to monitor whether any school exclusion was used(a) as a last resort and (b) prior to a last resort; what action can be taken if the latter applies; and if she will make a statement; [29681]

  (2) what action her Department can take if it finds a school exclusion is unjustified; and in how many cases in the last two years it has taken such action. [29682]
  8
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Only the headteacher has the power to exclude a pupil from school. In all cases of exclusion, parents have the right to make representations to the school's governors and, in the case of local education authority maintained schools, to the LEA. In the case of a permanent exclusion which is confirmed, as applicable, by governors or the LEA, the parents may appeal to an independent appeal committee. The decision of such a committee, which must consider all relevant circumstances in each case, is final and binding. My right hon. Friend has no power to overturn its decision.

  Secondary School Governors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met governors of state secondary schools in the Greater London area. [29720]

  Mr., Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend and other Ministers frequently meet governors of secondary schools, including Greater London schools, in a variety of contexts.

  School Spending, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the spending, per child in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools, in the London borough of Wandsworth in 1995. [29723]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Expenditure per pupil in Wandsworth in local education authority maintained(a) pre-primary/primary and (b) secondary schools was £2,268 and £3,053 respectively in 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the review of recent research on achievement by ethnic minority pupils commissioned by the Office for Standards in Education will be published. [29754]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Students (Study Abroad)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to increase the number of United Kingdom students studying abroad. [29822]

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the opportunities for studying in Europe have been published in the Department for Education and Employment booklet, "The European Choice", over the last the last three years. The UK is a keen participant in programmes run by the European Commission which promote student mobility. In particular, the Government is a strong supporter of the Socrates-ERASMUS programme which provides UK students with additional support to study for three to 12 months in another country within the European Economic Area.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29459]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information required could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the Department. The Department does not maintain this information in the form requested.

  Modern Apprenticeship Programme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how she plans to ensure that more young black people participate in the modern apprenticeship programme; [29412]

  (2) what percentage of places on the modern apprenticeship programme are currently held by young black people. [29414]

  Mr. Paice
  Young black people currently account for about 1 per cent. of starts in modern apprenticeships. The results of work to identify good practice in recruitment and selection have been made available and further

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  University of Warwick:

  Numbers

  8,262

  8,828

  9,701

  12,471

  13,836

  15,851

  Percentage change

  5

  7

  10

  29

  11

  n/a

  Coventry University:

  Numbers

  8,484

  10,158

  12,233

  12,550

  16,086

  14,646

  Percentage change

  3

  20

  20

  3

  28

  n/a

  n/a = not applicable

  1 Due to changes in data collection, 1994 figures are not directly comparable to those in earlier years. Percentage changes between 1993 and 1994 are therefore not calculated.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the undergraduate student to staff ratio in(a) the university of Warwick and (b) Coventry university for each year since 1989. [29624]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on student-staff ratios for the university of Warwick has been published by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principles in its volume "Universities' Management Statistics and Performance Indicators". Similar data for Coventry university have been published by the Polytechnic and College Funding Council in its volume "Student Staff Ratios in Former Polytechnics and Colleges". Copies of these volumes giving data up to 1993–94 are held in the Library.

  Mr. Cunnigham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the capital allocation to(a) the university of Warwick and (b) Coventry university in (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96; and what it will be in 1996–97 and 1997–98 in (1) cash terms, (2) real terms and (3) as a percentage change on the previous year. [29625]

  Mr.Forth
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England formula capital funds allocations for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 are set out in the table, and the 1996–97 figures is given in cash terms, real terms at 1995–96 prices and as a percentage change on the previous year.
  10
  guidance for employers will be available shortly. The Department is currently exploring with the Commission for Racial Equality and others how best to ensure these new opportunities are drawn to the attention of young black people.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by her Department in each of the last five years. [29444]

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

  Warwick and Coventry Universities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students were at(a) the university of Warwick and (b) Coventry university in each year since 1989, (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage change on the previous year. [29623]

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

  For 1996–97,the council allocated a single block grant to institutions for recurrent and capital purposes; the figure shown is that element of the grant derived from the council's equipment and estates funding formula.

  £000s

  University

  Coventry

  Warwick

  1994–95 cash

  2,246

  2,667

  1995–96 cash

  2,575

  2,962

  Cash

  1,725

  2,225

  1997–98 real terms

  1,678

  2,166

  Percentage change

  -35

  -27

  Figures for 1997–98 have not yet been decided

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the level of DFEE funding per undergraduate student at(a) at the university of Warwick and (b) Coventry university in each year since 1990; and what it will be in 1996–97 in (i) cash terms, (ii) real terms and (iii) as a percentage change on the previous year. [29626]

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not readily available for individual institutions.
  11
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been given by her Department to(a) the university of Warwick and (b) Coventry university in each year since 1990 for the construction of new buildings. [29627]

  Mr. Forth
  Since 1992, the university of Warwick and Coventry university have both received funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England towards the cost of specific capital projects. In both cases only a minority of the project cost has been funded by HEFCE. Details are as follows:

  Projects

  Total HEFCE funds approved £

  Financial year in which awarded

  Coventry

  Extension and refurbishment of 90–94 Gosford Street

  1,750,000

  1992–93

  Warwick

  Library extension

  313,000

  1995–96

  Information for 1991 and earlier years is not readily available.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if her Department required bonds from businesses with under(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29418]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Advice on the use of performance bonds is set out in the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48, "Bonds and Guarantees", copies of which are available in the Library. This guidance makes it clear that bonds are not always necessary and are no substitute for considered judgments about the risks of a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources of the available contractor. These factors will vary for each contract independent of the size of the contractor.

  Schools (Serious Measures)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the schools which have required serious measures under the provisions of the Education Act 1993 to be taken against them; in respect of each school, how long the serious measures have been in force; and into which schools the Education Association has been sent. [29965]

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

  School1

  LEA area

  Date special measures applied

  Date special measures ceased

  Crook

  Durham

  December 1993

  July 1995

  Brookside

  Derbyshire

  December 1993

  March 1995

  Northicote

  Wolverhampton

  January 1994

  May 1995

  12

  School1

  LEA area

  Date special measures applied

  Date special measures ceased

  Stratford

  GM (Newham)

  February 1994

  December 1995

  Battersea Technology College

  Wandsworth

  February 1994

  The Drive

  Gateshead

  March 1994

  The Phoenix

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  April 1994

  Lilian Baylis

  Lambeth

  April 1994

  St. Richard of Chichester

  Camden

  June 1994

  Cross Green

  Leeds

  July 1994

  Dick Sheppard

  Lambeth

  August 1994

  Closed July 1995

  St. Mark's

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  August 1994

  Closed July 1995

  Fairfax

  Bradford

  August 1994

  Hackney Downs

  Hackney

  August 1994

  Closed December 1995

  Rough Hay

  Walsall

  November 1994

  Fryerns School

  Essex

  June 1995

  Brough

  Cumbria

  June 1995

  Little Ilford

  Newham

  June 1995

  Rearsby

  Leicestershire

  July 1995

  Gainsborough

  Newham

  July 1995

  Park Lane

  Brent

  July 1995

  Kingshurst

  Solihull

  July 1995

  St. Malachy's

  Liverpool

  July 1995

  Ingram High

  Croydon

  July 1995

  Malory

  Lewisham

  August 1995

  The Forest

  Nottinghamshire

  August 1995

  Earl Marshal

  Sheffield

  August 1995

  Holyhead

  Sandwell

  September 1995

  Woodstock

  Leicestershire

  September 1995

  Green Acres

  Wolverhampton

  September 1995

  Mostyn Gardens

  Lambeth

  September 1995

  Deeside

  Cheshire

  September 1995

  Edna G Olds

  Nottinghamshire

  September 1995

  Sts. Barnabus and Paul

  Lancashire

  September 1995

  Northways

  Leeds

  September 1995

  Christchurch

  Wandsworth

  September 1995

  Edinburgh

  Waltham Forest

  September 1995

  Brancaster CE

  Norfolk

  September 1995

  St. Joseph's RC Primary

  Brent

  September 1995

  Garston

  Liverpool

  September 1995

  Newport

  Waltham Forest

  September 1995

  Ashburton High

  Croydon

  October 1995

  Rodmell

  East Sussex

  November 1995

  St. James CE Primary

  Cumbria

  November 1995

  Staveley

  Derbyshire

  December 1995

  St. George's Primary

  Wandsworth

  December 1996

  Ashton St. Peter's

  GM (Bedfordshire)

  January 1996

  St. Patrick's RC Primary

  Shropshire

  January 1996

  The Sneyd

  Staffordshire

  December 1995

  St. Matthias

  Hackney

  December 1995

  Whitebridge

  Leeds

  December 1995

  13

  School1

  LEA area

  Date special measures applied

  Date special measures ceased

  Victoria

  Leeds

  December 1995

  Bollin Cross

  Manchester

  January 1996

  Highview

  Sutton

  December 1995

  St. Mary of the Angels

  Westminster

  December 1995

  Munella Community Colllege

  Leicestershire

  February 1995

  Isaac Newton

  Hull

  January 1996

  Foxearth

  Essex

  December 1995

  Lostock Park

  Bolton

  February 1996

  Brookfield

  Gloucester

  December 1995

  Dalton

  Kirklees

  January 1996

  Corby and Kettering Pupil Referral Unit

  Northampton

  January 1996

  St. Stephen's

  Lambeth

  November 1994

  St. John the Divine

  Lambeth

  November 1994

  Roundthorn

  Oldham

  November 1994

  March 1996

  Tamarside

  Devon

  December 1994

  Francis Askew

  Hull

  December 1994

  February 1996

  Norbridge

  Nottinghamshire

  December 1994

  Fred Nicholson

  Norfolk

  January 1995

  Earlsmead

  Haringey

  January 1995

  Abbey Farm

  Norfolk

  January 1995

  Hockwold

  Norfolk

  January 1995

  Morningside

  Hackney

  January 1995

  South Park Infants

  Redbridge

  January 1995

  Kilworthy House

  Devon

  February 1995

  Closed June 1995

  Welsh House Farm

  Birmingham

  February 1995

  Breeze Hill

  Oldham

  February 1995

  Urchfont

  Wiltshire

  February 1995

  Lea

  Berkshire

  February 1995

  Broomwood

  Bradford

  February 1995

  St. George's

  Southwark

  February 1995

  Northmoor Green

  Somerset

  February 1995

  Langham

  Haringey

  February 1995

  Geoffrey Chaucer

  Southwark

  February 1995

  Erpingham

  Norfolk

  March 1995

  February 1996

  All Saints

  Rochdale

  March 1995

  Pinewood

  Staffordshire

  March 1995

  St. Ann's

  GM (Sheffield)

  April 1995

  St. Joseph's Academy

  Lewisham

  January 1995

  South Benwell

  Newcastle

  April 1995

  Handsworth Wood Boys

  Birmingham

  April 1995

  Weavers Field

  Tower Hamlets

  April 1995

  Rams Episcopal

  Hackney

  April 1995

  William Penn

  Southwark

  April 1995

  Shaw Park

  Hull

  April 1995

  Mayville

  Waltham Forest

  April 1995

  14

  School1

  LEA area

  Date special measures applied

  Date special measures ceased

  UpOttery

  Devon

  May 1995

  Deerlands

  Sheffield

  May 1995

  Southfields

  GM (Kent)

  May 1995

  Mary Linwood

  Leicestershire

  May 1995

  St. Hugh's

  GM (Lincolnshire)

  May 1995

  Tyldesley Highfield

  Wigan

  May 1995

  West Gate Community

  Newcastle

  May 1995

  The Haig

  Wiltshire

  June 1995

  Waterfield

  Greenwich

  June 1995

  Upbury Manor

  GM (Kent)

  April 1995

  Brent Pupil Referral Unit

  Brent

  May 1995

  St. Joseph's Primary

  Waltham Forest

  May 1995

  Linwood

  Dorset

  June 1995

  St. Monica's

  Hackney

  January 1996

  St. Anselm's

  Essex

  February 1996

  Finmere

  Oxfordshire

  February 1996

  John Stainer

  Lewisham

  February 1996

  Ravenscroft

  Somerset

  February 1996

  Hickling

  Norfolk

  February 1996

  Southern Road

  Newham

  March 1996

  Summerseat

  Bury

  March 1996

  Lowry

  Salford

  February 1996

  Our Lady of Fatima

  GM (Liverpool)

  March 1996

  Kelsey Park

  GM (Bromley)

  March 1996

  Goddington

  Bromley

  March 1996

  St. Mary's CE Primary

  Gloucestershire

  March 1996

  John Busch

  Hounslow

  March 1996

  Brindale

  Stockport

  April 1996

  Lea Green

  Waltham Forest

  April 1996

  Millbrook Community

  Hampshire

  April 1996

  Roe Lee

  Lancashire

  April 1996

  Cawston

  Norfolk

  March 1996

  Beechwood

  Berkshire

  April 1996

  Jubilee Park

  Sandwell

  April 1996

  Watergate

  Lewisham

  March 1996

  Griffin Manor

  Greenwich

  April 1996

  St. Bernards RC

  Bolton

  March 1996

  Hillcrest

  Leeds

  April 1996

  Melbourne

  Kent

  April 1996

  Rowdown

  Croydon

  April 1996

  St. Margaret's

  GM (Bedfordshire)

  May 1996

  Slated Row

  Buckinghamshire

  April 1996

  Folkwood

  Sheffield

  April 1996

  Blakelaw

  Newcastle

  April 1996

  Westmoor

  Kirklees

  May 1996

  Rowdeford

  Wiltshire

  May 1996

  1 Excludes schools where inspection report is not yet in the public domain.

  One school, Hackney Downs, Hackney, was transferred on 1 September 1995 to the conduct of an education association, and subsequently closed. On 9 May 1966 the Secretary of State announced that she was minded to transfer Langham school, Haringey, to the conduct of an education association, subject to responses to consultation.

  Engineers and Scientists
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 11 March Official Report, column 431, how many professional engineers and technology officers of each category were employed at each grade in each of the Department of Education and Employment agencies in each year since 1991. [29826]
  15
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The DFEE agencies employed one higher professional technology officer in the Employment Service in each year from 1 January 1991 to 1 January 1995. There are no practising professional engineers.

  There may be professionally qualified engineers and technology officers working in mainstream grades. However, this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Company Grants
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what grants were given by her Department to company V, whose identity has been supplied to her, between 1989 and 1991; and which grants covered training in welding and lamination. [30035]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department has paid no grants directly to company V between 1989 and 1991.

  Departmental Employees (Unfair Treatment)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many cases of unfair treatment have been taken to industrial tribunals by employees of the Department of Employment in each year since 1988; and in how many of these the industrial tribunal found in favour of the employee. [28661]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: Prior to its break-up on 5 July 1995, the Department of Employment Group held no central records of the number of cases of alleged unfair treatment taken to industrial tribunals by employees. The best information available is as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases taken

  Number of cases found in employee's favour

  1988

  4

  1

  1989

  3

  1

  1990

  5

  2

  1991

  3

  0

  1992

  8

  0

  1993

  35

  2

  1994

  53

  0

  1995

  40

  5

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from Sir Richard Scott on communications between the secretary to his inquiry into military exports to Iraq and his civil service superiors in the course of that inquiry; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement. [29501]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  None.

  One-stop Government Shop
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce a one-stop Government shop; and if they require the introduction of a combined smartcard/ID card. [29695]
  16
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  There are no present plans to introduce a one-stop Government shop beyond the networks of Government offices in the regions and the business links nation-wide. A prototype of a computerised business start-up system is being demonstrated at selected business links around the UK at present. No decisions have been made on its future.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29417]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Office of Public Service and its agencies, HMSO and the Central Office of Information, follow the Treasury's central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48 on "Bonds and Guarantees" which states that bonds are not always necessary and are no substitute for considered judgments about the risks of a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources of the available contractor. These factors will vary for each contract independent of the size of the contractor. There have been no payments made by bond to the Department in any of the last five years.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29445]

  Mr. Willetts
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29460]

  Mr. Willetts
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to the answer from the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) of 14 May,Official Report, column 384, what other groups of civil service pensions will not be (a) market tested and (b) privatised as regards their administration. [30160]

  Mr. Willetts
  The intention is to open up the administration of the principal civil service pension scheme and associated schemes to competition. Decisions on the timing of individual market tests will be for employing Departments and agencies to take.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times the ministerial group to co-ordinate the Government's participation in the millennium exhibition has met; what were its conclusions; and if he will make a statement. [30052]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" makes it clear that information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet or Cabinet committees is not normally made public. The committee meets whenever necessary to oversee the Government's role in relation to the millennium festival and to take forward any necessary planning of the Government's involvement in this event.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans in respect of the United Kingdom derogations from Council of Europe recommendation No. R(87)15; and which other signatories to the convention have adopted the same derogations. [29692]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The United Kingdom has reserved its rights to comply or not with principles 2.2 and 2.4 of the Council of Europe recommendation. There are no plans to lift these reservations.

  The Republic of Ireland entered a general reservation to comply or not with the recommendation as a whole and Switzerland abstained.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce secondary legislation to implement the data protection directive in the next Session of Parliament. [29700]

  Mr. Sackville
  We shall decide how to implement the data protection directive in the light of responses to the Government's consultation paper. This was issued on 22 March and responses have been invited by 19 July.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name each member of the Data Protection Tribunal and indicate the relevant professional qualification or experience which qualify him or her for appointment to the tribunal. [29698]

  Mr. Sackville
  A list of the current members of the Data Protection Tribunal, together with some brief biographical information, has been placed in the Library. The biographical information relates to the reason for appointment to the tribunal, and is not necessarily the current position of the person concerned.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Data Protection Registrar in respect of the benefits and risks of ID cards. [29690]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received the Data Protection Registrar's booklet "Identity Cards—Putting you in the Picture" and also her formal response to the Government's Green Paper on identity cards.

  Prisoners (Life Sentences)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for informing all prisoners serving life sentences of the minimum sentence they will serve; and by when he expects that all such prisoners who have already served five years of their sentence will have been so informed. [28796]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Arrangements have been made, following the House of Lords judgment in Doody and others in June 1993, for newly sentenced murderers to be informed of their tariff within nine weeks of receipt of any representations they make to my right hon. and learned Friend about the tariff recommendations made by the judiciary. The judicial recommendations are disclosed to these prisoners as soon as possible after conviction.

  A special exercise was completed in December 1994 to disclose previously undisclosed tariff information to some 2,400 convicted murderers still in prison in England and Wales. Representations have been received in about 390 of these cases and 127 have been reconsidered and tariffs set afresh. The rest will be reconsidered as quickly as possible, priority being given to those whose existing tariffs are nearest to expiry.

  The disclosure exercise included about 80 prisoners for whom no exact tariff had been set but who were told that their tariffs would be at least 20 years. Subject to receipt of representations, we expect to complete the setting of tariffs in these cases within the next six months.

  Coroners Court Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has had concerning the effectiveness of the coroners court service. [28800]

  Mr. Sackville
  Complaints about the conduct of coroners and suggestions concerning the inquest system are received from time to time from individuals and organisations.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what questions relating to the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher were asked of people taken from the Libyan bureau to Sunningdale; and if he will make a statement on the answers received; [29292]

  (2) pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 8 May, Official Report, column 212, if the bullets from the spent cartridge case coincided with the bullet found in the body of WPC Fletcher; [29298]

  (3) pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 8 May, Official Report, column 212, how many shots were fired from the first floor window of the building. [29299]

  Mr. Howard
  The continuing investigation into the murder of WPC Fletcher is a matter for the police. The police could not give details which may form part of the evidence in future criminal proceedings without running the risk of prejudicing those proceedings.
  19
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 8 May,Official Report, column 214, at what angle was the body of WPC Fletcher at the time of shooting. [29293]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 8 May,Official Report, column 214, and to the pathologist's evidence which was put before a jury.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 8 May,Official Report, column 213, what meetings or correspondence he has had with the parents of WPC Fletcher since the memorial service in Salisbury cathedral. [29294]

  Mr. Howard
  I have had no meetings or correspondence with the parents of WPC Fletcher.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 8 May,Official Report, column 211, what report he has had from the Metropolitan police about why the video was not presented in evidence at the inquest. [29295]

  Mr. Howard
  The police are reviewing the contents of the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme of 10 April, including giving specific consideration to this question. I have not yet had a report of their conclusions.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 8 May,Official Report, column 211, what factors led him to describe Professor Bernard Knight, Surgeon Hugh Thomas and Lieutenant-Colonel George Styles as so-called experts. [29301]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 8 May,Official Report, column 211.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 8 May,Official Report, column 211, what factors have made it impossible to charge anyone with the murder of WPC Fletcher. [29300]

  Mr. Howard
  The investigation of crime is a matter for the police. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear to the House on 8 May, the police were unable to obtain enough evidence to sustain a prosecution without the full co-operation of those concerned in the Libyan people's bureau. Such co-operation was not forthcoming. None the less, the police were of the view that it was likely that the murder was committed by one of two people who were in the bureau. Both of them possessed diplomatic immunity and could not be prosecuted under English law even if the necessary evidence had been available.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 8 May,Official Report, column 209, if he will put in the Library the exchange of reports between the Libyan people's bureau and Tripoli, indicating the date on which this information was passed to the police. [29291]
  20
  Mr. Howard
  It is not Government policy to comment on matters which relate to operations carried out by the Security and Intelligence Services or to confirm or deny that such operations have been carried out.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29440]

  Mr. Howard
  The information required to answer this question is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with under(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29422]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department follows advice on the use of performance bonds which is set out in the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48, "Bonds and guarantees", copies of which are available in the Library. This guidance makes clear that bonds are no substitute for considered judgments about the risks of a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources of the available contractor.

  My Department has not received any payments from performance bonds in the last five years.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29455]

  Mr. Howard
  Information for 1995–96 in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A new accounting system, introduced from 1 April, should provide a means to answer such questions in the future.

  European Year Against Racism
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the European Commission's proposal for a Council decision designating 1997 as European Year Against Racism. [29943]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The United Kingdom has expressed its support in principle for a European Year Against Racism. We are now discussing with other member states of the European Union how this can best be taken forward.

  Ballot Papers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discretionary powers are available to those responsible for the local administration of(a) local government, (b) general and (c) European elections to (i) issue copies of appropriate ballot papers to

  21
  electors together with poll cards and (ii) arrange for the symbols of the main political parties to be displayed on ballot papers; and if he will make a statement. [29748]

  Mr. Sackville
  Under current electoral legislation

  (i) there is nothing to prevent a returning officer from issuing a poll card together with a postal ballot paper for local, parliamentary or European parliamentary elections to an elector who is an absent voter and entitled to vote by post as proxy at the election; we understand, however, that because of different timing requirements this is not normal practice;

  (ii) there are no discretionary powers available to returning officers to add party political symbols to the ballot paper.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 442, how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in each of his Department's agencies in each year since 1991. [29837]

  Mr. Howard
  No professional scientists or engineers have been employed by the UK Passport Agency or the Fire Service College in the period in question. The numbers of staff in these categories in the Prison Service and the Forensic Science Service are set out in the following tables. Figures are not available in the form requested for 1991 and 1992, nor in the case of the Prison Service for 1993.

  Forensic Science Service

  Grade

  Discipline

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  3

  Forensic science

  1

  1

  1

  1

  5

  2

  2

  2

  0

  6

  3

  7

  7

  7

  7

  60

  —

  —

  —

  Senior scientific officer

  139

  —

  —

  —

  Higher scientific officer

  154

  —

  —

  —

  Scientific officer

  104

  —

  —

  —

  Assistant scientific officier

  85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior forensic scientist

  —

  196

  196

  187

  —

  Forensic scientist

  —

  141

  155

  154

  —

  Assistant forensic scientist

  —

  206

  177

  269

  Total

  —

  548

  553

  538

  618

  Prison service

  Grade

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Engineer Grade 7

  1

  1

  1

  Engineer senior professional and technology officer

  5

  5

  5

  Engineer higher professional and technology officer

  4

  6

  7

  Engineer professional and technology officer

  10

  11

  10

  Engineer chemical SPTO

  1

  1

  1

  Engineer civil Grade 7

  1

  1

  1

  Engineer civil SPTO

  3

  3

  3

  22

  Prison service

  Grade

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Engineer civil HPTO

  2

  2

  7

  Engineer civil PTO

  4

  4

  3

  Engineer electrical PTO

  0

  0

  1

  Engineer electronic Grade 7

  0

  0

  0

  Engineer electronic SPTO

  0

  0

  0

  Engineer electronic HPTO

  1

  1

  1

  Engineer mechanical PTO

  1

  1

  1

  Engineer mechanical SPTO

  2

  2

  2

  Engineer mechanical HPTO

  2

  2

  2

  Engineer mechanical Grade 7

  2

  2

  2

  Engineer production Grade 7

  1

  1

  1

  Engineer production PTO

  1

  1

  1

  Telecommunications HPTO

  1

  1

  1

  Telecommunications PTO

  0

  0

  0

  Mechanical and electrical SPTO

  1

  1

  1

  Mechanical and electrical HPTO

  0

  1

  1

  Mechanical and electrical PTO

  2

  1

  1

  Pharmaceutical SPTO

  25

  26

  32

  Pharmaceutical PTO

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  71

  75

  86

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the implications for the Lockerbie investigation of developments at the forensic science laboratory in Kent. [29972]

  Mr. Howard
  An independent scientific review is to be conducted by Professor Brian Caddy which will consider the instances where contamination might have taken place from the particular centrifuge in question. It would be quite wrong to attempt to pre-empt the results of that review by indulging in speculation concerning what those results might be. It is a matter of public record that residues of both RDX and PETN, which are components of a high performance plastic explosive, Semtex, were identified in debris from the Lockerbie disaster by the forensic explosive laboratory. I understand from my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that the evidence which forms the basis of the charges against the two Libyans does not depend on the identification of the high performance plastic explosive which destroyed the aircraft at Lockerbie.

  Prison Service (Performance)
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Prison Service will publish its plans for 1996 to 1999; and what key performance indicators will measure the service's performance in 1996–97. [30446]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Prison Service is today publishing its plan for 1996–99. The six strategic objectives of the period are:

  (1) to achieve unit cost reductions of 10.2 per cent. and to contain capital spending by encouraging greater private sector involvement while maintaining the balance between security, control, purposeful regimes, and support for staff.

  (2) To sustain a permanent step improvement in performance on escapes, building on what we achieved in 1995–96; in particular to complete the programme of work to enhance security for category A and high profile category B prisoners, and to achieve a significant reduction in escapes from escorts.

  23

  (3) To maintain control and a safe environment for staff and prisoners in the face of cost reductions and operational pressures; specifically, to carry through work on incentives, the drugs strategy and prevention of suicide.

  (4) To maintain balanced regimes which support control and include affordable, effective activities to reduce risk of re-offending.

  (5) To meet basic health care needs of the population, and to target particularly the transfer of mentally ill prisoners to hospital.

  (6) To strengthen effectiveness of staff at all levels and specifically to increase the effectiveness of financial controls and systems.

  The plan also sets performance targets for 1996–97.

  With the agreement of colleagues in the Treasury and the Office of Public Service, as required by the Prison Service framework document, we have decided to make changes to the service's key performance indicators.

  These changes aim to:
  recognise that the service has achieved some of its key performance targets in full;
  reflect the emerging priorities for the service in the coming years; and
  take account of the recommendations made by Sir John Learmont on performance indicators.

  For 1996–97, we have decided that the service should drop two of its existing key performance indicators.

  These are:
  KP14 (access to sanitation): the service achieved its target of ensuring that all prisoners have 24-hour access to sanitation on 12 April 1996; and
  KP 7 (access to minimum visits): all prisoners have had the opportunity to exceed the minimum visiting entitlement for the last two years, so KPI7 has been fully achieved.

  In their place, the service has three new KPIs covering:
  the proportion of random drug tests that prove positive. This new indicator was recommended by Sir John Learmont and will measure the service's performance in achieving one of its key priorities, dealing with drug abuse in prisons;
  the number of prisoners who complete programmes accredited as being likely to reduce the risk of re-offending. This new indicator will measure the service's performance in fulfilling one of its primary functions: preparing prisoners for release;
  the number of days per year staff spend in training. This new indicator was recommended by Sir John Learmont. It will encourage the service to improve its performance on staff training, which in turn will lead to improvements in performance across the board.

  We have also decided that the service's existing KPI on time unlocked should be amended. Currently, this measures the proportion of prisoners held in establishments that unlock all prisoners for at least 12 hours per weekday. The director general has advised me that some establishments have experienced problems, including drugs trafficking and intimidation of vulnerable prisoners, where prisoners are unlocked in the evenings without constructive activities being available to keep them occupied. We judge a lower threshold to be more appropriate, but with an increased target for purposeful activity. Therefore, from 1996–97, the KPI will measure the proportion of prisoners who are held in establishments that unlock all prisoners on standard or enhanced regimes for more than 10 hours per weekday. This will maintain pressure for improvement in those establishments
  24
  unlocking only for eight or nine hours. There will be an increased target for purposeful activity of 26.5 hours per week for 1996–97, compared with 25.5 hours per week for 1995–96.

  In addition, the plan will include additional performance information covering:

  a breakdown of assaults showing separately those on staff and on prisoners and others;

  the number and distribution of self-inflicted deaths

  staff turnover and sickness rates; and

  the rate of reduction in the headquarters overhead.

  Taken together, these changes will give the Prison Service a challenging set of targets across the range of its activities while allowing it to focus on its top priorities of custody, control, tackling drug abuse and working to reduce re-offending.

  The targets we have set for 1996–97 will require the service to improve performance against most of its indicators, including escapes, the rate of assaults, the rate of positive testing for drug misuse, the amount of purposeful activity for prisoners, investment in staff training and cost per prisoner place.

  Ademola Onibiyo
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the representations received by his Department concerning Ademola Onibiyo in the seven days preceding his departure from Britain. [29480]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 May 1996]: In the seven days preceding Mr. Onibiyo's deportation on 4 May, representations were received from:

  Bernie Grant MP

  Bill Morris—Transport and General Workers Union

  Lord Gifford QC—Councillor Adam Sandell, Oxford city council

  John Monks TUC

  Baroness Williams of Crosby

  Harry Cohen MP

  Fisher Meredith—Solicitors

  Jeremy Corbyn MP

  The President of Guyana

  Jack Straw MP

  Rodney Bickerstaff—UNISON (by telephone) together with 65 letters from the general public.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost of(a) legal action, (b) administration and (c) holding in custody of Ademola Onibiyo since January 1995; and if he will make a statement. [29479]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 May 1996]: The total legal costs which fall to be met by the Home Office in connection with the deportation of Ademola Onibiyo amount to £21,000. Mr. Onibiyo was detained for two periods totalling 360 days prior to his deportation on 4 May. The average cost of detaining a person for this length of time is £39,225. The information requested concerning administration costs is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Abdul Onibiyo
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statements were issued by his Department on Wednesday 1 May to(a) the Daily Mail, (b) the Daily Express and (c) The Guardian concerning Abdul Onibiyo. [29481]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 May 1996]: Information confirming that Mr. Abdul Onibiyo was living safely in Nigeria was given to a number of newspapers which had previously expressed an interest in his whereabouts when that information became available on 30 April.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish(a) all correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and Nigeria and (b) all Interpol briefings the Metropolitan police have received on the whereabouts of Abdul Onibiyo. [29486]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 15 May 1996]: It is not our practice to publish correspondence with foreign or Commonwealth Governments about individual cases or the text of communications received from Interpol. However, I can confirm that on 30 April information was received from Interpol in Lagos that Mr. Onibiyo had been located in March this year living with his family in Ibadan and that at no time since his return to Nigeria had he been arrested or detained by the Nigerian authorities.

  Nigeria (Missing Persons)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reference has been made to Interpol(a) by his office and (b) by British police forces concerning the whereabouts of missing persons in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [29487]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 15 May 1996]: No such references have been made by the Home Office.

  Since January 1995, Interpol London has made one request to the Nigerian central bureau of Interpol to help trace a missing person believed to be in Nigeria. The request was made on behalf of a police force in the United Kingdom which had been contacted by concerned relatives.

  Council of Europe Meetings
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995 have been attended by Ministers or officials of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [29359]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: The readily available information suggests that Home Office Ministers or officials have attended some 68 meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about how he 26
  devolves his powers to suspend payment of any particular social security benefit as between civil servants in his Department and the Benefits Agency. [28640]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Benefits Agency forms part of the Department of Social Security and its staff are civil servants engaged in the implementation and administration of social security legislation. Decisions, including suspension of payment of benefit under the claims and payments regulations, are taken by civil servants in the Benefits Agency acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance indicators apply to the payment of housing benefit; and if these apply equally to the new unitary authorities. [28982]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department of Social Security does not set performance indicators for the payment of housing benefit but information from departmental statistical returns is used by local authorities to provide the base data for housing benefit performance measures compiled for and published under the citizens charter initiative by the Audit Commission. The most recent publication was for 1994–95.

  The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 provide that every authority shall make the first payment of any housing benefit awarded by it within 14 days of the receipt of a properly completed claim and all claims should be determined within 14 days of receipt of all the relevant information. Where this is impracticable, payments on account must be made. The regulations apply to all local authorities administering housing benefit.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers he has to intervene where a local authority is failing to pay housing benefit on time; and what procedures exit for a special audit of those local authorities who have a backlog in the payment of housing benefit. [28981]

  Mr. Evans
  The day-to-day administration of housing benefit is the statutory responsibility of local authorities and the quality of service is largely a local matter. The Department monitors administrative performance through the examination of statistical returns and other information backed by a programme of visits to a range of local authorities. Where a local authority appears to have serious administrative problems, departmental officials will consider making a special visit to discuss them at a senior level. In addition, a local authority housing benefit subsidy returns are subject to annual audit by an auditor approved by the Audit Commission which many, as part of this process, draw the Department's attention to authority failings.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the former recipients of invalidity benefit who had been transferred on to incapacity benefit up to the end of February 1996 were(a) disqualified for failure to return the IB50 questionnaire, (b) disqualified for failure to attend a medical examination and (c) failed the all-work test. [29477]
  27
  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information is in the table.

  Former Invalidity Benefit recipients who transferred to Incapacity Benefit

  Total to 30 November 1995

  (a) disallowed following failure to return questionnaire

  1,200

  (b) disallowed following failure to attend a medical examination

  260

  (c) disallowed following application of the all work test

  21,680

  Source:

  5 per cent sample from the Incapacity Benefit computer system.

  Excludes a small number of cases not held on the system.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many former recipients of invalidity benefit who had been transferred on to incapacity benefit had been reviewed up to the end of November 1995. [29476]

  Mr. Burt
  As at 30 November 1995, 165,000' former recipients of invalidity benefit who transferred to incapacity benefit had been reviewed under the new provisions for the assessment of incapacity for work introduced on 13 April 1995.

  Note:

  1 Includes those reviewed under the all work test and those found to be exempt from the test.

  Family Credit Payments
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the reductions in family credit payments following DSS action to recover child maintenance during the period 1988–89 to 1992– 93. [29375]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29436]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29452]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The Department's total expenditure on goods and services in 1994–95, the most recent year for which figures are available, was £1.47 billion1.

  Notes:

  1 Includes spend with both the private and public sectors—that is, Royal Mail, Post Office Counters etc, our records do not differentiate.

  2 Figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  National Insurance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the value for money achieved to date by the national insurance records 2 system; and if he will make a statement. [29371]
  28
  Mr. Heald
  When considering schemes under the private finance initiative it is a fundamental principle that overall best value for money in providing a service is assessed by taking into account all aspects of design, finance and operation as a unified whole. During the NIRS2 evaluation process, tenders from suppliers were compared with a fully costed in-house option to confirm that a PFI procurement represented value for money; and were compared with each other to establish the most economically advantageous option.

  Under the NIRS2 contract, Andersen Consulting will receive no payment until the system is fully accepted and operational. Andersen Consulting has therefore incurred the development costs to date that would otherwise have fallen to the public sector.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to ensure that the delay in the delivery of the national insurance records 2 system will not be repeated in other private finance initiative projects undertaken by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [29372]

  Mr. Heald
  Variations to implementation timetables are not uncommon when procuring computer systems of the size and complexity of, for example, NIRS2. They can occur for a variety of reasons; and in both publicly and privately financed projects. Under private finance initiative principles, service providers are required to take the responsibility, and the risks, for the design, development and delivery phases of projects. The Department will continue to employ vigorous contract management and service monitoring on all of its PFI procurements to ensure that contractual obligations are met.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29426]

  Mr. Burt
  Our aim is to follow the advice on the use of performance bonds set out in the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48 in "Bonds and Guarantees". The decision to use a performance bond is made on a case-by-case basis, after considered judgment of any risks a specific contractor may present to a particular contract, regardless of the size of the contractor. We do not collect information of amounts paid by bond.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many asylum seekers receive reduced rate benefits under the urgent cases regulations at(a) the Euston district benefits office and (b) the Neasden district benefits office; [29749]

  (2) how many income support claimants registered at (a) the Euston district benefits office and (b) the Neasden district benefits office are awaiting the outcome of asylum applications; [29750]
  29
  (3) how many income support claimants have been taken off the register as a result of the application of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 introduced on 5 February at (a) the Euston district benefits office and (b) the Neasden district benefits office; [29751]

  (4) how many income support claimants awaiting the outcome of asylum appeals have been refused benefit by (a) the Euston district benefits office and (b) the Neasden district benefits office since 1 February 1996. [29977]

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

  Earnings Top-up Scheme
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to publish detailed rules of the earnings top-up scheme. [30192]

  Mr. Burt
  I have today published, and placed in the Library, the printed version of the rules of the earnings top-up pilot scheme. The draft version of the rules was presented to the Social Security Advisory Committee and to Parliament in November last year.

  The aim of earnings top-up is to help people without dependent children enter and remain in work. The three-year pilot, running in eight areas from October 1996, at a cost of £65 million, will test how effective it is in doing that. Couples could receive up to £56 a week on top of earnings and single people up to £28 a week.

  I have also today placed in the Library a summary of the research programme for earnings top-up. This paper in the Department's research series explains how this important evaluation will be undertaken by three independent research institutes.

  To help with the technical evaluation I have appointed a panel of experts to provide advice on the research programme. The members are:
  Mr. David Stanton—director of analytical services division, DSS.
  Professor Roger Jowell—director of social and community planning research.
  Professor Stephen Nickell—director of the institute of economics and statistics, university of Oxford.
  Mr. Andrew Dilnot—director of the institute for fiscal studies.
  Mr. Paul Gregg—centre for economic performance, London school of economics.

  £ billion 1994–5 prices (rounded to.1 billion)

  Year

  2000–01

  2005–06

  2010–11

  2015–16

  2020–21

  2025–26

  2030–31

  2040–41

  2050–51

  Pre Social Security

  Act 1986 regime1

  4.2

  8.0

  12.0

  18.0

  25.0

  33.0

  41.0

  49.0

  55.0

  Pre Pensions Act

  1995 regime2

  4.2

  6.7

  9.2

  11.8

  14.5

  16.6

  18.7

  19.5

  19.3

  Estimated savings

  0

  1.3

  2.8

  6.2

  10.5

  16.4

  22.3

  29.5

  35.7

  1 Figures are approximations based on figures from the Social Security Bill 1986, report by the Government Actuary on the Financial Effects of the Bill on the National Insurance Fund (Cmnd 9711) allowing for an extra five million people contracted out in Appropriate: Personal Pensions, and the report by the Government Actuary on the Financial Effects of the Pensions Bill 1994 on the National Insurance Fund (Cm 2714). They assume price uprating of benefits and are in respect of retirement pensioners only.

  2 The figures are taken from the report by the Government Actuary on the Financial effects of the Pensions Bill 1994 on the National Insurance Fund (Cm 2714), assume price uprating of benefits and are in respect of retirement pensioners only.

  30
  Professor Jane Millar—school of social sciences, university of Bath.

  Ms Jane Ritchie—director of qualitative research at social and community planning research.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of children aged(a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18 and (d) 19 years; and how many in each age group are in receipt of child benefit. [30137]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table. Child benefit is not payable in respect of 19-year-olds; entitlement ends on the 19th birthday.

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Total number of children in age bands

  637,200

  627,300

  656,9005

  686,200

  Numbers receiving Child Benefit1 2

  577,100

  400,700

  177,600

  Nil

  Notes:

  1 Figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample of the Child Benefit computer system.

  2 The figures quoted are provisional and do not include any late amendments or awards.

  Pensions
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of (a) the annual savings in public spending which will result from the pension changes, with particular reference to the state earnings-related pension scheme, made by the Social Security Act 1986 in the years (i) 2000, (ii) 2005, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2015, (v) 2020 and (vi) 2025, and (b) the maximum annual saving from those changes. [30141]

  Mr. Heald
  The information requested is not available. Net savings in public expenditure cannot be estimated over the period; for example, we cannot predict the offsetting savings on income-related benefits this far in advance.

  Estimates of expenditure on additional pension are given in the table.

  The maximum annual saving in expenditure on additional pension from the changes made by the Social Security Act 1986 is estimated at over £35 billion in 2050. Estimates are not available for years after 2050.

  Social Security Benefits
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the actual figures for social security spending, excluding housing benefit, for each year since 1980. [30143]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Cost (£ million)

  1980–81

  22,707

  1981–82

  27,316

  1982–83

  30,880

  1983–84

  34,364

  1984–85

  37,117

  1985–86

  40,311

  1986–87

  43,444

  1987–88

  45,609

  1988–89

  46,193

  1989–90

  48,800

  1990–91

  54,126

  1991–92

  62,947

  1992–93

  70,905

  1993–94

  76,923

  1994–95

  78,288

  1995–96

  81,669

  Source:

  Departmental reports 1980–81 to 1995–96.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in receipt of family credit have children in receipt of child benefit. [30136]
  32
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Almost all family credit recipients also receive child benefit. Nearly 95 per cent. of families declare receipt at the time of their claim but, as child benefit does not affect entitlement to family credit, it is not always declared.

  Source:

  Family credit computer system 5 per cent. sample of all awards.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security he will set out the actual figures for spending on housing benefit for each year since its introduction. [30142]

  Mr. Evans
  Information relating to the current housing benefit scheme is set out in the table:

  Housing benefit expenditure—Great Britain

  Year

  Out-turn (£ million)

  1988–89

  3,773

  1989–90

  4,299

  1990–91

  5,147

  1991–92

  6,482

  1992–93

  7,901

  1993–94

  9,218

  1994–95

  10,181

  1995–96

  10,8481

  Note:

  1 Estimated out-turn.

  Source:

  Social Security departmental reports.

TRANSPORT

  Network Enhancement Projects
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate has been made of the likely accident reduction implications for each of the network enhancement projects announced in the Highways Agency's business plan for 1995–96. [29552]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 20 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what estimate has been made of the likely accident reduction implications for each of the network enhancement projects announced in the Highways Agency's Business Plan for 1995–96.
  We estimate that our 1995/96 programme of network enhancement projects will result in a reduction of at least 500 casualties a year. All the individual projects in the programme will contribute to this but uncertainties associated with factors such as weather and road conditions make it unrealistic to give a precise estimate of their contribution.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the links on the national motorway and trunk road network where traffic in 1995 was at levels which resulted in regular congestion. [29553]

  Mr. Watts
  The parts of the trunk road and motorway network most subject to congestion due to heavy traffic flows in 1995 were in peri-urban areas, namely

  the M25 and the Ml, M3 and M4 approaches to London

  the M6 and M42 around the west midlands conurbation

  the M62/M63 around Manchester

  the M62 approaches to Leeds and Bradford

  In some cases, congestion was aggravated by roadworks necessary for improvement and maintenance works.

  It is worth noting, however, that most of the trunk network was not subject to regular congestion in 1995.

  Road Maintenance
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number and value of awards made against his Department or the Highways Agency in each of the last five years in(a) out-of-court settlements and (b) court judgments as a result of neglect of road maintenance. [29546]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 20 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what is the number and value of awards made against his Department or the Highways Agency in each of
  34
  the last five years in (a) out-of-court settlements and (b) court judgments as a result of neglect of road maintenance.
  The information is not available in the form requested, except at disproportionate cost.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on policy regarding the reinstatement of driving instructors found guilty of sex offences; what is the present policy on such reinstatement; and what recent changes have been made. [29971]

  Mr. Norris
  Following a recent case, the matter was taken up by one of the national associations that represent approved driving instructors and by a local instructor.

  Under part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the registrar of approved driving instructors has to be satisfied that an instructor is a "fit and proper person" to be an ADI. A conviction of the sort referred to would be viewed most seriously by the registrar, leading potentially to removal from the ADI register. He might well also decide that such a person could never again be a "fit and proper person". As a matter of administrative law, the registrar's discretion under the Act cannot be fettered so that he is committed to any specific course of action in every case and he cannot refuse to consider any fresh application on its merits.

  There have been no recent changes in how these matters are dealt with.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the interdepartmental group set up to review search and rescue helicopters has reported; and if he will make a statement. [30302]

  Mr. Norris
  The review group has submitted its report. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The group was set up in July 1995 to examine the national requirement for search and rescue helicopters, and how this might most efficiently and effectively be met, as part of an integrated approach to search and rescue. It has made six recommendations, listed in chapter 6 of the report.

  The Government have accepted recommendation 4, to set up a new joint advisory board for search and rescue helicopter provision. This board will consider further work on establishing a national database of emergency incidents and helicopter call-outs—recommendation 1—on monitoring helicopter availability—recommendation 3—and on examining the options for interdepartmental charging—recommendation 6.

  Formal consultation on the report is being launched today with the UK Search and Rescue Committee and other interested parties. Views are particularly invited on the group's proposed additional coverage criteria— recommendation 2—and on ways to strengthen the co-ordination and consultation machinery for search and rescue generally—recommendation 5.

  The Government are considering the best location for the two aircraft currently based on the south coast at Lee-on-Solent and at Portland. Our consideration will

  35
  have regard to the search and rescue requirements along the south coast and mid-channel. Views on these additional issues have also been sought.

  Replies have been requested by Friday 28 June.

  National Bus
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many buses were operated by each company within National Bus at the enactment of the Transport Act 1985. [30004]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available for the date on which the Transport Act 1985 received Royal Assent—30 October 1985—but the annual report of the National Bus Company for 1985 listed the number of vehicles of each operating subsidiary at the end of that year. The list is reproduced:

  NBC bus and coach operating subsidiaries—1985

  Name of subsidiary

  Traffic vehicles

  Ambassador Travel (Eastern Countries) Ltd.

  52

  Bristol Omnibus Company Ltd.

  632

  Cambus Ltd.

  224

  Cheltenham and Gloucester Omnibus Company Ltd.

  216

  The City of Oxford Motor Services Ltd.

  142

  Crosville Motor Services Ltd.

  924

  Cumberland Motor Services Ltd.

  149

  Devon General Ltd.

  264

  East Kent Road Car Company Ltd.

  304

  East Midland Motor Services Ltd.

  258

  East Yorkshire Motor Services Ltd.

  176

  Eastern Counties Omnibus Company Ltd.

  273

  The Eastern National Omnibus Company Ltd

  437

  Hampshire Bus Company Ltd.

  199

  Hastings and District Transport Ltd.

  69

  Lincolnshire Road Car Company Ltd.

  188

  London Country Bus Services Ltd.

  1,153

  The Maidstone and District Motor Services Ltd

  325

  Midland Fox Ltd.

  296

  Midland Red Coaches Ltd.

  44

  Midland Red (North) Ltd.

  292

  Midland Red (South) Ltd.

  187

  Midland Red (West) Ltd.

  273

  National Welsh Omnibus Services Ltd.

  398

  North Devon Ltd.

  61

  The Northern General Transport Company Ltd.

  709

  Pilgrim Coaches Ltd.

  20

  The Potteries Motor Traction Company Ltd.

  240

  Provincial Bus Company Ltd.

  69

  Ribble Motor Services Ltd.

  836

  Shamrock and Rambler Coaches Ltd.

  37

  South Midland Ltd.

  91

  Southdown Motor Services Ltd.

  606

  Southern National Ltd.

  178

  The Southern Vectis Omnibus Company Ltd.

  161

  The South Wales Transport Company Ltd.

  261

  The Thames Valley and Aldershopt Omnibus Company Ltd.

  375

  Trent Motor Traction Company Ltd.

  378

  United Automobile Services Ltd.

  746

  United Countries Omnibus Company Ltd.

  522

  36

  NBC bus and coach operating subsidiaries—1985

  Name of subsidiary

  Traffic vehicles

  Wessex National Ltd.

  40

  West Riding Automobile Company Ltd.

  492

  West Yorkshire Road Car Company Ltd.

  356

  Western National Ltd.

  317

  Wiltshire and Dorset Bus Company Ltd.

  210

  The Yorkshire Traction Company Ltd.

  328

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29449]

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

  Railtrack
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Government's sale of their shareholding in Railtrack group plc. [30483]

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to report that the Government's UK public offer and international offers of Railtrack shares were successfully completed this morning when dealings in interim rights started on the London stock exchange.

  As a result of bids received in the international offers, the price of the second instalment for all investors in the UK public order and the international offers were set at 190p per interim right.

  Accordingly, the price for Railtrack interim rights purchased in the United Kingdom public offer was 380p per share, comprising 190p paid on successful application and 190p to be paid by 3 June 1997.

  The price for interim rights purchased in the international offer of Railtrack shares was 390p per share, comprising 200p paid on successful application and 190p to be paid by 3 June 1997.

  The Government offered for sale up to 434.8 million Railtrack shares in the UK public offer and the international offers.

  Some 665,000 applications were received in the United Kingdom public offer for a total of some 391 million Railtrack shares. This represented some three times the shares initially expected to be sold in the UK public offer. In response to this demand, the Government increased the total number of shares allocated to the UK public offer to 210 million shares. At this level, the number of shares applied for in the UK public offer represented some 1.9 times the shares available.

  Over 44 per cent. of applicants in the UK public offer received an allocation of shares. Over 97 per cent. of applicants had their applications met in full.

  Some 180.4 million shares were allocated to bidders in the international offers. This number does not include any shares that SBC Warburg may have over-allotted in connection with the international offers. The extent of any such over-allotment will not be disclosed until later.
  37
  Individual investors bidding in the United Kingdom retail tender bid for some 136 million shares in Railtrack. Of these numbers, some 32.5 million shares were in respect of personal equity plan applications.

  In addition to the shares sold in the UK public offer and the international offers, SBC Warburg, as global co-ordinators for the sale, hold an option to acquire from the Secretary of State for Transport up to a further 65.2 million Railtrack shares for the purposes of meeting any over-allotment made by them in connection with the international offer. This option must be exercised by 14 June.

  Total gross proceeds from the UK public order and international offers are expected to amount to some £1.67 billion, of which some £849 million is expected to be received in this financial year.

  Total gross proceeds may be further increased by a maximum of £254 million to the extent that, if at all, the global co-ordinator, SBC Warburg, exercises its option to acquire further shares.

  The costs of the sale will be disclosed to Parliament in due course.

  Following the offers, and assuming the exercise in full of the option over Railtrack shares granted by the Secretary of State for Transport to SBC Warburg Ltd., the Secretary of State for Transport expects to hold not more than 1 per cent. of Railtrack group plc's issued share capital. These amounts comprise principally shares that may be needed to meet share bonus entitlement under the UK public offer.

  The demand for shares in Railtrack gives me great confidence in the future of the railways.

  Heavy Vehicle Driving Standards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many light goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles drivers have been disqualified in each of the last 10 years; [29543]

  (2) how many LGV and PCV drivers have been required to take a driving retest for each year since the implementation of the north report. [29542]

  Department of Transport central

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Professionals

  Grade 3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  8

  8

  8

  2

  2

  2

  Grade 5

  24

  23

  22

  5

  3

  4

  Grade 6

  85

  80

  83

  27

  14

  13

  Grade 7

  319

  311

  318

  128

  65

  57

  Senior professional and technology officer

  429

  432

  451

  137

  58

  55

  Higher professional and technology officer

  133

  122

  141

  31

  22

  19

  Professional and technology officer

  62

  83

  82

  8

  3

  1

  Total

  1,060

  1,060

  1,106

  338

  167

  151

  38
  Mr. Norris
  Information about the number of LGV and PCV drivers who have been disqualified from driving during the last 10 years or ordered to re-sit a driving test since the implementation of the North report is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29434]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29427]

  Mr. Norris
  Advice on the use of performance bonds is set out in the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48 "Bonds and guarantees", copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The guidance, which my Department follows, makes it clear that bonds are not always necessary and are no substitute of considered judgment about the risks of a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources available to the contractor. These factors will vary for each contract independent of the size of the contractor. Such bonds have been called for by my Department only twice in the past five years and in neither case was it necessary to call upon the bonds' protection.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 471, how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in each of his Department's agencies in each year since 1991. [29836]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested, as recorded in the Department's central personnel computer records, is as set out in the following tables:
  39

  Department of Transport central

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Scientists

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  1

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  2

  2

  3

  2

  4

  3

  Grade 7

  12

  11

  11

  9

  6

  6

  Senior scientific officer

  9

  7

  10

  7

  6

  5

  Higher scientific officer

  1

  5

  7

  6

  7

  5

  Scientific officer

  5

  4

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Assistant scientific officer

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  33

  35

  36

  27

  24

  23

  1. The figures get progressively smaller due to agencies coming into being.

  Highways

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Professionals

  Grade 3

  0

  2

  2

  Grade 4

  6

  6

  4

  Grade 5

  14

  16

  13

  Grade 6

  44

  51

  46

  Grade 7

  174

  196

  152

  Senior professional and technology officer

  326

  349

  278

  Higher professional and technology officer

  120

  116

  106

  Professional and technology officer

  58

  66

  38

  Total

  742

  802

  639

  Scientists

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  0

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  0

  1

  0

  Senior scientific officer

  0

  4

  2

  Higher scientific officer

  0

  0

  0

  Scientific officer

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant scientific officer

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  6

  3

  1. Numbers for 1991, 1992 and 1993 will be include in DOT Central figures.

  Marine safety agency

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Professionals

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  3

  3

  Grade 6

  11

  9

  Grade 7

  50

  48

  Senior professional and technology officer

  68

  76

  Higher professional and technology officer

  9

  15

  Professional and technology officer

  0

  0

  Total

  141

  151

  Scientists

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Grade 5

  40 41

  Marine safety agency

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  Senior scientific officer

  Higher scientific officer

  Scientific officer

  Assistant scientific officer

  Total

  1. Numbers for 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 will be included in DOT Central figures.

  Transport research laboratory

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Professionals

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 6

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  5

  4

  2

  0

  Senior professional and technology officer

  9

  7

  8

  0

  Higher professional and technology officer

  9

  8

  6

  0

  Professional and technology officer

  10

  10

  5

  0

  Total

  34

  30

  22

  0

  Scientists

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Grade 5

  5

  5

  4

  0

  Grade 6

  19

  16

  16

  0

  Grade 7

  73

  69

  63

  0

  Senior scientific officer

  90

  85

  75

  0

  Higher scientific officer

  70

  79

  82

  0

  Scientific officer

  81

  73

  61

  0

  Assistant scientific officer

  18

  14

  21

  0

  Total

  357

  342

  323

  0

  1. Numbers for 1991 and 1992 will be included in DOT Central figures.

  2. Numbers for 1996 are unavailable as the agency has now been privatised.

  Vehicle certification agency

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Professionals

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 6

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  Senior professional and technology officer

  8

  11

  11

  9

  9

  11

  Higher professional and technology officer

  23

  19

  19

  24

  27

  27

  Professional and technology officer

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  40

  38

  35

  39

  42

  44

  Scientists

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Grade 5

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  Senior scientific officer

  42 43

  Vehicle certification agency

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Higher scientific officer

  Scientific officer

  Assistant scientific officer

  Total

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Professionals

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 6

  5

  3

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  16

  14

  13

  11

  8

  7

  Senior professional and technology officer

  44

  42

  41

  36

  36

  40

  Higher professional and technology officer

  104

  103

  101

  91

  81

  63

  Professional and technology officer

  472

  458

  443

  398

  389

  368

  Total

  643

  622

  602

  540

  517

  481

  Scientists

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Grade 5

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  Senior scientific officer

  Higher scientific officer

  Scientific officer

  Assistant scientific officer

  Total

ENVIRONMENT

  Inhabited Bridge (London)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with(a) developers and (b) other interested parties concerning proposals to build an inhabited bridge across the Thames in central London. [28710]

  Mr. Gummer
  As Minister for London, I have had numerous discussions about the idea that an inhabited bridge across the Thames could once again be built in London.

  It is the Government's policy to encourage ideas which can help bring new life and activity back to the River Thames corridor, an aspiration which is clearly very widely shared.

  The idea of a new inhabited bridge in London deserves wide consideration. I have therefore particularly welcomed the initiative by the Royal Academy to stage a major public exhibition in September which will explore the long European tradition of inhabited bridges. I have also welcomed its announcement of an architectural ideas competition, the results of which will form apart of the exhibition, and have agreed to be a member of its judging
  44
  panel for this competition. It is to be hoped that the Royal Academy's exhibition and competition will enable the possibilities to be more thoroughly aired and debated among Londoners and all those with an interest in the future of London.

  In view of my involvement in the matter, I will take no part in any decision, relating to an inhabited bridge, which may subsequently need to be taken in the name of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Any such decision will be taken by my right hon. friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Conservation.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29419]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This Department does not have a formal policy on the use of performance bonds but takes direction from published guidance notes issued by HM Treasury, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses. Each major project is judged on
  45
  its merits, including whether or not the use of performance bonds would be appropriate. The decision to include the requirement for a performance bond will be made independent of the size of the contractors concerned. There have been no cases of performance bonds being enforced by this Department in the last five years.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29458]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29443]

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

  Essex County Council
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to synchronise the elections of Essex county council with those of the vesting day of the two new continuing unitary authorities of Southend and Essex. [29858]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is our policy to require fresh elections for each continuing unitary authority in the year before reorganisation, to ensure that planning and implementation of unitary functions is done on the basis of a fresh mandate. For reorganisations, including Southend and Thurrock, being planned for 1998, this will entail elections in May 1997, which will take place on the same day as the county council elections for the rest of Essex.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has to extend the life of the existing Essex county council to 1 April 1998. [29856]

  Building research establishment

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Grade

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Grade 5

  3

  1

  3

  1

  3

  1

  3

  1

  4

  1

  4

  0

  Grade

  20

  3

  21

  2

  20

  2

  21

  3

  21

  3

  19

  5

  Grade 7

  71

  10

  74

  12

  75

  11

  75

  12

  78

  12

  76

  11

  SEO and equivalent

  89

  16

  99

  17

  93

  19

  91

  20

  89

  22

  103

  22

  HEO and equivalent

  89

  13

  92

  15

  91

  17

  78

  17

  73

  16

  71

  17

  EO and equivalent

  46

  15

  49

  13

  48

  11

  52

  14

  43

  12

  30

  9

  AO and equivalent

  21

  0

  18

  0

  13

  0

  12

  0

  10

  0

  7

  0

  AA and equivalent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  46
  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has no such general powers.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if county councillors can be elected from(a) Southend and (b) Thurrock, to Essex county council at the election scheduled for May 1997. [29857]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has recently consulted on a draft order under the Local Government Act 1992 which would convert the existing Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock borough councils into unitary authorities. The order would, among other things, suspend Essex county council elections for county divisions in the areas of Thurrock and Southend which would otherwise take place in May 1997. Instead, the terms of office of the existing councillors would be extended until 1 April 1998, when the two districts would become unitary. We are currently considering representations on the draft order.

  Council of Europe Meetings
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995 have been attended by Ministers or officials of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [29354]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: Since January 1995, officials from my Department have attended 25 meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe. These meetings covered various aspects of the Department's responsibilities.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 422, if the information he provided includes professional scientists and engineers working in Department of Environment agencies; and how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed in each grade in each of the agencies from 1991 to the current year. [29918]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The previous question referred to staff in the headquarters division of the Department and therefore did not cover the agencies; this information is provided in the following tables:
  47

  The Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre

  Grade

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Science

  Engineers

  Science

  Engineers

  Science

  Engineers

  Science

  Engineers

  Science

  Engineers

  Grade 7

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  HEO and equivalent

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  The buying agency

  Grade

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Grade 7

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  HEO and equivalent

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  3

  The security facilities executive

  1994

  1995

  Grade

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Grade 6

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 7

  0

  2

  0

  2

  SEO and equivalent

  1

  7

  1

  8

  HEO and equivalent

  1

  4

  1

  4

  EO and equivalent

  0

  16

  0

  16

  AO and equivalent

  0

  2

  0

  2

  AA and equivalent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Yorkshire Council
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average amount of standard spending assessment per person in East Yorkshire unitary council in 1996–97. [29827]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The standard spending assessment per person in 1996–97 for the east riding of Yorkshire council is £668.03.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his decision on the final caps for the two local authorities which challenged their cap; and if he will make a statement. [30445]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have laid before the House a draft order, under section 57 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, setting out our decisions on the final caps for Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire county councils.

  We have considered very carefully all the available relevant information, including the case made by the authorities in support of a higher cap, before taking our decisions. We have decided to confirm the caps proposed for both authorities.

  The caps are, in our view, reasonable, appropriate and achievable in all the circumstances of the authorities concerned. These decisions will reduce public expenditure, and the burden on council taxpayers in the
  48
  areas concerned, by £13 million in 1996–97. This will result in a council tax reduction, at band D of £25.26 in Cambridgeshire and £34.89 in Oxfordshire.

  However, I have concluded that Oxfordshire has certain pressures on its budget which may lead to problems in the short term. I have therefore invited Oxfordshire to consider making an application for a chaptalisation direction and supplementary credit approval. This would enable Oxfordshire to capitalise certain costs, thereby releasing resources to support is revenue expenditure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Financial Assistance
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 363, (1) if his Department is looking at ways of making the declaration of interest of Members of his Department's regional industrial development boards and external advisers more transparent to the public; what further measures his Department is proposing to take in this area; and if he will make a statement; [28301]

  (2) if he will place the register of personal financial interests of members of his Department's regional industrial development boards and external advisers in the Library. [28300]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answers 7 May 1996]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 15 May 1996, Official Report, column 494.

  Coal Mining (Wages)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the average earnings in 1995 of(a) faceworkers, (b) other underground workers and (c) surface workers in the deep-mined coal sector. [29611]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not available for the specific occupations requested. Information regarding the mining industry as a whole and broader occupational groups can be found in the new earnings survey, part A, a copy of which is available in the House Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list the cost to public funds of(a) each meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in financial year 1995–96 and (b) each meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in each year since 1992. [29509]

  Mr. Beith
  The House of Commons Commission is not in a position to provide details of the total cost to public funds of meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, but the cost to parliamentary funds of individual meetings in Scotland for the financial year 1995–96 are set out in the table. They have been produced by a manual/clerical check as the information is not readily available in the format requested.

  Location

  Date

  House direct costs

  Aberdeen

  23 October 1995

  2,685

  Edinburgh

  11 December 1995

  8,023

  Glasgow

  18 December 1995

  4,841

  Edinburgh

  15 January 1996

  11,005

  Stirling

  29 January 1996

  8,056

  Inverness

  5 February 1996

  7,457

  Aberdeen

  19 February 1996

  6,852

  Kilmarnock

  4 March 1996

  4,421

  Glasgow

  15 March 1996

  500

  These will not be the final costs for meetings in 1995–96 as there are still invoices and claims outstanding. Excluded from these figures are staff overtime and Members' travel.

  It is not possible to provide details of costs for each meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee since 1992. This can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  Average Incomes
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average earned income in the most recent year for which information is available of(a) the 5 per centile and (b) the 95 per centile of taxpayers. [29227]

  Mr. Jack
  Based on the estimated distribution of earned income for income taxpayers in 1996–97, the 5th percentile is about £4,150 and the 95th percentile is about £35,000.

  Child Tax Allowances and Benefits
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures setting out the treatment for tax and benefit purposes of children aged 16 to 18 years and still in full-time education, in each of the member states of the EU, showing in each case the amounts allowable in(a) child benefit, (b) child tax allowances and (c) educational maintenance allowances in (i) national currencies, (ii) euros and (iii) as percentages of average production worker earnings. [29583]
  50
  Mr. Jack
  Available figures for child benefit and child tax allowance are given in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication "The Tax/Benefit position of Production Workers" which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29428]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury has had no reason to use performance bonds in the last five years. The policy for such bonds is covered by the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48 "Bonds and Guarantees", copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Loan Insurance Schemes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the European loan guarantee scheme to begin in the United Kingdom; what will be the maximum size of loans; which companies will qualify; who will pay the premium for the guaranteed support; and if companies who receive loan guarantees under the small firms loan guarantee scheme will be eligible to apply. [29411]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Commission recently published a proposal for a European loan insurance scheme for employment—ELISE. Detailed discussions with member states on its working have not yet begun and there are a number of issues to be resolved before the Council of Ministers can consider whether or not to adopt the proposal. It is therefore not possible to give information about a possible start date in the United Kingdom. The maximum size of loans covered is not mentioned in the proposal.

  As proposed, ELISE would cover 50 per cent. of loans from private sector institutions, or up to 75 per cent. where the loan is transnational. Small and medium enterprises with plans to create permanent jobs with the help of loans from private sector institutions would be eligible to apply for the guarantee. It is anticipated that the scheme would focus particularly on SMEs with fewer than 50 employees. More detailed eligibility criteria are set out in Commission recommendation C (96) 261 final. Under the terms of the proposal, the premium for the guarantee would be met from the Community budget.

  If the scheme were to be adopted, the Government would consider whether firms who had received loan guarantees under the small firms loan guarantees scheme would be eligible to apply for further assistance under ELISE.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the outcome of discussions between his Department and the European Commission regarding the European loan insurance scheme for employment. [29413]

  Mrs. Knight
  The proposal has only just been published. Therefore, as yet there has been no discussions either with individual member states, in a Council working group, nor with the Commission.

  Salisbury Tax and VAT Offices
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who owns the freehold of the Salisbury tax office. [29922]

  Mr. Jack
  The freehold of Alexandra house, which accommodates Salisbury tax office, is owned by the Crown and is on the estate of the Court Service, western circuit.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed in the VAT sub-office in Salisbury; and what is the total floor area of the premises. [29917]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Currently, there are eight people working in Salisbury VAT sub-office. The total floor area of the premises is 156.9 sq m.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the location of, and number of people employed by, the Inland Revenue in respect of Salisbury taxpayers, in(a) hard collection, (b) soft collection and (c) the compliance section. [29919]

  Mr. Jack
  Details of staff employed by the Inland Revenue on compliance and collection work in respect of taxpayers dealt with by the Salisbury tax office are as follows:

  (a) Hard collection—where some action required to collect tax in addition to the issue of demand notes—8 people employed at Swindon collection office

  (b) Soft collection—tax paid following issue of demand notes—2–3 people employed at Accounts Office in Shipley

  (c) Compliance—8 people employed in Salisbury tax office; 2 people employed in Swindon collection office

  National Savings
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the minimum deposit sum for national savings investment accounts to encourage savings; and if he will make a statement. [29878]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: None. The minimum deposit was increased to £20 in February 1993. National savings has an important role in encouraging savings, and has a wide range of schemes to promote this, but its costs are borne by the taxpayer and large numbers of very low value transactions are administratively costly.

DEFENCE

  Exports (Crown Status)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of defence exports having Crown status in each of the last 10 years. [29870]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Army Legal Aid Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to determine eligibility for the Army legal aid scheme. [29759]
  52
  Mr. Soames
  The general principles to be followed in deciding whether the case justifies the provision of legal aid are that:

  (a) Legal aid would have been provided if the case had been brought in the criminal courts of the United Kingdom. This principle is designed to ensure that Army personnel are not placed at a disadvantage because they are posted aborad.

  (b) The accused is being brought to trial by court martial for a service offence which is serious or involves points of legal difficulty, or the expert examination of witnesses is required.

  Infra-red Technology
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 511, how much his Department has spent in the last 10 years on the development of infra-red technology. [29818]

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

  Polaris
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what temperature the Polaris missile propellant is burned when it is disposed of; and what containment measures are taken to prevent leakage of unburnt propellant. [29872]

  Mr. Soames
  Polaris rocket motors contain solid propellant. Disposal is achieved by using explosive charges which cut open the casing and then ignite the propellant. No record is held of the temperatures reached on burning, but a debris check of the disposal site is carefully carried out to ensure that the motors and propellant have been totally destroyed.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29416]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department's policy is that any request for a bond should be based on a judgment of the capabilities and financial resources of the bidder to fulfil the requirements of a particular contract. It is not related to the size of the company concerned. Such a bond would be called upon only in the event that the contractor defaulted or failed to perform against the contract in question.

  A central record of parent company and bank indemnities and guarantees provided to cover contracts is held, but details of the values required and those relating to businesses under the three categories could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Western European Union
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the availability of NATO intelligence information to the Western European Union. [29893]
  53
  Mr. Soames
  The recent conclusion of a security agreement between NATO and the WEU will improve the exchange of classified information, including intelligence, between the two organisations.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the establishment of a Western European Union political and military situation centre. [29892]

  Mr. Soames
  At their meeting in Lisbon in May 1995, WEU Ministers approved a decision to provide WEU with new decision-making mechanisms and structures, including the establishment of a situation centre to monitor and report on developing crises and act as a communication channel during operations. The UK's current Presidency of WEU has ensured that the situation centre will be operational by the second phase of Exercise WEU Crisex 95–96 in June this year.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy concerning the Western European Union's use of NATO military assets. [29894]

  Mr. Soames
  In accordance with the NATO summit declaration of 1994, our policy is that collective assets of the alliance should be available, on the basis of consultation in the North Atlantic Council, for operations that may be conducted by the WEU. This will include the possibility of making available combined joint task force headquarters.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the measures adopted by his Department to enhance the operational capabilities of the Western European Union. [29891]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the defence initiatives undertaken during the UK Presidency of WEU, which runs from 1 January to 30 June 1996, can be found in chapter 1 of the 1996 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. As well as securing agreement to our proposals on WEU exercises and strategic mobility, we have offered sea training facilities to other WEU nations and have given impetus to the work to set up a situation centre. We have worked, and will continue to work, to improve links between WEU and NATO. As Presidency, we were instrumental in arranging for the signature on 6 May of the NATO—WEU security agreement, clearing the way for the exchange of classified information between two organisations.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list Western European Union joint exercises planned for the next five years. [29895]

  Mr. Soames
  Exercise WEU Crisex 95–96 is the only WEU-led exercise currently planned. Phases 2 and 3 of this exercise, which take place in June and December 1996, will test operational procedures for a WEU humanitarian mission. WEU nations have also invited the organisation to participate in a number of nationally led exercises. At the WEU Council of Ministers in Birmingham on 7 May, Ministers agreed the establishment of an exercise planning conference which will set out a future programme of WEU exercises. We expect that the first conference will be held this year.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of Sea King helicopters in the possession of the Royal Navy; how many of them have been identified as having cracks in the lift frame; what is the average cost of repairing such cracks; and how many Sea Kings are currently unserviceable as a result of lift frame or other cracks. [29920]

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Navy owns 119 Sea King helicopters and the RAF owns a further 25. Over the life of the combined fleets, 170 lift frames have cracked. The average cost of a repair is £58,000. Eight RN Sea Kings and one RAF Sea King are currently unserviceable for lift frame or similar cracks.

  Equipment Procurement
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the value of equipment procured from single prime contractors has been directed supply in the last five years; and which United Kingdom technologies have been protected and enhanced as a result. [29863]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information of this nature is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on directed supply of systems and sub-systems when equipment is procured from a single prime contractor. [29862]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department's policy is that, wherever possible, requirement specifications are written in such a way that prime contractors are given the freedom to nominate and select the sub-contractors of their choice. There will, however, from time to time, be situations where suitable equipment is available only from a single source. Obviously, in this case, only that supplier will be able to meet the requirement but the prime contractor will still be responsible for managing the sub-contract.

  Combined Joint Task Force
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency planning he has carried out concerning Britain's participation in NATO's combined joint task force initiative. [29890]

  Mr. Soames
  The UK has participated fully in the development of the combined joint task force concept since it was announced at the January 1994 NATO summit. The concept will provide NATO with a capability to form deployable headquarters, from within existing fixed headquarters, to provide the command and control of multinational and multi-service forces deployed on contingency operations. We expect to play a full part in implementation of the concept, through our participation in NATO headquarters affected by the initiative.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action(a) has been taken and (b) will be taken to recover the nuclear weapons on board HMS Sheffield in the south Atlantic; what assessment has been made of the environmental risks arising from nuclear materials on board; and what action (i) has been taken and (ii) will be taken to reduce the risk to the marine environment. [29743]

  Mr. Soames
  There has been no action to recover any weapons from HMS Sheffield, either between when she was hit and sank or since. There is no risk to the marine environment in the area where she sunk.

  Contractors
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring is undertaken of post-programme completions to ensure that non-United Kingdom contractors have achieved the offset work promised. [29859]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Companies with offset obligations are required to submit reports to my Department every six months, detailing relevant contracts awarded to UK defence industry during the reporting period. A full audit of these reports is conducted in order to establish the validity of the claims, and to ensure that the companies are complying with the terms and conditions of their offset commitment.

  Research Investment
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his procurement policy in respect of equipment which has been developed as a result of Government research investment. [29861]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As described in pages 68–71 of the current "Statement on the Defence Estimates", my Department's procurement policy on research investment is to obtain best value for money, encourage technological innovation and reduce equipment procurement risk. The extent of Government research investment in a particular piece of equipment is one of the many factors taken into consideration when procurement decisions are made, as are the potential benefits of defence research spin-off to the private sector.

  Works of Art
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 22, if he will list the 107 works of art belonging to his Department which are classified as missing, indicating their individual estimated value. [29829]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It has not been my Department's practice to obtain valuations for our works of art, but most of the missing items are prints and photographs which we believe are of little value. I will place a list of missing works of art belonging to my Department in the Library of the House.

  Acoustic Processing
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of Government funds have been invested in the research and development of United Kingdom acoustic processing capabilities for the last 10 years. [29860]
  56
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Details of expenditure on development of defence capabilities are not available in the form requested. However, estimates of research expenditure on underwater acoustic processing for the period in question, at 1996 prices, are:

  1986–87: 9.6

  1987–88: 9.4

  1988–89: 9.2

  1989–90: 9.0

  1990–91: 8.8

  1991–92: 8.6

  1992–93: 8.4

  1993–94: 8.2

  1994–95: 7.8

  1995–96: 6.91

  1Provisional outturn.

  All figures £ million, excl-VAT.

  Housing Stock
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will maintain a golden share after the sell-off of the married housing stock. [29648]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: My Department's continuing interest in the married quarters estate will be reflected in the terms of the leases, and other contractual arrangements, for example the provision for profit share.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29457]

  Mr. Hanley
  The FCO diplomatic wing does not yet have this information available. We will forward it to the House of Commons Library as soon as possible.

  ODA figures on payments made for goods and services to the private sector are not separately held, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29442]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not hold this information in the form requested. It could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29420]
  57
  Mr. Hanley
  The FCO diplomatic wing does not use performance bonds in the United Kingdom. Performance bonds are used in overseas countries where it is standard practice to use such bonds, and where the risk of technical or financial failure is high.

  The ODA uses performance bonds in accordance with normal commercial practice on capital aid contracts between overseas clients and United Kingdom contractors.

  The FCO (DW) has not called in any performance bonds during the last five years. The ODA has called in one; the money was used to complete the contract.

  In both the FCO (DW) and ODA, information about performance bonds is not held on companies according to the number of employees.

  Sudan
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about human rights violation in the Nuba mountain region in Sudan. [29897]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have received disturbing reports of human rights violations in the Nuba mountains. Access to the area is difficult because of the civil war, but there is evidence of a policy of forced arabisation and islamisation of the Nuba people. The United Nations special rapporteur has stated that a large number of civilians, including women and children, have been killed in attacks by Government forces, or summarily executed.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the forced acculturation policy of the Sudanese Government. [29898]

  Mr. Hanley
  There is credible evidence, including that cited by the United Nations special rapporteur, Dr. Biro, that the Sudanese Government have been conducting forced islamisation and arabisation, notably in the Nuba mountains, in the camps for southern Sudanese in northern Sudan, and among children.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding human rights violations in Sudan. [29899]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on 13 May, column 360.

  Bhutan
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning human rights in Bhutan; and if he will make a statement. [29738]

  Mr. Hanley
  A representative of the Bhutanese refugees in eastern Nepal called on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 22 March. The human rights situation in Bhutan was discussed. A number of British non-governmental organisations have also raised the issue with us.
  58
  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the number of refugees who have recently left Bhutan for Nepal and the reasons for their departure; and what assistance is being provided by the United Kingdom to assist those refugees. [29739]

  Mr. Hanley
  We understand that only a few family groups have arrived in Nepal from Bhutan over recent months. The United Kingdom has contributed more than £475,000 to refugee relief in Nepal over the past three years.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to the Indian Government about the detention of appeal marchers campaigning for change in Bhutan; how many such marchers were detailed; how many remain in custody; and if he will make a statement. [29740]

  Mr. Hanley
  While we discussed Bhutan in our bilateral talks with India on 28 March, we have made no specific representations to the Indian Government about the arrest of the marchers, but we continue to monitor the situation closely with our EU partners. We understand that about 1,400 marchers have been arrested, of whom 792 remain in custody.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the outcome of the 7th round of inter-ministerial talks on Bhutan and Nepal; what steps he is taking to ensure(a) the constructive involvement of India in those talks and (b) a just resolution of the problems with which they are dealing; and if he will make a statement. [29741]

  Mr. Hanley
  The latest round of inter-ministerial talks between Bhutan and Nepal in Kathmandu on 4 to 8 April ended with agreement to continue the talks in Thimpu, though no dates were set. We have regularly raised Bhutan in bilateral talks with India—most recently on 28 March. We believe that negotiation between Bhutan and Nepal offers the best solution to this problem and will continue to encourage both governments in this.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report the terms of the resolution of 14 March passed by the European Parliament in relation to refugees from Bhutan. [29742]

  Mr. Hanley
  I am arranging for the resolution to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Overseas Visits (Royal Family)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 362, (1) when the detailed records relating to the royal visit to Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in 1986 were destroyed; [30031]

  (2) when it became his Department's policy to destroy detailed records relating to overseas visits. [30032]
  59
  Mr. Rifkind
  Accounting records, including those relating to royal visits overseas are destroyed in accordance with guidelines agreed with the National Audit Office which require that detailed invoices are kept a minimum of three years.

  All detailed accounting records relating to 1986 were destroyed during the routine weeding of documents. The date of destruction was not noted.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what budgetary controls exist within his Department in respect of costs arising from royal visits abroad. [30033]

  Mr. Rifkind
  An overall cost estimate is provided before each visit is agreed. A detailed estimate is then agreed with the household concerned. Expenditure is subsequently checked against invoices and statements provided by the household.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Uganda
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made on the recent elections in Uganda; and if he will make a statement. [29896]

  Mr. Hanley
  International observers have concluded that the presidential elections, which were won by President Museveni with 72.4 per cent. of the vote, were carried out in a transparent manner and in accordance with the interim election statute and that the result reflects the polling process. We welcome this further step in Uganda's constitutional development.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions and in relation to which contracts United Kingdom contractors and consultants who have been engaged on know-how fund sponsored contracts in 1994 were given such contracts without a requirement to tender. [30172]

  Mr. Hanley
  This answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list all projects funded by the know-how fund in 1994 relating to food distribution in Moscow; [30171]

  (2) on what occasions and in relation to which contracts, contracts sponsored under the know-how fund in Moscow in 1994 were allocated and subsequently extended without being the subject of tendering or retendering procedures; [30173]

  (3) if he will list all United Kingdom contractors and consultants who have been engaged on know-how fund sponsored food distribution projects in 1994. [30174]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested will take some time to complete. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts (Witnesses)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are taken to inform witnesses of(a) delays and (b) procedures in magistrates courts. [28792]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is generally for the prosecution and the defence to keep their witnesses informed. However, both magistrates and court staff will assist witnesses at the court to the extent that they properly can.

  Royal Family (Records)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what basis records relating to members of the royal family are not released to the Public Record Office. [28793]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As announced in 1993, in the White Paper on Open Government, public records relating to the royal family will be treated in the same way as all other records and closed for longer than 30 years only if they fall into one or more of the three criteria governing closure.

  Pension Sharing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his proposals in respect of pension sharing in the Family Law Bill; when those provisions will come into force; and if he will make a statement. [28794]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There are a number of issues which need to be resolved before pension splitting could be introduced. The Government intend to issue a Green Paper this summer to explore all these issues.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to speed up legal aid payments. [28795]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Several steps have been taken by my Department and by the Legal Aid Board to ensure swift payment to solicitors and barristers for legal aid work. The introduction of standard fee systems and enhanced interim payment mechanisms for franchise holders are examples.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to improve the legal aid system. [28799]

  Mr. Evans
  The Lord Chancellor published a Green Paper setting out proposals for the reform of legal aid in May 1995. More than 200 responses were received. The Lord Chancellor has examined these responses and expects to publish a White Paper on the future of the legal aid scheme before Parliament rises for the summer.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has recently received about the size of the legal aid budget. [28801]
  61
  Mr. Evans
  I have received many representations on this matter. As my hon. Friend knows, the Lord Chancellor has announced that he intends to introduce a number of measures to gain more effective control over legal aid expenditure.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judicial appointments were advertised in 1995. [28797]

  Mr. Evans
  Out of 149 appointments made to the full-time judiciary in 1995, 84 were made following either advertisement or notice to eligible candidates where eligibility is restricted. Some 550 part-time professional judicial appointments were made in the same year, just over 100 of which were made following either advertisement or notice to eligible candidates.

  Commonhold
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress is being made on the introduction of commonhold.[28790]

  Mr. Evans
  A new draft Bill is being prepared and it remains the Government's intention to publish this for consultation during the summer and to introduce legislation to implement commonhold as soon as possible.

  Repossession (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many homes have been repossessed in the west midlands since 1992. [30159]

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

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 20 May 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of repossessed houses in the West Midlands since 1992.
  The figures for the numbers of repossession orders made in the county courts in the West Midlands since 1992 are:

  1992: 5,235

  1993: 3,358

  1994: 2,600

  1995: 2,365

  1996: 770 (first quarter).

  However, not all repossession orders result in actual repossession of the property. The figure for the numbers of actual repossessions is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Lord Chief Justice (Appointment)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to consult opposition parties regarding the appointment of a new Lord Chief Justice; and if he will make a statement. [27898]
  62
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is responsible for advising the Queen on the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice. In conjunction with the Lord Chancellor, he will ensure that the necessary consultations are undertaken as appropriate.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Primary Schools, Killyleagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils attend the Cedar integrated primary school at Crossgar; how many of these pupils travel from the Killyleagh district; what is the weekly cost to public funds of their travel arrangements; what assessment his Department has made of the impact of this school on enrolment at St. Mary's primary school, Killyleagh; and if he will make a statement. [29877]

  Mr. Ancram
  At present, 26 pupils attend Cedar integrated primary school. Of these, 12 travel from the Killyleagh district at a weekly cost to public funds of £91.80. The impact of Cedar on all schools in the area, including St. Mary's primary school at Killyleagh, was assessed when the development proposal was considered in 1995. It was considered then that the long-term viability of these schools would not be affected by a new integrated school.

  Sainsbury's, Londonderry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the public inquiry was held into the planning application by Sainsbury's in Londonderry; when the planning appeal commission will issue its report; and if he will make a statement. [29902]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 17 May 1996:
  Mr Moss has asked me to reply to your question about the Public Inquiry into the planning application by Sainsbury's in Londonderry.
  The Public Inquiry, which was held by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC), ran from 20 February 1996 until 29 March 1996, and closing submissions were later made on 16 April 1996.You will appreciate that the report and recommendations of the Inquiry is a matter for the Chief Commissioner. However I understand from the PAC that their report is unlikely to be available before the summer.
  I can assure you that when the report is received, it will be carefully considered by the Department before a final decision is reached. The PAC report will of course be made available to the public once the Department's decision has issued.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29438]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29453]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland in 1996–97. [30308]

  Mr. Moss
  For 1996–97 the following performance targets have been set out for OSNI:

  1. To survey 32,000 survey units in the revision programme.

  2. To complete 875 data capture units representing 1,716 basic scale map sheets converted to digital format.

  3. To update the digital topographical database with 93 per cent. of the updates completed within seven working days of receipt of the field data.

  4. To despatch, within seven working days, 92 per cent. of orders for folded and basic scale maps.

  5. To reduce unit costs so that they weighted mean percentage reduction of selected representative activities is 3 per cent.

  6. To recover from the supply of goods and services, 27 per cent. of the total costs incurred by the agency.

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been set for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency during 1996–97. [30310]

  Mr. Moss
  For 1996–97, the following performance targets have been set:

  Target

  Vehicle test appointments

  24 days average waiting time

  Driving test appointments

  48 days average waiting time

  Productivity (vehicle testing)

  18.0 units per man per day

  Productivity (driver testing)

  7.9 units per man per day

  Error rate

  Faulty inspections not to exceed 0.20 per cent. of tests conducted

  Level of complaints about booking arrangements

  Less than 0.75 per cent. of applications received

  Level of complaints about the conduct of tests

  Less than 0.75 per cent. of applications received

  Level of customer satisfaction with test procedures

  At least 85 per cent. plus or minus 2 per cent. within the range of sampling error

  Number of compensation payments for cancelled tests

  Less than 0.4 per cent. of applications received

  Composition unit cost of testing operations

  £16.81

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland in 1996–97. [30309]

  Mr. Moss
  For 1996–97, the following performance targets have been set out for PRONI:
  64
  Efficiency

  1. To reduce PRONI's composite unit cost in the areas of selecting and accessing, records listing, records storage, document production and reader service by 5 per cent. from £105.21 to £99.95.

  2. To manage the agency's workload, including an anticipated 20 per cent. increase in readers and the maintenance of extended opening hours, while absorbing a 4.5 per cent. reduction in staff and ensuring that expenditure is within financial limits approved by the Department.

  Quality of Service

  3. To process customer queries within 10 working days of receipt in 75 per cent. of cases and within 14 working days in 96 per cent. of cases, thus improving PRONI's citizens charter commitment.

  4. To upgrade 10 per cent. of 33,360 linear metres of records stored on mobile shelving at Balmoral avenue, in accordance with defined standards of archival protection.

  5. With the help of a new computerised document request system to improve the speed of production to the public by reducing waiting time from 45 minutes to 40 minutes or less in 90 per cent. of cases.

  Effectiveness

  6. To process 335.5 linear metres of records deposited and to ensure that 100 per cent. of all new "open" material is processed within one year of receipt.

  Schools (Intruders and Trespassers)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to give additional powers to school authorities with regard to(a) intruders and (b) trespassers into schools; and if he will make a statement. [29905]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Offensive Weapons Bill, which is currently going through the House of Commons, will make it an offence to carry a knife on school premises and give the police the powers of search on school premises. These provisions will be extended to Northern Ireland. In addition, the Department of Education for Northern Ireland is urgently considering the action needed to implement in Northern Ireland the recommendations in the recent report from the working group on school security published on 14 May.

WALES

  University Hospital of Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the department of postgraduate medicine at the University hospital of Wales is expected to take over responsibility for all appointments to the specialist registrar grade; if pay arrangements for all specialist registrars are to be centrally funded; and what representations he has received from NHS trusts in Wales and the Department of postgraduate medicine concerning payment arrangements for(a) this grade and (b) other junior medical staff. [30191]

  Mr. Hague
  The postgraduate department started taking over the responsibility for operating the appointments procedures for the specialist registrar grade on 1 December 1995 in line with the timetable for commissioning the new grade in each speciality. There is 100 per cent. central funding available, in the first year only, for additional posts and thereafter the postgraduate department will continue to fund 50 per cent. of the salary
  65
  costs. Discussions take place with NHS trusts and the postgraduate department as part of the management of these arrangements for all junior medical staff.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the expenditure in Wales on higher education in real terms in each of the past 10 years. [28615]

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  282.563

  287.762

  313.744

  313.744

  311.328

  302.996

  314.934

  298.302

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29447]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29432]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department does not hold the information requested.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29429]

  Mr. Hague
  Advice on the use of performance bonds is set out in the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48 "Bonds and guarantees", copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses. This guidance makes it clear that bonds are not always necessary and are no substitute for considered judgments about the risks of a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources of the available contractor. These factors will vary for each contract independent of the size of the contractor. Information regarding the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years is not held by my Department

  EU Funding
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the recipients of funding for education and training purposes from the European Union in each of the last three years, giving the programme under which the funding was provided. [29303]
  66
  Mr. Hague
  The expenditure on higher education in Wales for the years 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and the provision for 1996–97 is shown in the following table. The amounts include tuition fee income and adjustments relating to dual support provision for research. Prior to 1993–94, higher education was funded from a variety of sources, including the University Grants Committee, the University Funding Council, the Welsh Office and local authorities, and it is not possible to provide comparable expenditure figures for that period.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Rendering and Incineration Facilities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the letter of 15 May of the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the rendering facilities and incineration facilities available in Wales to be used in conjunction with the abattoirs listed; and if he will make a statement. [30188]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no rendering facilities in Wales, the intervention board is considering which incinerators in Wales could be used under the scheme.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the letter of the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of 15 May, if he will give details of the pattern of alternating use of the slaughterhouses listed in Wales as between participation in the cull scheme and normal slaughter for sale. [30189]

  Mr. Hague
  The precise pattern of slaughtering is a matter for abattoirs themselves, as long as they meet the normal hygiene regulations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the(a) slaughtering industry and (b) food retailing industry concerning the desirability of (i) exclusive use of slaughterhouses designated for the 30-month and over special beef slaughter schemes and (ii) alternating use of such facilities with normal slaughtering of meat for sale; and if he will make a statement. [30190]

  Mr. Hague
  (a) My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State met a delegation last month.

  (b) None.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 8 May,Official Report, column 214, if he will make it his policy

  67
  to give permission to grant an application under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to order a fresh inquest in the case of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. [29296]

  The Attorney-General
  I have no power to order a fresh inquest. Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 permits the High Court to do so where an application is made on my authority. Any request to me for the grant of my authority would be considered on its own merits. In each instance, I consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of establishing that it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice for a fresh inquest to be held.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the Government's policies on tourism. [28771]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's work programme set out in "Tourism—Competing with the Best" fully recognises the importance of the industry as a creator of wealth and employment. My Department continues to work in partnership with the industry to improve our competitiveness in the world market. We have made significant progress on measures to help improve quality and value for money in the accommodation sector, and we are developing an agenda for action on the industry's use of its human resources.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received regarding deregulation of the tourism industry; and if she will make a statement. [28783]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Last week, I took part in the Government's deregulation seminar for the tourism and hospitality industry. We will respond to the concerns raised about burdensome regulations. Much has already been achieved in the Government's drive towards deregulation, but we will continue to work towards removing unnecessary obstacles to the growth of this £35 billion industry.

  National Lottery (Gambling)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to assess the impact of the national lottery on the gambling habits of individuals. [28774]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The protection of participants in the national lottery is the responsibility of the Director-General of the National Lottery, who has carried out research on playing, and has plans to carry out further work. Gambling is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whose Department has undertaken to monitor the impact of the national lottery on the horserace betting levy which involves examining betting expenditure.

  National Lottery (Drama Groups)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many drama groups have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [28775]
  68
  Mr. Sproat
  Drama groups throughout the United Kingdom have benefited from the national lottery. To date, there have been 64 awards to a total of over £3.5 million, including, for example, an award to the Weymouth drama club to help it create a new rehearsal and performance space.

  Euro 96
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what financial support the Government have given to the promotion of cultural events in London at the Euro 96 tournament. [28776]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have contributed £100,000 towards cultural events in the eight host cities, including London. A further £150,000 has been made available from both the Sportsmatch and ABSA business sponsorship schemes, and £130,000 from the Sports Council. A wide range of musical events will also take place as part of the national music festival.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department is spending on capital projects at museums and galleries in 1996–97. [28777]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department will provide £217 million in 1996–97 to museum and galleries and to the Museums and Galleries Commission. It is for the boards of these institutions to decide how much of this money should go towards capital projects.

  Dance and Drama Students
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about future assistance available to young people from the lottery fund to assist them in taking up places in dance and drama schools. [28778]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell).

  Millennium
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how young people will be encouraged to participate in projects marking the millennium. [28779]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am keen to see young people playing a full part in the millennium celebrations. The Millennium Commission is currently considering applications from partner organisations for its millennium awards. Among the ideas put forward are schemes which offer new opportunities to young people in inner cities. Other commission—funded capital projects will provide opportunities for children to benefit both in terms of education, at sites such as the Earth centre at Doncaster and enjoyment, such as the Sustrans national cycleway.

  The Government are currently considering what machinery is needed to co-ordinate other millennium events and projects and they are mindful of the need to involve all sections of the community.
  69
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a further statement on her Department's plans to celebrate the millennium. [28772]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The Government are currently putting in place machinery to co-ordinate the many projects and events that are being planned around the United Kingdom to celebrate the millennium. These will embrace the projects which the Millennium Commission is funding through the national lottery, including the millennium exhibition and festival. My Department will take the lead in this co-ordination.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans her Department has for improving public access to the royal palaces and their gardens [28781]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Historic Royal Palaces Agency is responsible for the unoccupied royal palaces, all of which are open to the public. They have plans to improve access for disabled visitors at Hampton Court palace.

  The Royal Collection Trust is responsible for public access to the occupied royal palaces. Details are given in the trust's annual report.

  Millennium (Christians)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had with the established Church regarding the celebrations to mark the 2000 anniversary of the birth of Christ. [28782]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The millennium will be an event for everyone to celebrate. It will also be an important anniversary for all Christians, and I recently met the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss the Church's role. The Millennium Commission has also met many other faith groups to discuss their part in the celebrations.

  FM Radio Frequencies
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received about the availability of FM radio frequencies. [28785]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department receives representations on a wide variety of frequency spectrum issues from time to time.

  National Lottery (Conservation)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the funding from the national lottery allocated to the conservation of the United Kingdom built and landscape heritage; and what percentage this represents of total national lottery funding. [28786]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 189 projects involving the preservation of the built and landscape heritage have received £61.4 million from the heritage lottery fund. These are only two areas of our diverse heritage that the heritage lottery fund supports. The heritage lottery fund is distributing 20 per cent. of the proceeds of the national lottery to heritage projects. In total it has made 302 awards to a value of 172.3 million.

  The Amsterdam
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress is being made in resolving the outstanding problems with the Dutch Government over responsibility for the wreck of the Dutch East Indiaman the Amsterdam. [28773]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Dutch Government is the owner of the wreck of the Amsterdam. I understand that they have been approached by a local group and have entered into discussion on the future of the wreck. My officials are being kept informed of developments by the Dutch Government.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her policy for playing fields. [29027]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are seriously concerned at the loss of playing fields and attach a high priority to ensuring that people have access to high quality sports facilities. Following a commitment made in "Sport: Raising the Game", the Government consulted on proposals that the Sports Council should become a statutory consultee for development affecting playing fields. Responses indicated broad support and, subject to further consideration of some technical and legal points, it is expected that the necessary statutory instrument will come into force in July.

SCOTLAND

  Mr. and Mrs. McInnes
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to public funds of disinterring the cadavers of Mr. John Mclnnes and his mother; and if he will make a statement. [29508]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimated cost of exhuming and re-interring the bodies of Mr. Mclnnes and his mother by Strathclyde police is approximately £2,900. I fully appreciate how distressing this must be for the family and relatives of Mr. and Mrs. Mclnnes and I am glad that the bodies have now been re-buried. While this is, of course, a police operational matter in which Ministers have no powers to intervene, I hope that the investigations can now be concluded as speedily as possible.

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the cost and (b) the number of items of equipment and furniture that (i) have been stolen and (ii) are otherwise accounted for from the (1) Scottish Home and Health Department, (2) Scottish Industry Department, (3) Scottish Education, (4) Scottish Environmental Department in each of the past five years specifying any such items valued at £5,000, and showing information technology material separately. [28756]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on 18 March.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29437]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 590, to her question on total spend with small and medium enterprises. Our financial and procurement systems in use in 1995–96 and earlier years had no facility for categorising suppliers according to their number of employees.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Crown Office will conduct an inquiry into the implications for the Lockerbie inquiry of developments in respect of the forensic science laboratory in Kent. [30187]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An independent scientific review is to be conducted by Professor Brian Caddy which will consider the instances where contamination might have taken place from the particular centrifuge in question. It would be quite wrong to attempt to pre-empt the results of that review by indulging in speculation concerning what those results might be. It is a matter of public record that residues of both RDX and PETN, which are components of a high performance plastic explosive, semtex, were identified in debris from the Lockerbie disaster by the forensic explosives laboratory. I understand from my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that the evidence which forms the basis of the charges against the two Libyans does not depend on the identification of the high performance plastic explosive which destroyed the aircraft at Lockerbie.

  Crofters (Building Grants and Loans)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the Committee of Public Accounts set out in paragraphs 29 to 33 of its 17th report, Session 1989–90, "Grants to Aid the Structure of Agriculture in Great Britain" (HC 150). [29573]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: My right hon. Friend broadly agrees with the conclusions about the crofters building grants and loans scheme expressed by the Public Accounts Committee in its 17th report for Session 1989–90. However, he also believes that it is important to consider from time to time whether there are ways of getting better value for money from Government spending. In his statement to the Scottish Grand Committee, he indicated that CBGLS would continue in its present form. This decision is based on a judgment that the scheme continues to play a key role in improving housing conditions in crofting areas.

  Council of Europe Meetings
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995 have been attended by Ministers or officials of his Department or the Lord Advocate's Department; and if he will make a statement. [29367]
  72
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: Since January 1995, no Minister from the Scottish Office has attended a meeting organised by the Council of Europe. The Solicitor-General has attended one such meeting. Officials from the Scottish Office attend Council of Europe meetings whenever there is a subject on which Scotland has interest or a particular expertise. Since January 1995 three such meetings have been attended.

  Cullen Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many firms of solicitors are to represent the families of the deceased at the Cullen inquiry; and how many families are to be represented by each firm. [29942]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: One firm of solicitors represents the families of all the deceased children. A different firm represents the family of the deceased teacher.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 434, if he will list all the factors involved in the need to increase the revenue deficit grant to Caledonian MacBrayne in 1996–97; if he will indicate the compliance costs associated with additional safety requirements applying to ro-ro ferries; and if he will make a statement. [29940]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. prepares an annual report and accounts which comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985, and which are presented each year to Parliament in accordance with section 8(1) of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989. The Government do not consider that it is appropriate to disclose more detailed information about the company's revenues and expenditure than is contained in the published annual report and accounts.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the average waiting time a defendant has had to wait between being charged and the subsequent trial in sheriff courts in the last five years. [28670]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available.

HEALTH

  Speech and Language Therapists
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of speech and language therapists at each grade from spine points 23 to 27 in each of the past five years. [28445]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table. A new pay and grade system, using pay points on a single spine, was introduced in March 1991. Data are available only by the new spine points from September 1991 to September 1994, which is the latest year
  73
  available. The figures are "snapshots" of a process of gradual transition which was on-going throughout the period 1991 to 1994.

  National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services speech and language therapists on spine points 23 to 27 in England at 30 September each year 1991 to 1994

  Whole-time equivalents

  NHS HCHS

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Speed and language therapists on spine points 23 to 27

  730

  700

  690

  690

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of one year's long-term care for a disabled person. [29033]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information collected centrally on expenditure and use of care relates to the client group and not to the nature of an individual's disability. Provisional 1994–95 figures are of a gross cost to local authorities of £18,000 per supported physically or learning disabled resident in residential or nursing homes—calculated from reported gross expenditure divided by the average number of supported residents at the beginning and end of the financial year.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of disabled people in Britain need long-term care. [29031]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the percentage of disabled people in need of long-term care is not available centrally.

  Duplicate NHS Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many duplicate NHS numbers have been issued by his Department; what plans he has to end this duplication; and if he will make a statement. [29697]

  Mr. Horam
  Duplicate national health service numbers have so far been issued to some 7,500 newly registered babies.

  We are able to identify duplicate numbers quickly. Until the problem is resolved, the NHS central register is giving all of the babies concerned new NHS numbers to replace the duplicate numbers issued originally.

  More than one option has been identified to prevent the issuing of duplicate numbers and these options are being evaluated. The study is due to make its recommendations at the end of May 1996. The chosen option will be implemented as quickly as possible.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the payments made to GP fundholders in each region in each year since 1990–91 in(a) management allowances and (b) computer costs. [29401]
  74
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Health gave him on 26 January 1994, column 300; the reply I gave him on 25 January 1995, columns 259–60; and the reply I gave him on 18 July 1995, columns 1152.

  Information about management allowances in 1994–95 is shown in the table. Information about 1995–96 is not yet available.

  Practice fund management allowance by region

  Region

  1994–95

  £

  Northern and Yorkshire

  8,341,650

  Trent

  8,020,837

  Anglian and Oxford

  6,940,223

  North Thames

  7,892,904

  South Thames

  9,589,025

  South and West

  6,823,238

  West Midlands

  9,052,199

  North West

  8,261,032

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of Family Health Services Authorities.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1134, if he will update the figures of redundancy payments. [29473]

  Mr. Malone
  Expenditure by Dorset Healthcare trust has been amended from £88,293 to £23,394, a difference of £64,889 as a result of a validation exercise. This exercise has not yet been concluded and the figures for 1994–95 remain provisional.

  Research Fraud
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study his Department has commissioned through the scientific research councils into the prevalence of research fraud; and what plans he has to commission further studies. [29566]

  Mr. Malone
  It is the responsibility of the whole medical research community and all its sponsors to ensure good practice in the conduct of research and this operates primarily through the principles of peer review and through guidelines on good practice. The Department's research programmes cover research into health and social care of relevance to the Department and the national health service. The Department has not commissioned work on the more general issues of research conduct and there are no plans, currently, to do so.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations in respect of misconduct are undertaken before research funds are allocated to units undertaking research; and what plans he has to increase the level of these investigations. [29563]

  Mr Malone
  The Department is committed to maintaining high standards in the commissioning and management of research which operates primarily through peer review and through guidelines on good practice— the Department's code of practice for commissioning and managing research, introduced in 1992.
  75
  Research commissioned by the Department, whether from an individual or an academic institution, is subject to the terms of an agreed contract which embodies the code of practice.

  With such research management arrangements in place, it is not considered necessary to carry out separate investigations in respect of misconduct before research funds are allocated and there are no plans, at present, to introduce such investigations in the future.

  Codes of Research
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Government-funded scientific research units have developed printed codes of research, which they require junior scientists undertaking research for the first time to sign; and if he will make a statement. [29560]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department has had a code of practice for the commissioning and management of research and development in place since 1992 to help ensure quality and relevance of research funded by this Department. The management arrangements of all research undertaken by the Department, and by the non-departmental public bodies funded by the Department, is reviewed annually with particular emphasis on the application of the code of practice. The conditions of employment of researchers are a matter for the employing authority. Any research commissioned by the Department, whether from an individual or from an academic institution, is subject to the terms of an agreed contract which embodies the principles of the code of practice.

  Codes of research in other scientific research units are the responsibility of the Office of Science and Technology.

  Health Visitors
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the policy of general practitioner alignment of health visitors; and if he will publish the results of that review. [29567]

  Mr. Horam
  Health visitors work very closely with their general practitioner colleagues, other members of the primary health care team and the practice population.

  From 1973, some district nurses and health visitors have become attached to GP practices and this has enhanced both the practice team and patient care.

  We are currently completing a major listening exercise about primary care. A report will be published in June this year.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the target requirements for health visitors to visit a new patient within five working days. [29549]

  Mr. Horam
  The patients charter standard is based on current good practice. It is a challenging but achievable standard, and there are no plans to review it.

  NHS Spending
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of spending in the UK on the NHS, expressed as a percentage of total public spending, in each year since 1974. [29643]

  Mr. Horam
  A consistent series of figures is available only from 1978–79. The information is in the table:

  Year

  UK expenditure on the national health service as a percentage of general Government expenditure(X)1

  1978–79

  10.9

  1979–80

  10.7

  1980–81

  11.4

  1981–82

  11.6

  1982–83

  11.5

  1983–84

  11.4

  1984–85

  11.3

  1985–86

  11.4

  1986–87

  11.6

  1987–88

  12.0

  1988–89

  12.6

  1989–90

  12.5

  1990–91

  12.7

  1991–92

  13.2

  1992–93

  13.1

  1993–94

  12.9

  1994–95

  13.0

  1995–96 (estimated outturn)

  13.3

  1 GGE(X) is General Government Expenditure excluding privatisation proceeds and lottery-financed spending and net of interest and dividend receipts.

  Biomedical Research
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning conflicts of interest in biomedical research where Government bodies fund such research; and if he will make a statement. [29561]

  Mr. Malone
  We have received no representations concerning conflicts of interest in biomedical research where Government bodies fund such research.

  Children (Part-time Employment)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of children under 16 years of age who are in part-time employment; and how many of these have a work permit issued by their local education authority. [29762]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the 1996–97 hospital and community health services revenue and capital initial cash limits for the new health authorities. [30301]
  77
  Mr. Dorrell
  The initial revenue and capital cash limits for the new health authorities are given in the table.

  Initial revenue and capital health authority cash limits 1996–97

  £ Thousands

  Health authority

  Revenue

  Capital

  Avon

  446,698

  1,154

  Barking and Havering

  177,756

  150

  Barnet

  156,473

  150

  Barnsley

  105,813

  50

  Bedfordshire

  219,196

  207

  Berkshire

  306,754

  2,263

  Bexley and Greenwich

  218,162

  150

  Birmingham

  486,127

  0

  Bradford

  221,047

  166

  Brent and Harrow

  240,436

  150

  Bromley

  139,767

  150

  Buckinghamshire

  257,079

  142

  Bury and Rochdale

  190,905

  50

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  259,116

  150

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  172,426

  171

  Camden and Islington

  267,128

  150

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  222,276

  30

  County Durham

  284,093

  143

  Coventry

  132,500

  0

  Croydon

  151,840

  150

  Doncaster

  142,523

  50

  Dorset

  318,759

  269

  Dudley

  129,748

  0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  355,007

  150

  East and North Hertfordshire

  207,626

  150

  East Kent

  278,584

  125

  East Lancashire

  238,011

  50

  East London and the City

  371,616

  150

  East Norfolk

  272,670

  396

  East Riding

  254,870

  143

  East Surrey

  210,147

  125

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  362,816

  150

  Enfield and Haringey

  246,813

  150

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  183,047

  150

  Gloucestershire

  245,530

  35

  Herefordshire

  69,232

  0

  Hillingdon

  115,707

  150

  Isle of Wight

  66,049

  103

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  255,849

  150

  Kingston and Richmond

  153,982

  150

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  429,493

  150

  Leeds

  357,241

  310

  Leicestershire

  372,566

  75

  Lincolnshire

  272,460

  75

  Liverpool

  243,585

  50

  Manchester

  242,731

  50

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  325,262

  150

  Morecambe Bay

  148,295

  50

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  241,703

  150

  North and East Devon

  220,671

  48

  North and Mid Hampshire

  210,883

  1,216

  North Cheshire

  140,382

  50

  North Cumbria

  141,757

  143

  North Derbyshire

  161,168

  63

  North Essex

  360,399

  150

  North Nottinghamshire

  168,652

  63

  North Staffordshire

  213,409

  127

  North West Anglia

  173,966

  83

  North West Lancashire

  240,451

  50

  North Yorkshire

  306,549

  143

  Northamptonshire

  244,615

  158

  Northumberland

  140,212

  143

  Nottingham1

  277,152

  -1,925

  Oxfordshire

  234,274

  192

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  226,739

  672

  78

  Initial revenue and capital health authority cash limits 1996–97

  £ Thousands

  Health authority

  Revenue

  Capital

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  226,421

  150

  Rotherham

  113,818

  50

  Salford and Trafford

  215,496

  50

  Sand well

  140,838

  0

  Sefton

  150,704

  50

  Sheffield

  313,708

  75

  Shropshire

  170,289

  0

  Solihull

  81,672

  0

  Somerset

  207,728

  49

  South and West Devon

  274,403

  513

  South Cheshire

  278,245

  50

  South Derbyshire

  240,007

  75

  South Essex

  294,858

  150

  South Humber

  138,672

  100

  South Lancashire

  134,482

  50

  South Staffordshire

  230,150

  0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  225,817

  469

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  152,142

  50

  Stockport

  118,465

  50

  Suffolk

  277,814

  365

  Sunderland

  141,000

  143

  Tees

  256,295

  143

  Wakefield

  150,119

  125

  Walsall

  114,610

  0

  Warwickshire

  234,862

  0

  West Hertfordshire

  227,514

  150

  West Kent

  399,006

  125

  West Pennine

  213,036

  50

  West Surrey

  270,165

  125

  West Sussex

  332,497

  150

  Wigan and Bolton

  256,944

  50

  Wiltshire

  247,233

  863

  Wirral

  151,317

  50

  Wolverhampton

  111,460

  600

  Worcestershire

  214,114

  0

  England

  22,534,694

  15,526

  1 Receipts from Asset sales exceed Health Authority planned capital expenditure.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29421]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has not required any performance bonds in the last five years. Advice on the use of performance bonds is set out in the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48 "Bonds and Guarantees", copies of which are available in the Library. This makes it clear that a performance bond is no substitute for considered judgments about the risks attached to a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources of the available contractors. These judgments apply, irrespective of the size of the contractor.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29441]
  79
  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected. To do so would add an unnecessary burden on suppliers.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 490, how many professional scientists and

  Whole-time equivalents

  Medicines control agency

  April 1991

  April 1992

  April 1993

  April 1994

  April 1995

  April 1996

  UG7(S)

  n/a

  2.5

  3.6

  7

  8

  6

  Senior Scientific Officer

  n/a

  2

  2

  3

  4

  3

  Higher Scientific Officer

  n/a

  3

  4.6

  22

  23

  23

  Scientific Officer

  n/a

  7

  13

  18

  17

  17

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  n/a

  0

  3

  5

  8

  8

  Total

  n/a

  14.5

  26.2

  55

  60

  57

  Medical devices agency (formed in September 1 994)

  UG5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  UG6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  UG7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.5

  14.6

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41.5

  34.8

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23.5

  14.4

  Professional and Technical Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  10

  Technical Officer II

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96.5

  78.8

  NHS estates agency

  UG5

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  UG6

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  UG7

  9

  9

  12

  13

  14

  17

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  4

  5

  6

  6

  6

  3

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Total

  17

  19

  23

  24

  25

  29

  There are no scientific and engineering staff in the National Health Service Pensions Agency.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 490, how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each of the unified grades in the headquarters division of his Department in each year since 1991. [29835]

  Mr. Horam
  Information for Department of Health headquarters only is not available prior to April 1995. Information for 1995 and 1996 is set out as follows.

  Scientifc staff numbers (whole-time equivalents)

  April 1995

  April 1996

  UGS

  1—

  5

  UG6

  1—

  6

  UG7

  1—

  26

  Senior Scientific Officer

  19

  17.7

  Higher Scientific Officer

  13

  13.4

  Scientific Officer

  9

  11

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  0.8

  0.7

  Total

  41.8

  79.8

  1 Unable to identify scientists from the unified grades for this period. Engineering staff numbers

  80
  engineers of each category were employed at each grade in each of his Department's agencies in each year since 1991. [29900]

  Mr. Horam
  It is not always possible to distinguish between scientific and engineering specialisms. Figures for 1991 are not available for the Medicines Control Agency.

  There are no staff in the Department of Health Headquarters divisions employed as engineers.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to alleviate the clawback of settlement discount to pharmacists from wholesalers when that discount has not been received by pharmacists. [29575]

  Mr. Malone
  None. The discount clawback system is based on an assessment of discounts received by all pharmacists for drugs and appliances dispensed against NHS prescriptions. The incentive for individual pharmacists is to achieve at least the average level of discount for the value of items dispensed.

  Mr Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to protect community pharmacists in the event of the breakdown of resale price maintenance. [29576]

  Mr. Malone
  The review of resale price maintenance on medicaments being undertaken by the Director General of Fair Trading is a matter for the director general. Representations concerning the viability of community pharmacies and other aspects of the review should be made direct to him.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29456]

  Mr. Horam
  From an examination of the payment records of the Department and its agencies, it is estimated that payments of about £130 million were made to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to speed up payments to community pharmacists. [29574]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on 12 December 1995, column 580.

  Medical and Surgical Services
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's current policy on the concentration of individual medical and surgical services, other than cancer services, at fewer hospitals. [29744]

  Mr. Horam
  Each individual case will be considered on its merits balancing the loss of choice, access, competition and responsiveness that may follow concentration against any gains in quality of patient care or economies of scale where these cannot otherwise be achieved.

  The Department has issued guidance, HSG (94)55, on the subject "The Operation of the NHS Internal Market: Local Freedoms, National Responsibilities", copies of which are available in the Library. We have also commissioned a short study into concentration and choice in acute services from a team led by Trevor Sheldon of the centre for reviews and dissemination in York.

  Hospitals (Training Centres)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made as to which hospitals in the north-west are insufficiently large to be registered as training centres. [29745]

  Mr. Malone
  None; the Department does not register hospitals for training purposes. Training posts or programmes for junior doctors are approved by the relevant medical royal colleges.

  Vitamin K
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to license oral vitamin K for infants. [30009]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency has had extensive discussions about the licensing of oral vitamin K. Currently, no marketing authorisation for oral vitamin K for infants has been granted. Information about all applications for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product is confidential and no information can be released until the announcement is made in the London, Belfast and Edinburgh gazettes that a marketing authorisation has been granted.
  82
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance on the use of intra-muscular vitamin K for infants. [30010]

  Mr. Horam
  The chief medical officer and chief nursing officer issued guidance on the use of intramuscular vitamin K for infants in December 1992. They await the results of departmental commissioned research, expected during 1996, to inform further guidance.

  Hip Replacements
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations were performed in 1995 on the national health service; how many were on patients from general practitioners fundholder practices; and how many patients had waited(a) more than and (b) less than one year. [29768]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest available information relates to 1993–94 and is shown in the table.

  Hip replacement and other arthroplasty of the hip operations, Finished Consultant Episodes 1993–94

  General practitioner fundholder

  District health authorities funded

  Other

  Totals

  Emergency

  348

  21,519

  650

  22,517

  Planned

  154

  467

  17

  638

  Booked and waiting list cases

  Less than one year

  6,451

  20,317

  1,498

  28,266

  More than one year

  1,059

  4,250

  159

  5,468

  Time not known

  365

  1,285

  110

  1,760

  Source:

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

  Vehicles (Child Restraints)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will discuss with the Department of Transport the requirement on national health service trusts to implement a policy of child restraints in all vehicles used for the transport of children. [29550]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are several hundred NHS trusts in England which, although accountable to the Secretary of State for Health, have considerable autonomy over their day-to-day operations. Some trusts may have their own guidelines on child restraints, although I have no details on this. However, the Department of Health has informed me that it has no plans to issue any specific guidelines.

  Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 751, if he will give a breakdown of the sum of £821, 986 devoted to running the spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting scheme in 1994–95. [26256]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: This figure relates to the budget allocated to the ADROIT—adverse drug reactions on-line information

  83
  tracking—group of the Medicines Control Agency, which is responsible for the day-to-day running of the United Kingdom's spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting scheme. Of this amount, £612,482 relates to the basic salary of staff working within the unit—excluding national insurance and pension contributions—and £209,504 relates to the costs of running and maintaining the ADROIT database for the financial year 1994–95. This database records all reports of adverse drugs reactions received from doctors and pharmaceutical companies.

  NHS Paperwork
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report of the efficiency scrutiny into the burden of paperwork in NHS trusts and health authorities will be published. [30012]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I will be publishing the report on Tuesday 21 May. Copies will be available from the Vote Office and Library from 1 lam on that day.

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

Beef: Export Ban
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the ban imposed by the European Union on the importation of British beef has now been lifted; what has been the loss in British exports resulting from the ban; and whether they intend to retaliate for this interference with British trade.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, regrettably the ban remains in place. That is affecting exports worth nearly £700 million last year. The Government are taking all possible action which they believe will be successful in getting this unjustified and disproportionate ban lifted.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the spirit of his reply. However, can he elaborate a little on the nature of the steps that the Government are taking? Are they in fact proposing to retaliate for this damaging attack on British trade with the heavy loss to which he referred, or, alternatively, what action is contemplated? My noble friend indicated that there was "possible action", but he did not tell us what it was.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have to separate two events here. I share my noble friend's sense of outrage and deep disappointment at the way in which the European Community reacted to the news and the way that it behaved initially. However, we must recognise that that has done a great deal of damage to the confidence of EC consumers and to its own beef markets. Indeed, the European Union used to take 90 per cent. of our beef exports. It is the consumers in those countries who will decide whether we can start re-exporting to them. Therefore, we must act in ways which will help European governments rebuild the confidence of their consumers in our beef exports. I believe that that is best done by talking and arguing, because we have an extremely strong case.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in answer to previous Questions tabled in your Lordships' House, the Minister has stated that the Government regard the actions of the Community as illegal, indicating that they would take legal action themselves in order to ensure redress. Can the noble Lord, first, elaborate on the steps that the Government are now taking to secure legal redress for actions that they regard as being wholly illegal? Secondly, in view of the fact that the commissioner responsible has agreed that the action taken was not based on health grounds, can the noble Lord inform the House whether he is aware that the veterinary committee in the Commission
648
which is meeting to discuss the matter appears in some instances to be following not veterinary but political grounds?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords; we are quite aware that a number of people in the Standing Veterinary Committee have done so in the past and, indeed, may well still be taking political rather than scientific decisions. We are committed to taking the issue to the ECJ and expect to be issuing proceedings soon.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while admitting to a certain personal interest in the matter, may I ask my noble friend the Minister to convey to his right honourable friend the Minister my unqualified admiration for his principled and courageous battle for the interests of British farmers?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, hear, hear!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, in Answer to his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the Minister referred to a shared concern about the beef ban. However, do I take the second half of that answer to mean that, basically, there is no question of any retaliation?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not aware that there is any present question of retaliation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it the whole of the Community or is it just the Germans who are leading the fight against British beef and British beef exports? I heard today that the Germans are obsessional about health and that under no circumstances will they lift the ban. Can the Minister confirm whether that is so? Further, I understand that Mr. Hogg has gone to Europe today to offer a cull of twice the original number—that is, 80,000. If the ban is still not lifted under those circumstances and with that offer, just how many cattle are the Government prepared to sacrifice before we get the ban lifted?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so far as concerns the noble Lord's second question, I believe that the matter at issue is extending the time-scale of the originally proposed additional cull. The original cull had a first cut-off date of, I think, September 1990, which is when our record keeping took a step upwards and it became easier to trace animals. There is the question of whether that should be pushed back a year or two. We had a cut-off date for cases occurring up to April of this year. There is also the question of whether the same principle of culling should apply to cases which occur in the future. Those are the matters which will be discussed in Brussels over the next few days.
As regards the noble Lord's first question, clearly—as the noble Lord recognises—Germany will have particular problems with the climate among consumers in that country. As I understand the position at the moment, within the Standing Veterinary Committee the Germans' known supporters are Austria, Spain and Greece.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, what use are the Government making of the figures given to me in a Written Answer; namely, that the total number of cases of CJD this year is 15, of which 14 are described as sporadic? What does "sporadic" mean in this context?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is too early to say what this means, but if this pattern were to continue we would in the course of this year become much more confident that what we were seeing was a low incidence of CJD that was likely to remain so rather than become anything which might be described as an epidemic.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, at the heart of this unhappy problem lies the possible danger to health. Will the noble Lord tell the House what view the Government take of this at the present time? What is the view of the medical profession in this country, or is it the case that we no longer think there is such a danger?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so far as I am aware nothing has changed one way or the other since our original announcement.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it true that in 1989 the United States imposed a ban on British beef, and Canada did so in 1990? Is not the reason that this ban is continuing in Europe that there is in Europe the feeling that our standards of food hygiene are not high enough? Does not the noble Lord think it sad that there seems to be, in addition to Creutzfeldt-Jakob syndrome or whatever it is called—the Government themselves announced that there might be a link between this and BSE—another form of madness which seems to have seized some people, that is, xenophobia?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, xenophobia was present well before we encountered BSE in cows. As regards the noble Lord's first question, I do not feel that there is such a problem as he describes. There is nothing that I am aware of which has taken place which should lead to that conclusion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the chairman of Unilever said only last week that the BSE fiasco—those were his words—is in the UK and not in Europe? Is the Minister further aware that with their proposals for a selective slaughter scheme—first the figure was 40,000 and now it is 80,000 cattle—the Government have manoeuvred themselves into a numbers game which they can only lose? So far our European partners have given nothing. They have just sat and waited while the Government have been forced to increase their bids to get their support. Does the Minister agree that science and competent negotiation went out of the window a long time ago and now we just stumble from one ad hoc proposal to another?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that at all. Clearly the latest cull plans are based on the same principle as the earlier ones; namely, can we identify a population which has a high risk of presenting BSE in the future?
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, in view of the Minister saying that this is a question of public confidence, will he give wide publicity, to the public in this country and in the European Union, to the fourth annual report on CJD surveillance which concludes,
"The case control studies do not provide any conclusive evidence of a change in CJD that can be attributed to BSE"?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, clearly that is the case.

Sellafield: Safety
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney—asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the history of past and recent radiation leaks at Sellafield, what action they are taking to prevent the occurrence of further and larger nuclear accidents.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, any incident at Sellafield, or at any other United Kingdom licensed nuclear site, is fully investigated by the operator in order to determine its cause and to put in place such measures as may be necessary to prevent a recurrence. The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the independent regulator, carries out separate investigations as necessary in order to determine whether any further regulatory response is appropriate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware—as I am sure she is—that accidents have occurred at Sellafield from time to time over a long period? There were incidents in 1972, 1983, 1991 and 1992. Only last month Sellafield was fined £28,000 for what it admitted were serious and significant failures to take proper care. In view of that record is it not time that a public inquiry took place to settle the matter one way or another? There is a consistent record of accident after accident and denial after denial. Is it not time that we knew the truth?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, noble Lords certainly will be told the truth. Safety is of the highest priority at BNFL. One in 10 employees at Sellafield is directly involved in safety. BNFL has invested £750 million in plants designed to minimise any impact on the environment and is always looking for ways to improve standards of safety.

651
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned that there had been some incidents. That is true. Since 1990 when the International Nuclear Events Scale (INES) was introduced, the Health and Safety Executive has published details of 20 incidents at the Sellafield site. The majority of those were rated at level 1—the lowest level on the scale. It means an anomaly beyond the authorised operating regime. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate would not allow any site to operate if it were not satisfied with its safety.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not a fact that if one happened to be an inhabitant of the city of Aberdeen, one would be exposed to far more radiation than the level 1 that my noble friend mentioned?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, what my noble friend has said is absolutely right.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the public have the right to demand the highest standards of safety and openness as regards safety at all nuclear installations? Will the noble Baroness give us some assurance that any privatisation of the nuclear industry will not result in the dropping of any of those safety standards?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I can most certainly give that assurance to the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that while I should like to be assured by what she said—I am sure that she believes every word of it to be true; and so it may be—the point is that until we have had a proper public inquiry none of us can be quite sure? When we are dealing with nuclear matters we should be absolutely certain. The only way to find out the reason for this constant record of incidents is by having a public inquiry. Will the noble Baroness think again?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it is not a constant record. I have already told your Lordships the position. The fact is that BNFL takes this matter very seriously, as do the Government. I can assure noble Lords that I have considered carefully everything that has been said to me, and I feel reassured.

Rail Privatisation: Concessionary Fares
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will discuss with the Royal British Legion the effect of rail privatisation on disabled pensioners in London.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport would carefully consider any representations he might receive from the Royal British Legion.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome reply from the noble Earl. We are grateful that all parties in another place and in this House support the Royal British Legion. However, we now face the problem that older people who were wounded in the war find travel more difficult than those who served throughout the war but were not wounded. Those are some of the issues about which we should like to talk with the Minister. I sincerely hope that he will seriously examine them. We in the Royal British Legion are confident that all parties in both Houses will always continue to give us their full support and will endeavour to understand the problems of those who were badly wounded serving their country in war.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will congratulate the Royal British Legion on its work, in particular with ex-servicemen and women who have been injured in the defence of their country, and also the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, as national vice-president of that organisation.
I can assure the noble Lord that concessionary rail fares for pensioners and disabled people in London are being safeguarded under privatisation, and that applies just as much to ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, there seems to be some confusion. I understand that Mr. Simon Green, the chair of the London Committee on Accessible Transport, has had discussions with the Ministry which has told him that it is not willing to ask the people who will take over the privatised transport to continue the scheme for more than a year although the period had recently been settled at seven years. Will the Minister clear up that point? Will the period be a year or seven years?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord has been brought to my attention. I understand that the British Railways Board decided that as the train operating companies serving the London area were due shortly to be franchised it would be inappropriate for them to sign a contract which would commit as yet unknown private sector franchise operators to a seven-year London concessionary fare scheme. I must point out that there has not been a previous seven-year concessionary scheme; this would have been the first seven-year period.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little more. I understand that there are 100,000 transport vouchers for disabled people in London. If the scheme had been included in the contract to be signed by the privatised companies, those companies could have allowed for it in the price that they were willing to pay. Why could that not have been done? It would have reassured people.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I believe that there was more concern with the details as regards how the scheme was charged to London boroughs. We

653
believe that franchise operators will be in a better position to negotiate with the London boroughs once they hold their franchises.

Beef: Humanitarian Distribution
2.56 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in spite of the European Union ban, they are entitled to give away safe beef from beasts aged over 30 months to consumers in needy countries.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no. The export of meat from any bovine animal slaughtered in the United Kingdom is currently prohibited by virtue of Commission Decision 96/239/EC.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat brief reply. Nevertheless, will he ask his right honourable friend in another place not to dismiss from his mind altogether the possibility of a giveaway of beef? Will he also bear in mind the moral virtue in avoiding the waste of edible food?
Can my noble friend say something about the extent of the backlog on farms of cattle awaiting slaughter? Press reports yesterday gave estimates of 120,000 to 400,000 head. Is my noble friend able to be a little more precise? Can he indicate the proportion of that figure as regards dairy cows and clean cattle? Is there an estimate of the length of time that it will take to clear the backlog?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, clearly the export of beef to countries which do not themselves have the right to export beef to the European Union is a matter that we shall be addressing at a very early stage when we discuss the lifting of this unjustified ban. It would have the great advantage that, if countries—it would have to be their decision—were prepared to take our over-30 month beef (which I have been eating happily for many years now), that would help to clear the backlog. The backlog exists because of the difficulty of sufficient rendering capacity. I would guess that the backlog stands at about 150,000 animals at present. I cannot divide that figure between cows and beef animals. We hope to clear it in reasonable time, but it will not be immediately.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, will the Minister answer the earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that he failed to answer? Is it a fact that from 1989 both America and Canada banned our beef imports because of our failure to deal with the high incidence of BSE in this country? Would it not be altogether better for the Government to concentrate on restoring consumer confidence here rather than seeking to make a scapegoat of the European Union?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, we are not trying to make a scapegoat of the European Union. It is quite right that America and Canada banned our beef a long while ago.
654
That is the kind of action that one can expect from people who are our out and out competitors. When dealing with people who are supposed to be our friends first and competitors second, we expect a different standard of behaviour. That is the reason for our disappointment with the initial reaction from the European Union. We seem to be having more constructive discussions with most of the European Union these days.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the provision to which the Minister referred expressly prohibit a one-off free humanitarian distribution of the type proposed by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton? Further, in circumstances where one has to strike a balance between certain death by starvation and zero risk or minimal risk of fatal infection, is it not reasonable to seek some derogation?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my understanding is that yes, the directive prohibits distribution, free or paid for. It prohibits export, and export is the physical movement of goods rather than anything to do with payment for them. Whether or not it is a good idea I leave to the recipients.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Minister say what reason Canada and the USA gave for banning our beef for so long?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, they cited dangers which they perceived from BSE.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that two severe problems are building up with the backlog? First, my local market is unable to send cattle on to the renderers because they are asking too much money for carrying out the job and therefore stocks are building up. Secondly, with the late spring the grass has not grown and farmers are finding it extremely difficult to feed their cattle. Is there not a danger that more farmers will die from self-inflicted wounds than from CJD?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I sincerely hope that few farmers die from self-inflicted wounds. Enough die from that already, without any increase. That kind of argument lay behind the announcement by my honourable friend Mr. Baldry that we would put in place a mechanism to provide an interim payment to farmers who are unable to find the necessary slaughtering and rendering capacity for their animals.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said about the mature beef assurance scheme, if accepted, does he agree that it is a welcome step forward? Will he further consider whether it would be worth while storing beef, frozen, canned or otherwise, from those beef herds that do not come within the seven-year criterion until such time as the herd of origin meets the requirements? The meat stored could then either be released on to the market or, as my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton suggested, given away to a needy nation.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are still having consultation on the exemption scheme. Doubtless

655
considerations such as those mentioned by my noble friend will be included. The future of the beef industry in this country depends crucially on our taking measures which restore, or rather keep restored, consumer confidence. The long-term interests of the beef industry are identical to those of the consumer. We must keep that in mind rather than any short-term problems which beef producers may face.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in pressing for the lifting of the export ban, the Government should reflect on the Saturday morning farming programme? Mr. Keith Meldrum, the Chief Veterinary Officer of MAFF, said on that programme that we should have eliminated the feed source of BSE from all animal feed at the outset. We in the Labour Party asked for that in 1990 and the Government introduced it three weeks ago.
Mr. Meldrum also said that more rigorous control measures should have been taken at a much earlier stage. That is again something that we asked for but the Government consistently refused it until recently. Do the Government agree with the statements of the Chief Veterinary Officer?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I did not listen to the farming programme and have not seen a transcript. However, I am sure that with hindsight and knowing what we know now, we could say that had we taken the decisions in 1990 with the prescience of present knowledge, rather than dealing with the scientific advice and knowledge that we had at the time, we might have taken different decisions. However, at the time we acted on the best scientific advice. I agree that it has not turned out for the best. It would have been nice if we had known what we know now, but we did not.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we asked for those measures in 1990, six years ago, not with hindsight.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we were acting at the time on scientific advice and not with the advice of the Labour Party.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House which body will decide when consumer confidence has been restored? Has it to be decided by the whole of the Council of Ministers? For example, can Herr Kohl and his Government hang out indefinitely against all the rest, if it suits them politically? Who will decide when consumer confidence has been returned to a point where the British taxpayer may be relieved of the necessity for providing vast sums for the unnecessary slaughter of many animals?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that the consumers will decide whether consumer confidence is restored. However, the actions of governments help and in that
656
context we were all delighted by the reaction and subsequent assistance of the French, following the visit here of President Chirac.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in these circumstances majority voting has a great deal to recommend it?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, on some issues it has.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Southwood Working Party which made recommendations to Government in 1989 about the removal of animal-based material from ruminant rations. Does the Minister accept that since that time our conclusion to the effect that any risk to human health arising out of the BSE epidemic was minimal—very slight indeed? Does he further accept that such experiments as have been carried out since that time which attempt to demonstrate transmission from beef muscle to experimental animals have been totally negative? Under the circumstances, is it not the case that British beef is perfectly safe to eat?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I totally agree with the final and also the penultimate comments of the noble Lord.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, would it be more appropriate for the Government to show a more pro-European stance and understanding of the concern for the health of countries receiving hazardous exports? In that connection, why do the Government not propose a ban on Greek tobacco?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is clearly nothing hazardous about British beef. That is why we are so upset with the European Union for taking precipitate action in banning a perfectly safe product. As for Greek tobacco, perhaps that is why the Greeks are voting against British beef.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the British consumer has regained confidence in British beef and that sales are nearly up to the same level as before the current scare arose?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords, I believe that that is the case, certainly with prime cuts.

Deer (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the legislation relating to deer in Scotland. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Education Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is the first of two linked consolidation Bills in my name on the Order Paper. If I may, I shall speak to them together and then move the second formally.
These Bills consolidate the Education Act 1944 and subsequent legislation relating to education in schools in England and Wales, together with the statutory provisions dealing with the inspection of those schools.
The current legislation relating to education, subsequent to the 1944 Act, is contained in four principal Acts passed since 1980 which made provision for such matters as the establishment and discontinuance of schools, their government, conduct and staffing, the national curriculum, delegated budgets, grant-maintained schools and the education of children with special education needs. The fact that consolidation is needed in this area is abundantly clear from the considerable size of the Education Bill (which runs to 583 clauses and 40 schedules). It is also a testament to the skill and dedication of the draftsman, and I am sure that the House will wish to join me in thanking him for his work. Nevertheless, although for reasons of convenience the Education Bill deals with the functions of the Secretary of State and local education authorities over the field of education in England and Wales generally, in order to keep the proportions of the Bill within manageable bounds it does not otherwise deal with further or higher education. Those forms of education will therefore continue to be covered by existing legislation.
The provisions dealing with school inspections are currently to be found in the Education (Schools) Act 1992 and Part V of the Education Act 1993. The 1992 Act establishes the framework within which school inspections take place, although the procedure to be adopted differs according to the type of school (and the relevant provisions are to be found in different statutes). The 1993 Act confers powers of intervention on the Secretary of State where a local education authority maintained school has been found on an inspection to require special measures to be taken.
These Bills also incorporate a number of relatively small but useful changes to the present law, giving effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its report accompanying the Bills. These changes are intended to rectify a number of inconsistencies and omissions in the present law and to give better effect to the original intentions of Parliament. I am most grateful to the Law Commission for its work in this area. The commission's recommendations will of course be the subject of consideration by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, to which these Bills will be referred in the usual way if your Lordships are content to give them a Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
658
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for presenting these consolidation Bills. They represent an enormous amount of work, and we on these Benches express our appreciation to the Law Commission and all its officers for the work that they have done on our behalf.
The whole thing amounts to consolidation of Bills which started as long ago as 1944 and represent progress in education legislation through governments of quite different persuasions. There is no party political issue concerned with these measures; though I note that by my count they occupy 835 pages and weigh 1,246 grammes, which, for the benefit of noble Lords opposite who seem a little un-European in recognising metric units, is nearly three pounds.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his expressions in relation to the Law Commission, and also for the information that he has given us latterly, along with the requisite calculation.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

School Inspections Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
Read a third time.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay) moved the following amendment:
Page 31, line 36, column 3, leave out "69" and insert "69(3)".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to correct a drafting error in Schedule 6 to the Bill. The schedule has three general purposes: to make provision for changes to regulation-making powers which, as the House will recall, was the subject of some discussion at an earlier stage; to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State's approval before the commencement of building works other than those that have been exempted in regulations; and to make minor appeals consequential on the setting up of the Scottish qualifications authority.
It is to this last category that the amendment is addressed. The schedule addresses Section 129 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and Section 69 of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 to remove inappropriate references to the Scottish Examination Board.
In relation to the 1989 Act, the intention was to repeal Section 69(3), which allowed the board to prepare, distribute and monitor testing in primary schools. However, the effect of the drafting error is to repeal the section in its entirety. That would repeal Section 69(1) and Section 69(2) dealing with regulations relating to testing in primary schools. That was clearly not our intention. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. As he has already intimated in correspondence, we are aware that this is a technical amendment and is necessary. We therefore have no objection to its being included.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
The Bill before the House is a balanced package of measures ranging from important improvements in the existing policies on school boards and placing requests, through to the restructuring of the qualifications and assessment arrangements in Scotland, to measures facilitating the implementation of our policies on pre-school education.
Part I of the Bill provides for the establishment of the Scottish qualifications authority which will continue, in a single body, the high-quality service provided by the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council. During the progress of the Bill, particular attention has been drawn to two main areas: the membership of the board of SQA; and the role and position of the accreditation committee.
I believe that the amendment which I brought forward and the assurances that I have been able to offer noble Lords provided sufficient reassurance on these points.
I now turn to Part II of the Bill upon which we have perhaps spent the most time in our deliberations to date. The provisions of this part were designed to tackle a problem which I know is recognised on all sides of this House; namely, the need for greater provision of pre-school education in Scotland.
The time we have taken on Part II has been very well spent. We have been able to clear up some of the initial confusion that has surrounded this part of the Bill. The financial framework which will underpin the voucher system was perhaps the biggest area where clarity of debate initially eluded us. I wrote to many noble Lords present shortly after the Committee stage. I hope that letter was helpful.
Other areas of concern to noble Lords in relation to Part II related to the possibility of fraud; the quality of pre-school education to be provided; and the scope and timetable for the evaluation of the initiative's pilot year.
660
I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords about all of these issues. As regards fraud, we have and will ensure that every precaution is taken.
The quality of provision is another priority for the Government. In the voluntary and private sectors only providing centres which complete a Profile of Education Provision to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's inspectors will be admitted onto the scheme. Moreover, every such provider admitted will be inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors as quickly as possible.
On Report, we discussed at some length the evaluation of the initiative's pilot year. As I said then, the Government have no desire to conduct this evaluation in private. We will share the results as widely as possible and will also keep Parliament fully informed.
I am confident that the voucher initiative will be a great success. Parents want it and, over time, I hope that noble Lords who have not been convinced in the course of our deliberations will be persuaded of its value.
The amendments to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1989, contained in Part III and Schedule 4 of the Bill, are intended to improve the workings of that Act in the light of operational experience. The provisions follow from last year's consultation and I believe were generally supported by this House.
I should at this point thank the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Ewing of Kirkford for their help in highlighting the need for an amendment to the conflict of interest provisions in this part of the Bill. I thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for also applying her expert eye.
While reservations were expressed about the detail of the proposals in Part IV of the Bill, the principle of amending the legislation on placing requests to enable places to be retained for incomers at certain schools was also supported.
Since the Bill was first introduced last November, it has been the subject of detailed and careful scrutiny. I have been grateful for the thoughtful and well-considered debate that has taken place and believe that the Bill has benefited greatly from it.
When a Scottish Select Committee of this House met in Glasgow to hear evidence, it was only the second time that that procedure had been used. Such evidence-taking has proved most beneficial in bringing out the issues of most concern to those affected by the Bill. Having read the evidence taken by the Committee, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Goold, who, as chairman, guided the committee and the witnesses sensitively and efficiently through some quite complex issues.
During Committee and Report stages, and indeed today, we considered a number of amendments. In the main those amendments sought to clarify the intentions behind the Bill's provisions. I believe that the concerns that lay behind them were answered and, where necessary, reassurances were given.
There are a number of noble Lords here today who have taken a particular interest in this Bill. I should like to offer them my thanks. The noble Lords, Lord Ewing, Lord Carmichael and Lord Sewel, contributed to and

661
indeed instigated many of the debates which reached to the heart of the Bill's provisions. The noble Lords sought clarification not only as to the effect of the Bill but also as to how the Government intend to implement it. I am grateful for that as it has given me an opportunity to explain our intentions more fully.
I should also like to mention my noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Viscount, Lord Dunrossil, who took part fully during the special committee sessions in Glasgow and made thoughtful and interesting contributions through their questions there. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, took full part throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, but especially during the sessions in Glasgow.
I should also draw attention to the constructive contributions made on a wide number of occasions by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. I was especially impressed that, alone among us, the noble Lady made her own calculation of the appropriateness of the value of the voucher, using her own experience as a grandmother in Scotland.
The noble Lords, Lord Sempill and Lord Addington, made thoughtful and thought provoking contributions in the long discussions on Part II of the Bill. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for bringing to bear her great knowledge and expertise in assisting our consideration of this legislation. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her well considered and thoughtful contributions based on her experience of the Scottish education system. I also thank my noble friend Lord Courtown who did much work behind the scenes.
During the time that the Bill has been before the House, we have shared the experience and expertise derived from many different backgrounds, which has added to the quality of the Bill. I believe that the Bill takes forward initiatives which will enable our present system, with its high and improving standards, to cater for the challenges that lie ahead. The improvements that this House has brought to the Bill are to be welcomed. I hope that noble Lords will continue to take a close interest in the development of the Scottish education system. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I shall just say a few words. I have already quite profusely, I believe, thanked the Minister for his efforts and willingness to explain the different parts of the Bill. The Bill had a certain interest in that it started off, as the Minister said, as the second Bill for which there was a special Select Committee which looked at its background and examined witnesses. It was a very valuable experiment in Glasgow which will be of great help to those in another place, as they will be able to read the report and the evidence of the expert witnesses.
Secondly, the Committee stage of the Bill took place in the Moses Room. For many of us it was not the most pleasant experience. We felt that we were away from
662
things and I, personally, should not be very keen for the Committee stage of an important Scottish Bill to take place away from the Floor of the House. Unlike the other place, we do not have much space available other than the Moses Room. Therefore, I hope that other Committee stages can take place on the Floor of the House.
There is general agreement with the principles in Part I of the Bill. We all accept that change is needed and between us we have been able to achieve a modus vivendi. Certainly, whatever changes are made at the other end of the building, they will be based on the debates that took place in this House.
Part II of the Bill is still controversial. I am sure that it will arouse even more controversy in another place. There were two special points on which we felt the Bill was inadequate or totally wrong. One was that children with special needs are not given the consideration that we hoped they would receive. They will be the real losers. Then, there was the innovation of the voucher scheme which we strongly opposed, as the Minister will no doubt remember. I imagine that it will be opposed in the other place by many Members, perhaps not all from the party that I represent in this House. The reaction generally from all the education authorities and practically every local authority in Scotland has been that the voucher system is divisive and inefficient. Unless it is introduced very quickly, as has already been intimated, when we become the government it will not go forward.
We welcome the other parts of the Bill. The Minister and his partners have done a reasonably good job in improving parts of the Scottish education system.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister has conducted the Bill through this House with his usual and at times quite irritating charm, disarming many arguments. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, the first part of the Bill has been generally welcomed. It tries to bring all the qualifications under one heading and that will be universally welcomed. It is probably something which should be done more widely and at far greater speed throughout the land.
Parts III and IV of the Bill have some weight and were discussed accordingly. However, I do not feel that we on these Benches or indeed those on this side of the House will ever agree on Part II. There are many questions about the way in which the system has been brought in and the need for it. Any benefits that there are for certain parts of Scotland will probably not apply to other parts, simply because of the diversity of provision. There are some places where local authorities have managed to meet the needs of pre-school education and other areas where there is no provision. The Bill may be a mixed blessing. There may possibly be some benefit from it, but overall we believe that it is an inappropriate tool for the job.
With regard to the procedure used for the Bill, it was extremely beneficial to have the Select Committee in Glasgow. The information received gave us an insight into the experience of those who will deal with the legislation. I suggest that such procedure should be

663
brought into more Bills. It would be wholly beneficial. There was informed discussion on the Bill with those people who will be affected by it.
Part II of the Bill usually received condemnation—at least in relation to the implications of the voucher system. The best managed by those not proposing the Bill was apathy. That suggests something about the Bill which the Government did not take on board. Nevertheless, the procedure proved very informative. I hope that something of that kind will be brought more often into our proceedings.
Unfortunately, those discussions were followed by proceedings in the Moses Room. Part II of the Bill is controversial. There was direct disagreement. At that time it was felt by Members of the Committee that they wanted to vote to express an opinion. That could not be done with that procedure. It meant that the Report stage was to a degree mangled and used for a different purpose. Perhaps I may suggest that the usual channels should consider the matter. If it is intended to use that procedure again—it can be used only for certain Bills—perhaps we should invent a new procedure which enables us to gather the information, as we did in Glasgow. That would go for any Bill, not just a Scottish Bill. It might prove beneficial.
This Bill is something of a curate's egg. I hope that the beneficial parts of it are enjoyed to the full and that the bad pieces are left well alone.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wish to make some comments because this has been a noteworthy Bill and has had a noteworthy passage through this House, as others have said, at two levels; first, it is not an insignificant Bill; and, secondly, its passage has demonstrated what the new procedure adopted by your Lordships for Scottish Bills can do.
After Second Reading we took evidence for two days in Glasgow. That evidence came from 10 organisations giving verbal evidence and seven giving written evidence as well as the Minister for Education in Scotland, though education is not part of my noble friend's portfolio in this House. The evidence was then published.
Committee stage took place off the Floor of the House. I listened with interest to what was said. I am bound to say that I reacted slightly differently. I felt that, without the pressures of feeling that Scottish legislation was taking up the time of this House and of noble Lords who have to attend to the legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom, we were able to take the time needed in the Moses Room. Certainly Moses looking down on us with his tablets of stone did not always help. But I felt that it was a good exercise and that we were able to go more carefully into the Bill than we otherwise would have done. I hope therefore that we do not lightly discard that procedure. It is true that we could only adopt amendments that were agreed by everybody, and that may be part of the problem of noble Lords opposite. However, the votes came when we came to Report stage. The Opposition often wait until then anyway. I did not feel that that was a loss, but it is worthy of consideration.
664
If we pass this Bill and it goes to another place, honourable Members will have before them a great deal of information to help them in their consideration knowing not only that those 17 organisations gave evidence, but that all the membership behind those organisations were in a sense represented. Therefore a large part of the population of Scotland was involved and that is bound to be helpful.
With regard to the Bill, Part I proved uncontroversial. I was glad to have the opportunity to explore with my noble friend the question of the independence of the accreditation committee. I was grateful, as I am sure were other noble Lords who took part, that he was able to table an amendment to clarify for certain its independence.
Our consideration of Part II, which set the scene for the nursery education voucher scheme, mainly because the new procedure gave us time and involved so many Scots, was revealing in four important ways. I shall mention them briefly because they are important. It revealed an extraordinary lack of confidence among local authorities and teachers' unions that, as provision expands, parents with the new influence and power that the vouchers give them will choose the nursery or play group which suits them best. But if the local authority has been offering and continues to offer the best in the area, that is precisely what the parents will choose.
Our evidence showed fear—probably entirely unjustified—among local authorities and teachers that parents' good sense will not prevail. One could also detect a lack of appreciation of the benefit that would come through the increased involvement of parents when the voucher scheme is introduced. Nursery education must involve parents to the maximum extent if it is to succeed. If vouchers bring nursery providers extra work, it is probably worth doing for the parental interest it will involve. That point was not taken by the local authorities or the teachers' representatives.
The consideration of that part of the Bill was also revealing in that it appeared to show a total lack of appreciation that in modern times a far more realistic way of funding the expansion of provision in the community is by bringing in public and private resources in partnership. That understanding is increasingly recognised by all political parties across the developed world. It is sad if it is not yet so in Scotland, particularly in an area such as nursery education where private resources are already involved and fit in so naturally.
During our consideration of Part III of the Bill, which on the whole was also uncontroversial, the explanation given by the Minister on the conflict of interest clause which he introduced was extremely helpful. He has since written to me, and I believe the letter went to other noble Lords, amplifying what the last paragraph of his new clause means. He says that he will continue to look at the matter. I am not sure whether it was the right answer, but I hope to talk with him again. It may be necessary to continue with the subject in another place; I am not yet convinced about that.
Not least because of our newly-enhanced ability to scrutinise the Bill—not just at Westminster but also in Scotland—and because of the good nature and courtesy

665
of everybody concerned, and the grasp that my noble friend the Minister has shown of the issues, both the broader and more detailed ones, I believe that what we have achieved will be of great assistance to the other place. My noble friend's grasp of the Bill was remarkable bearing in mind that education does not normally come within his portfolio in Scotland. He usually has to think about agriculture and the environment. However, everybody showed a great conscientiousness when discussing the Bill and I hope that it is accepted.
3.37 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made by noble Lords. The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Addington, and indeed my noble friend Lady Carnegy, paid compliments on the value of the evidence taken in Glasgow. I endorse that. We believe strongly that the direct access that the procedure gave Scottish organisations and individuals to this part of the legislature is valuable and important. We hope to see further Bills being subject to that process.
I do not agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Addington, in their displeasure with the Moses Room process. We are convinced in this instance that it enabled the Bill to be discussed without the constraints of time which are so often imposed when Bills are discussed on the Floor of this Chamber. It gave me as Minister proximity to officials, which was useful when we were discussing some of the more technical and complex clauses in the Bill. That enabled me to deliver at speed much more useful, constructive and accurate answers to the points raised around the House. I remind the House that Bills are only consigned to the Moses Room after a decision is reached through the usual channels. It is therefore for the House to decide what is and what is not put through that system.
I commend my noble friend Lady Carnegy for highlighting the important issues of Part II of the Bill—that is, nursery vouchers—and especially her principal point that it demonstrated a lack of confidence among local authorities. I agree that they seem nervous about the introduction of parental choice that comes with a voucher system. I illustrated through my own experience the high standing that local authority education has with most Scottish parents. Despite having choice, I have chosen, ahead of the private or voluntary sector, local authority education because it delivers a very good and a high value service.
I am convinced that the introduction of the nursery vouchers scheme and the anticipated expansion of pre-five education in Scotland will see the local authorities, which are already the major providers, being the major beneficiaries. There are others apart from myself who share this confidence in their future. We are also determined that as far as possible parents are able to make the decisions about their children and about their children's education. That is inherent in the provisions contained in Part II of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was incorrect when he said that children with special educational needs would be the losers. I can assure the noble Lord
666
that that is not the case. If any circumstances suggest that it might be, we will act to counter those circumstances. The Government are committed to proper provision for special educational needs. Local authorities are responsible for provision for recorded children from the age of two and indeed have adequate existing powers in relation to others. They will retain all these important powers and duties for special educational needs in the pre-school sector. The various financial calculations which have to be made prior to the voucher system being introduced will not touch the money that local authorities allocate to those children who have special educational needs. Differential voucher values are probably not in the best interests of children because there is a danger of stigmatisation. But I would pay tribute to the excellent work done by education authorities both for children without special needs and for children with special needs.
I am grateful for the remarks of the various noble Lords who have supported the Bill, if not in its entirety then certainly in many of its parts. I am certain that their efforts will also be much appreciated when the Bill comes to be considered in another place. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
3.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before starting, I do not know whether on a Bill of this kind one should declare an interest as a parent. If that is the case, I should declare the interest of inter alia a two-and-a-half year-old who will be a beneficiary of this legislation in January 1998 and, following the example of my noble friend the Chief Whip, another in a few weeks' time.
The Bill introduces two important new policies in the field of education. It provides the basis for a significant expansion of nursery education through the creation of a nursery voucher scheme and it will allow grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially.
The Bill concerns education in England and Wales only. We have had the advantage this afternoon of seeing the conclusion in this House of the parallel proposals for nursery education in Scotland. That Bill now goes on to another place.
Good quality nursery education is important for children's future development. That view is not, I believe, a matter of party-political controversy. There is general agreement that there should be a significant expansion in nursery provision. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a commitment that new nursery places would be made available during the lifetime of this Parliament. We have also committed ourselves to providing, over time, a nursery place for every four year-old whose parent wants one. In England and Wales, we are providing in excess of £390 million of new money over three years.

667
The foundation for this is the Bill now before the House. The central proposal is in Clause 1, which empowers the Secretary of State to make grants for nursery education. The remainder of the clauses and schedules dealing with nursery education lay out the necessary framework and the legal underpinning for the grant.
Some noble Lords will doubtless have noticed that the word "voucher" does not appear on the face of the Bill. There is no need for it to do so, as it will be a mere device used for calculating the level of grant to be paid to nursery providers. There will be a document, a piece of paper, which for convenience we will call a voucher. This voucher has no face value, is not transferable and is not what I understand lawyers might call a means of exchange. Although the voucher is an important part of our proposals, it is strictly an administrative tool and not in any sense a kind of currency.
In putting forward the Bill in its current form, the Government were mindful of the need to ensure that the exercise by Ministers of functions conferred on them by Parliament is subject to proper scrutiny. We were also conscious of the need to avoid cluttering up primary legislation with unnecessary or contingent administrative detail.
The principal purposes of the grant are therefore stated on the face of the Bill. Some of the main features of the grant will be set out in regulations; and the administrative details will be left to arrangements.
With those considerations in mind, we take the view that the regulations should cover the three most fundamental aspects of the arrangements of the nursery voucher scheme. These are: first, the children in respect of whose education grant may be paid; secondly, the descriptions of providers of nursery education to whom grant may be paid; and, thirdly, in the light of the views of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, whose report we have before us today, the method of calculating the grant that is to be paid. This last aspect will be the subject of an amendment which I shall introduce in due course at a later stage of the Bill.
The remaining administrative arrangements cover the mechanics for issuing and for redeeming vouchers. These are details that may need to be changed at short notice and should not be spelt out in legislation.
Our approach has been commended by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, to whose report I referred. I quote from its report which says that, if the House agrees to the amendments that the Government propose to bring forward,
"the delegated powers in the bill will be subject to appropriate parliamentary control; and that there is nothing further in the bill on which we invite the House to act".
I turn now to the detail of the voucher scheme. The mechanism of vouchers puts parents in the driving seat. But parents will want to be reassured about the quality of the provision that is available. Our proposals will bear on the quality of the education provided in nursery institutions in three main ways. First, there will be a common inspection framework for all institutions which redeem vouchers. The Office for Standards in Education—Ofsted—and its Welsh equivalent, the
668
noble Lord, Lord Morris, will be pleased to hear, will be responsible for drawing it up, for recruiting and training inspectors and for monitoring them. A number of detailed provisions relating to inspection are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Secondly, all providers will be required to work towards the desirable learning outcomes formulated by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales. The inspection arrangements will ensure that they are doing so.
Thirdly, all the institutions which redeem vouchers will be required to publish details of the education they provide and staffing and admission arrangements. Together with the evidence from inspections, this information will allow parents to make informed decisions about the institution their child will attend.
The voucher funding mechanism is new. But we are not proposing to introduce it untested. The first stage, as many noble Lords will know, is already under way in four volunteer local education authority areas—Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Norfolk. Over 14,000 parents of four year-olds have already received vouchers, and are using them. Early indications are that the scheme is running smoothly, and new places have been created.
Let me now turn to the second part of the Bill. Commercial borrowing will be of great benefit to grant-maintained schools. They are ambitious institutions and many have plans for building work; sports halls, arts centres and a host of other improvements to their facilities. Borrowing will diversify the sources of finance on which grant-maintained governors can call.
We know that many grant-maintained schools are keen to borrow and that lenders will want to lend. But not all schools will be able to offer collateral for loans. But as grant-maintained schools are stable and successful institutions with a reliable income, we believe they will have no difficulty in negotiating suitable loans and terms for those loans.
However, in proposing that grant-maintained schools should have the power to borrow and to charge their premises, we are conscious of the need to safeguard publicly funded assets. That is why the Bill provides for borrowing to be subject to the written consent of the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend proposes to make an order delegating the function of giving consent to the Funding Agency for Schools in England. Because the funding agency already calculates and pays grants to grant-maintained schools, it is well placed to apply safeguards to ensure that borrowing by grant-maintained schools is both prudent and does not put vital assets at risk.
Although the party Opposite opposed these proposals in committee in another place, I was interested to see that—having listened, I suspect, to the arguments of my honourable friends in another place—they are now so impressed that they will allow all schools to borrow. I shall be very interested to hear the views of the noble

669
Lord, Lord Morris, who speaks for the party Opposite, and how he will develop that idea. I look forward to his words in due course.
This Bill recognises the priority the Government intend to give to improved nursery education for all. It provides the basis for an expansion of provision to meet our commitment that all four year-olds, should their parents so wish, benefit from three full terms of nursery education before compulsory school age.
The decisions about exactly where that expansion will happen will be taken, through the voucher mechanism, by those with the most vital and immediate interest in successful nursery education, and that is their parents. Along with the proposals for additional freedom for grant-maintained schools, the nursery scheme builds on themes which have underpinned all the Government's education reforms—choice, diversity and quality. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
3.52 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, otherwise known as Lewis Carroll, invented the verb "to chortle", meaning, "to chuckle and snort", and as well as turning in his grave he would doubtless have "chortled in his joy" at the Alice in Wonderland fantasia of the Government's legislative proposals in the field of education this Session.
First, the Prime Minister's bright idea to "extend parental choice" by letting Church schools take a fast track to grant-maintained status without consulting the parents or the Churches, fell on stony ground and, because it had no root, it withered away.
The Education (Student Loans) Bill was the second ignis fatuus of the year and the announcement on the 13th May by Barclays and the NUS shows that despite the Government's best efforts in resisting our proposed amendments, they were unable to prevent the private sector and consumers from agreeing pretty well all the amendments which the Government had either pooh-poohed as irrelevant or rejected as insoluble.
Would that this nursery vouchers scheme were as capable of being redesigned by those people who have a real working grasp of the issues involved. The Labour Party repeatedly offered to sit down with the Government and the putative providers to work out a genuinely effective system, which would provide places for three year-olds as well as four year-olds. Everyone supports the expansion of high quality nursery education, but we believe it would be best delivered by steady development from the existing base, with additional funding going to direct expansion of nursery places. This Bill presents an absurd, wasteful and irrelevant paper-chase with the wretched voucher going through nine or, some say, 10, stages in its progress from the Child Benefit Agency through to the school.
We need look only so far as Europe to see it being done infinitely better. In Belgium attendance at pre-school institutions is optional; free of charge for
670
children from two-and-a-half years of age to six. Ninety-five per cent. of three year-olds and 97 per cent. of four year-olds and 100 per cent. of five year-olds attend. They need no vouchers.
In Denmark, 90 per cent. of five to six year-olds attend pre-school classes and parents do not pay fees in municipal schools. In Spain, pre-school education is available for children up to the age of five and in public institutions it is free. France, of course, is famous for its pre-school provision, and the percentage of French children in the age range from two to six attending pre-school institutions is higher than in any other European country except Belgium. And in public institutions, which represent 85 per cent. of the provision, it is free. Britain has nothing to match the Ecole Maternelles, and yet we ignore the French success. All this, and not a voucher in sight!
From the moment this Bill was published it has been received not with a welcome but with hostility from all sides. The AMA document clearly prefers steady expansion to any form of voucher system. It points out that the proposed funding arrangements will penalise LEAs with high levels of provision; that vouchers are simply an automatic subsidy for parents who now pay for private nursery provision, and that,
"The scheme makes a mockery of Parliamentary consideration, since no clear results will be available from the pilots".
Hardly surprising, since only four local authorities out of more than 100 could be persuaded into Phase I, and three of these are in Inner London and quite unrepresentative of the nation.
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers complained about quality assurance, administrative costs and complexity, inadequate levels of training, and stated that much of the expenditure will be "deadweight funding"—that is, public money will simply replace payments now made by parents to private nursery schools.
Even our old friends the Conservative Education Association stated that it did not feel that a voucher scheme was the most efficient way of expanding pre-school provision, and expressed serious doubts about the non-playgroup private sector being prepared to invest in capital spending to accommodate additional demand for just one year group. And so it goes on.
The Early Childhood Education Forum pointed out that voucher systems have not been found to work elsewhere. They said:
"There is no evidence that they achieve greater economy, efficiency or quality. Vouchers can only be effective if there is a surplus of provision over demand (which there is not); if they cover the cost of a place; if there is sufficient money for start-up costs, training, etc.; and if there is additional weighting for children with special needs".
The Special Education Consortium was totally opposed to the voucher scheme, because it will not lead to the development of good quality provision for children with special educational needs and could threaten existing provision. I challenge the Minister, when he winds up, to produce evidence to rebut those deadly specific assertions.

671
Not one of the organisations most closely concerned with pre-school education has spoken out in support of the Bill. Even in Norfolk, where the system is being piloted, the leader of the Labour Group has said on TV
"We'd prefer this legislation to fail and to see it replaced by proper expansion of nursery education."
Parents, teachers, headteachers, school governors, parent teacher associations, and teachers' groups are equally hostile. I have never had a postbag even remotely like the one I have had about this Bill. Hundreds of letters have landed on my desk urging that this Bill should be rejected because of the damage it will do.
A deputy headteacher from Calderdale writes:
"The Bill will reduce quality … staff will not need to be qualified, there will be no need for a minimum amount of space per child, there will be no need for outside play areas, in fact anyone could set up a nursery."
The PTA of East Prescot Road Nursery School, Liverpool, asks us to put down an amendment allowing Liverpool and similar authorities to opt out of the scheme. We shall do our best to oblige. The Hampshire Federation of PTAs points out that the voucher will not pay fully for a nursery place, which it estimates as costing at least £2,500 per year.
As might be expected, many schools, parents and governors in Wales drew my attention, and that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and others, to the March 1996 report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which felt that this Bill was a solution only for those areas with no commitment to pre-five year-old education. The Reverend Alan Suter, chairman of governors at St. Peter's School, Rossett, in Clwyd writes,
"if the voucher scheme is implemented, we anticipate chaos among school governors and staff".
In Norfolk, American families resident there were bemused by the whole system, and deeply concerned about having to forward original passports or birth certificates to confirm their eligibility. So let us hear no nonsense from the Government about "teething troubles". There are far too many of them, and they bite far too deep. One correspondent in Norfolk writes:
"Norfolk [is] ill-prepared for this, but is clearly only adopting the scheme under considerable pressure from central government, and I have not met a single fully qualified provider in first schools or nurseries, whether LEA or private, who is in favour of the scheme.
It seems to me that this is another poll-tax situation, and when it hits the whole country in 1997, the marches will start".
Those are the words not of a Labour politician but of a principal of a private nursery school, and they may very well be prophetic.
I cannot put it better than Jade Mellor, from Brentford aged seven-and-a-half years who wrote:
"Dear Lord Morris we don't want Nursery School vouchers. We want our school to be free from vouchers. Can you stop this?"
I wish I could, Jade, I wish I could.
Nationwide there is nothing but opposition to this Bill. Let there be no doubt, it is going to be deeply disruptive and divisive. And let it be constantly remembered that existing pre-school provision is mostly satisfactory and frequently excellent: 93 per cent. of all
672
four year-olds in England are receiving some kind of pre-school education. Something like 78 per cent. are in infant classes; 10 per cent. are in maintained nursery schools, and 4 per cent. in independent schools. Yet all this has to be turned upside down, £20 million is to be spent on unnecessary bureaucracy, with no guarantee and small likelihood that at the end of it all the education available will be one whit the better.
When the Labour Party is elected to government, we shall honour any existing vouchers, but we shall issue no more of them. We shall develop what we inherit.
For the regrettable but unavoidable present we must deal with this imperfect Bill as best we can. The Bill requires major improvements in at least four specific respects. First, no payment should be made to any establishment which has not received proper approval by an inspector before the first voucher-bearing parents entrust their children to its care. New nurseries, with potentially unqualified staff, could operate for a year without ever being inspected—and could continue to operate for a further year after a poor inspection report before validation would be withdrawn. What damage could be achieved by cowboy operators in two years!
Secondly, adequate funding must be made available for children with special needs being educated outside maintained schools. That is essential. We shall want a great deal of reassurance that the Government are prepared to deal with that and to put it, if necessary, on the face of the Bill.
Thirdly, if the Government are serious about parental choice, they must allow the right to opt-out in cases where parents, teachers and the local education authority demonstrate their desire to be spared from an unnecessary bureaucratic nightmare.
Fourthly, Parliament must be allowed proper scrutiny. Ideally, this should be by means of affirmative instruments. However, any sort of regulation would be an improvement upon the "arrangements" through which the Secretary of State would administer the bulk of the main provisions of the scheme.
The Bill also makes provision for grant-maintained schools to borrow. This is a minor aspect of the Bill, but its poor drafting leaves some dangerous holes. As usual, Ministers in another place waved those concerns aside with airy assurances that everything will be all right and Parliament needn't worry its pretty little head about things like that.
We shall seek to remedy those deficiencies by requiring schools to be able to repay both principal and interest without recourse to additional grant from the Funding Agency for Schools, and by ensuring that borrowing may not be secured against schools' core fixed assets. Assurance from Ministers that core assets will be safeguarded through guidance in the form of a remit letter to the Funding Agency for Schools is, unfortunately, simply not enough.
This legislation would be inequitable in denying the rightful return of assets or the proceeds of their sale to an LEA which originally provided them. Ministers must not pretend that grant-maintained schools are the "goodies" and that education authorities are the rapacious "baddies". Assets provided by an LEA have

673
been provided by all of the parents—and others—resident in the authority's area. If the Minister remains obdurate on this point, I shall seriously consider fencing off a portion of his garden, selling it and pocketing the proceeds. I would expect him to meet my actions with a benevolent smile.
The space in the parliamentary timetable which is being wasted by this Bill should instead have been used to put in place a clear commitment to expanding nursery education for every three or four year-old in England and Wales. Instead, we have this pathetic, bureaucratic nightmare which no one wants, based on a worthless Monopoly banknote.
I speak strongly, because I feel deeply. This Bill will do nothing to improve our children's education, and may well weaken it; and we here bear a heavy responsibility as Peers of the realm whose duty and privilege it is to legislate for those children—and above all, as parents or grandparents ourselves, because I read in the Sermon on the Mount:
"what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?"
4.7 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, like the Minister earlier, I am not sure whether my interest is declarable, but I wish to declare it anyway. I am today celebrating 10 years as leader of the London Borough of Sutton, which is an LEA and therefore has considerable interest in the proposals.
I have a further interest in that role because one of our priorities when we came into office 10 years ago was to expand nursery provision in our borough. Back in 1986 we had seven nursery classes in our primary schools. Some years later, as a result of the first phase of our programme, we now have a nursery class in every infant or primary school and every four year-old in our borough may have a nursery place if the parents want it. The sadness for us is that that was intended to be only phase 1; phase 2 was to go further and better extend the provision for three year-olds. Sadly, circumstances beyond our control have made phase 2 a little more distant than we would wish.
I must also declare another interest. My wife is an infant school teacher—for many years, although not currently, in a reception class—so I hear about these matters at home as well as in the council offices.
It is also 18 months to the day, I think, since I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I chose specifically to speak about nursery education and early-years education on that occasion. I did so not only because it is an important priority for me personally, but because it is an important priority for my party. It is well known that my party has a commitment, funded through taxation if necessary, to increase resources for education. The top priority within that additional commitment is the funding of early-years education properly linked to provision for care. At the time of my maiden speech I welcomed the Prime Minister's then recent commitment at his party conference to the provision of pre-school education for all four year-olds
674
whose parents wanted it. I was a little cynical about what that might mean. Indeed, I could not forbear to mention that his predecessor had made the same commitment 22 years earlier.
I readily accept that all noble Lords taking part in the debate today recognise the importance of good quality early-years learning. It is something that all of us want to achieve, and it is a common aim. I suspect that, sometimes against our better judgment, we would probably all accept as an ideal and aim the following quotation from the briefing of the National Union of Teachers:
"Nursery education should mean high quality teaching from properly trained and qualified teachers, in high standard premises with first-class facilities and equipment. Ideally it should be universally available, free of charge, to all 3 to 4 year olds".
I should like to add to that the need to link it to proper care provision. I suspect that that is an ideal shared by all noble Lords.
Therefore, the test of the Bill before us is how well, if at all, it moves us towards that aim. I believe that it fails on a number of grounds: first, it is immensely bureaucratic; secondly, it will do little or nothing to extend provision, and may very well damage existing provision; thirdly, it provides no funding for training; fourthly, it provides no funding for capital costs, equipment, premises and so on; and, fifthly, above all, it is very bad value for money. This view is shared by all organisations involved, be they political, voluntary and so on. It is a view that is also shared by a large number of members of the public. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to a number of letters that he had received. I have a number of letters in my file, and other noble Lords will have a considerable number. It is unusual for your Lordships' House to receive quite so many letters from parents, teachers, heads and organisations who are concerned about the Bill. Some of the letters in the folder before me come from local authority areas which fall within the pilot scheme of phase one; that is, people who now speak from experience of the implementation of the scheme.
If reports are correct—I believe they are—even the Secretary of State herself had considerable reservations as to whether a voucher scheme was the best way to deliver increasingly good quality nursery provision. It appears that it is only the policy unit at No. 10 that still sticks to this ideological view. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has already quoted the Conservative Education Association. I intended to do the same. That body expressed qualified acceptance of the scheme on the basis that, since the Government were determined to have it, then it had to be made to work. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I remember others who said the same about the poll tax. That was a typical example of how the Government refused to listen to professionals, as well as people in the local authorities who knew about these matters, and insisted on going ahead with what turned out to be an exceptionally expensive disaster. The parallels are so exact that I despair that we are heading down exactly the same road today, although I hope that it will have less expensive and disastrous consequences, particularly for the children involved.

675
I said that the proposals were unbelievably bureaucratic. I wonder whether your Lordships know exactly the process through which parents in the four pilot areas have to go. First, the Child Benefit Agency sends an application form to the parent, who completes it, assuming it has not been thrown into the bin along with all the other junk mail because the parent already believes that there is adequate provision. The parent then sends it to Capita, which is the commercial organisation that administers the scheme. Capita sends a voucher back to the parent. The parent gives that voucher to the school. The school gives it to the LEA, and the LEA sends it back to Capita. Capita confirms receipt to the DfEE. The DfEE then sends the money to the LEA, which it earlier removed from the LEA's budget, and the LEA passes the money back to the nursery provider. That process comes from a Government that tell us that they are committed to getting rid of red tape. It is small wonder that parents are baffled and do not understand the need for this complex and bureaucratic voucher system to provide for their four year-olds what so many of them already have by way of excellent provision, often in LEA schools. Why do they need this cumbersome procedure to retain what they already have?
In other parts of the country, when parents receive vouchers they will discover that there is nowhere to redeem them. The difficulty is that they will not find that out until after the general election. They will receive the voucher perhaps a few weeks before the general election but a few weeks after it they will find that it is worthless because there is simply no provision. Clearly, the one group who will benefit from this are those who already have private provision. I do not criticise them for it; I believe that it shows a commendable priority on their part. But I question whether that should be a priority for the proper use of scarce public money. Why do we place an extra burden on the Exchequer for no extra benefit?
Other concerns have been mentioned, principal among them being quality and the maintenance of standards. All four LEAs in the pilot scheme—by definition, those which must be most keen on it—have expressed the view that the quality outcomes stated by SCAA set lower standards than those already set by them. That is the view of those who pilot the scheme, not those who are opposed to it. There is no requirement on private providers to employ qualified teachers or provide adequate training, yet high levels of skill are needed here. If we are to maintain, let alone improve, quality no single factor is more important than high level training. I recognise that many voluntary and private providers provide an excellent standard of service. It is clear that they are among those who are most concerned about the effect of this Bill. Private and voluntary providers will not receive rigorous Ofsted-style inspections. As the noble Lord, Lord Moms, has said, they will receive no inspections at all before registration. They will be phased over a period of time and they will be allowed a further period of time to come up to standard.
676
I understand that the Government intend to train 4,000 new nursery inspectors to augment the present number of qualified nursery inspectors, which I believe to be 27. That is very desirable, but is it achievable? How long will it take to achieve, and what will happen while it is being achieved? There will also be light-touch inspections, which I understand to mean one-day visits, not the usual three or four-day inspections. However well trained the inspectors may eventually be, I question how they can measure quality and standards on the basis of a one-day inspection.
I have already mentioned training for providers. That is extremely important. The value of the voucher will not cover the cost of training; nor will it cover the capital costs. If we are to see an expansion in provision the capital costs must come first: the cost of premises, the cost of equipment and so on.
The other major area of concern is special educational needs. I do not have time to do justice to that subject as I would wish. It is said that the voucher scheme is for all four year-olds. It is self-evident that the costs of providing good quality early-years learning for those with special needs must be greater, yet this is not recognised in the voucher scheme. The Government have made clear that no additional resources will be provided through the voucher scheme for those with special needs. If they are thinking about that again we welcome it, but we will need a good deal more reassurance than we have had so far.
LEA-maintained providers will have to comply with the code of practice, quite rightly, yet as I understand it private and voluntary providers will not. There seems to be no logic in that. It is not a level playing field and, above all, it is a matter of great concern to those whose children have special needs and are on such premises. A similar point can be made about funding that currently comes through Section 11 for those with English as a second language.
I said at the beginning that I believed early-years learning needed to be linked to care. That is a subject to which we will return. We believe that it should be linked to existing Children Act legislation. That is important, and I know that there is a proposal to that effect from the Children's Charities Consortium, which I wholly support.
My next and last point on nursery vouchers relates to evaluation. We have four pilot projects, although I gather they are now to be called "phase one" rather than pilots. There is no purpose in having pilot projects—that is what they are—unless we are to learn from the experience. It is vital, especially if we are in due course to pass a Bill which gives the Secretary of State such wide powers of arrangement, that Parliament should first have an opportunity to see a proper evaluation of the current pilot projects. I accept that it will take some years to have an in-depth, long-term evaluation, but we can have a short-term evaluation of the scheme as it is being implemented in those pilot areas. It is fundamental that that should be before Parliament before we allow the Secretary of State to go ahead and to impose on the rest of the country the mistakes from the pilot schemes and these proposals.

677
It may well be that we are all wrong: the scheme may work perfectly or be made to work perfectly. We may be wrong; the Minister may be right. That is all the more reason for that to be demonstrated through a proper evaluation of the pilot scheme.
I wish to turn briefly to the other aspect of the Bill: that concerning grant-maintained schools. There is a real danger that with all the attention on nursery vouchers that aspect of the Bill will be overlooked. To some extent it has been overlooked. Although it is an important part of the Bill, it is a less important part.
In some respects it is a difficult issue for Liberal Democrats, because alone of the parties in this Parliament we would return grant-maintained schools to LEAs. All I wish to say at this stage is that it is easy to borrow money; it is much harder to repay money. Not enough attention is being paid in the Bill, or what we have heard about the arrangements, to the ability of schools to repay debts with which they burden themselves. Nor is it clear how surplus or core assets are to be defined. We shall need to return to that point in much more detail at a later stage. Suffice to say at this stage that, if enacted, this part of the Bill will make the present uneven playing field even more uneven than it is at present.
We have already referred to the widespread concern and even opposition that there is to these proposals. What has happened in the pilot areas has done nothing to persuade us to the contrary. The biggest offence of the Bill is that it is an enormous wasted opportunity to provide good quality nursery and early-years education for three and four year-olds—an objective we all share. The Bill fails comprehensively in that.
4.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, the importance of early years learning cannot be overestimated. However, it is sometimes not recognised that the crucial first educators are of course the parents. In continuing education they are crucial. I hope that nothing we say about the significance and importance of nursery education will detract from the key part that parents have to play. The Bill seems to put parents into the category of consumers—quite properly allowing them choice about where to go for their children's early education—but we need to see them also as educators themselves: parents and learning institutions working hand in hand with one another. That does not take away the enormous importance of nursery education. It is right that all children aged four and over, and younger children, should receive it. It is also clear that the present provision is variable and that present expansion is right.
The question is whether this is the right way. Noble Lords have already expressed hostility. I am aware of the many hostilities and hesitations that there are around. I, too, have received the huge amount of correspondence to which other noble Lords have referred. However, I felt it right in this debate not to depend on those letters. I thought that your Lordships
678
might value something from a Church perspective, given that Church schools form such a substantial proportion of the state system.
I felt it right therefore to consult two dioceses which lie in areas where the pilot projects are occurring. One is the diocese of Norwich, in Norfolk, and one the diocese of Southwark in south London—one rural and one urban. Not surprisingly, some of their concerns overlap and some are markedly different.
It may be worth sharing with noble Lords something of the present strength of nursery provision in the rural areas of Norfolk, once again making the point that nearly 60 per cent. of the schools with fewer than 60 pupils in Norfolk are Church schools. I shall give some examples of the good practice that is already taking place. There is one high school cluster which has a nursery school with several locations, each village feeder school having provision which differs from school to school but which ranges from mother and toddler groups to full playgroups and nursery classes. In another school, a nursery trained early years teacher supervises a member of staff with a nursery nurse qualification who works full-time with a nursery class on the premises.
Many aided Church schools would like to do that, but they cannot persuade the DfEE to provide the necessary grant. I shall return to that matter in a moment. One school in Norfolk provides all-day child care for all children. It operates by means of a breakfast and an after-school club. During the school day a playgroup and a nursery operate in the same room. Many rural schools provide educational expertise and secretarial help to playgroups operating in their catchment area. They ensure that the voluntary carers can provide adequate activities and the natural links into the future school.
The chief lesson which the diocese of Norwich draws from that experience is that it is of paramount importance that any village with a school must be able to provide for its children locally. There may be different models by which that can be done, but it must be local provision. The difficulties which are already arising from the pilot scheme are that it is bureaucratic. I do not need to underline the point which has already been powerfully made. I could perhaps add one particular point, that in rural schools where there may be two teachers, the burden placed on the staff, in addition to their teaching responsibilities, is a considerable one. This diocese cannot understand why the money is not paid directly to schools or to the Funding Agency for Schools. The numbers in school are well known. Surely it would be a simple operation to short-circuit the paperchase and to provide the funds direct.
The diocese points out that in rural areas choice is difficult because the travel problems are serious, particularly when a carer is left at home because the one car has already been used. So the provision has to be local. The diocese also makes the point that those LEAs which are already high providers are most at risk, not least because of the difficulty in persuading parents to take up their voucher.

679
I turn now to the Southwark anxieties. Again, it begins with the same point—that the scheme creates a complicated bureaucracy for parents and schools. It makes the additional point which one would expect from this urban, cosmopolitan area—there are considerable difficulties for bilingual parents, parents with literacy or learning difficulties, and for those who are refugees. There may be a variety of parents who have difficulty in applying for a voucher. Clearly, that is more likely to occur in inner city and disadvantaged areas. It is precisely in those areas that the need for pre-statutory age provision is the greatest.
They make the point that the planned withdrawal of requirements for standards of school premises, in terms of minimum teaching areas, may create a reduction in the quality of educational provision. They also make the point that schools will have no knowledge of exactly how many vouchers will come their way until the beginning of the year. They will not know their budgets in advance, and therefore there is bound to be an element of instability and uncertainty about funding.
Those are initial reflections, but they are specific and arise out of experience of the pilot projects. They underline the strong case for delaying implementation of the scheme until the pilots have been evaluated. I hope that we shall be able to return to that matter.
I wish to make two specific points in relation to Church schools. I drew attention to one of the points earlier, but perhaps I may enlarge upon it. It was the provision for capital grants for Church schools which wished to develop nursery facilities. At present those grants are available under Section 281 of the Education Act 1993. All government grants for aided school building works are paid under that section. They must provide not only for new nursery buildings but for all kinds of minor works, repairs, basic need provision, and so forth, for statutory school-aged pupils. Frequently LEAs are willing to support a nursery unit at an aided school but the school cannot obtain the necessary grant from the DfEE. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have broad powers to make arrangements for grants in respect of nursery education. Would it not be possible for those powers to include grants for capital funds for those Church-aided schools which wish to expand into that area?
I wish to make a brief point in relation to inspection, the importance of which has been emphasised. It is concerned with the denominational inspection. Church schools are anxious to ensure that as regards issues covered by Section 13 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992—that is, inspection of what is regarded as denominational, in particular inspection of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development—those inspecting an aided school will be able to include the nursery children in their report. I hope that that will be clarified during debates on the Bill.
I do not wish to say a great deal about grant-maintained borrowing powers. They appear in a much slimmer section of the Bill than we might have expected, and I congratulate the Government on listening to the Churches, dioceses and Church schools,
680
which express their dismay about the fast-track arrangements. We are most grateful to the Government that they do not appear in the Bill.
I wish to make only one point about borrowing powers. The former voluntary schools which have now become grant maintained do not own their property. The school buildings are held by the trustees. Only the playing fields of such schools belong to the governing body. Will such schools be disadvantaged? If schools are to be expected to borrow in some way against their capital assets, will the Minister make it clear that the funding agency will not be taking account of powers to borrow when allocating grant? The Churches believe that if that were the case, those former voluntary schools would be at some disadvantage.
I have expressed my hesitations and anxieties about the Bill and I believe that delay in implementation is the right way forward.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I fully support the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I also support and agree with the anxieties expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. I speak mainly as a result of the avalanche of letters that I have received from parents, governors, teachers and organisations in Wales. They have expressed their strong opposition to the voucher scheme and I believe that those anxieties should be related in your Lordships' House.
The provision of full-time nursery education for four year-olds in Wales has been and continues to be very different from that in England. For many years, in some cases since the beginning of the century, the Welsh LEAs have recognised the crucial importance of pre-school education. In many parts of Wales they have already reached the Prime Minister's aim for nursery education for four year-olds and will soon exceed that aim. We are particularly proud of that record.
All that should have led to a different initiative on the part of the Welsh Office from that of the Department for Education and Employment which is proposed in the Bill. It is self-evident that in the context of nursery education the main need in Wales is to extend nursery provision to three year-olds. But we have been landed with this Bill which we say is unnecessary and inappropriate for our needs.
Moreover, we say that it is a Bill which could, in the longer term, be damaging in many ways to existing provisions. So great is the anxiety in Wales that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in another place considered it proper to set up an inquiry to consider the proposed voucher scheme and its likely impact. Its report, No. 186 of the Session 1995–96, was issued on 19th February. I cannot recall whether the Minister referred in his speech to that report but it is essential reading as regards the position in Wales.
Not surprisingly, the committee reported that there was consensus among all the groups and bodies involved that the Welsh local education authorities already provided an exemplary service for four

681
year-olds. That emerges also from the evidence of the Welsh Office Minister, Mr. Rod Richards, who readily acknowledged that:
"There has been an important and indeed a significant public sector investment in nursery education in Wales in the past and indeed more than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have an excellent record".
Those words are to be found on page 3 of the report. At page 6 the Minister stated that nursery education,
"actually is very, very high indeed".
I emphasise those words and believe that it is as clear a statement of approval of current provision as one could ask.
All the bodies which gave evidence to the Select Committee and all the Welsh voluntary organisations with a special interest in nursery education, apart from the Wales Pre-school Playgroups Association, are firmly opposed to the voucher scheme.
For informed and reliable guidance on children's issues in Wales I have learnt to look to the advice of Children in Wales. It is a body of high standing and is core funded by the Welsh Office. It is the equivalent of the English National Children's Bureau and Children in Scotland. That body expressed its general response to the Government's proposals in the following terms:
"Whilst we welcome additional money being put in to the vital area of pre-school education and acknowledge that the scheme may lead to an expansion of provision for some four year-olds, we are dismayed at the choice of a voucher mechanism as a means of expanding pre-school education".
Those words are on page 72 of the report. It recommended that the Government should disapply the voucher scheme in Wales or, failing that, that they should postpone phase two until the evaluation of phase one could provide answers to the anxieties expressed.
Therefore, it is sufficient for me now to read the two principal conclusions of the Select Committee which are to be found in paragraphs 39 and 40. The first conclusion reads:
"We regret that arrangements have not been made for a pilot scheme in Wales".
The second conclusion reads:
"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".
There is no reason at all for the voucher scheme to apply in Wales, except the one advanced by the Welsh Office Minister, Mr. Richards, and touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, this afternoon; namely, that it extends choice. But how relevant in the context of nursery education is the Minister's reasoning? The picture conjured up of Welsh parents desperately seeking choice of nursery education facilities for their four year-olds to avoid a reliance on the very good LEA services which are freely available strikes one as being quite unreal.
There are four other specific concerns that I should mention. I shall be brief. They are touched upon in the report of the Select Committee. First, there is deep regret that the new money, which is to be spent on nursery education, is not being spent in Wales on
682
extending nursery provision to include three year-olds as the existing service for them is underdeveloped. Moreover, there is also the risk that the existing LEA facilities for three year-olds could be weakened in the longer term if there is a significant shift of four year-olds out of the maintained sector.
Secondly, the potential damage to small, rural primary schools is great. Because fewer four year-olds may henceforth go to the local school for their nursery education, the school itself may no longer be viable. The school may have to close. It is idle to think that closure does not matter. The whole rural community is worried about that prospect. The Welsh Office was closely questioned on that aspect by the Select Committee which produced a supplementary memorandum. After considering the evidence, the committee concluded in paragraph 22:
"We remain concerned that the viability of small schools may be threatened by the voucher scheme".
Thirdly, the overall effect of a voucher scheme could be a grave threat to the continued expansion of Welsh-medium education in the voluntary sector and, in the longer term, to Welsh-medium primary schools. I should mention that about one in five of the population of Wales speaks Welsh. That is the fear of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, the voluntary body which has for just over a quarter of a century played a very successful role in the promotion and provision of Welsh-medium nursery education. Its evidence to the Select Committee has the enormous corroborative support of the statutory Welsh Language Board which is, inter alia, the Secretary of State's advisory body on the Welsh language and which maintains a strategic overview of the provision of Welsh-medium education. The board advised the committee:
"It is a cause of concern to the Board that the vouchers scheme could have a ruinous effect on services currently provided by Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin".
That extract can be found on page 69 of the report.
Fourthly, and finally, nowhere is there any evidence that the Welsh Office has undertaken, commissioned or sponsored any research into the likely impact of the voucher scheme upon the existing provision of nursery education in Wales. The Welsh Office seems to have shirked that task, which is extraordinary behaviour on its part. It is also worrying. But if that is not true, and if the Welsh Office has undertaken such studies, I should be grateful if a copy thereof could be deposited in the Library of the House before we come to the Committee stage.
I have sought to set out some valid reasons why the Welsh Office should opt out of the scheme. Of course, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is to reply to the debate, is not a Welsh Office Minister, but I should be grateful—as, indeed, would many people in Wales—if he would convey to the Secretary of State for Wales the message that the voucher scheme should not apply in Wales until it has been preceded by a pilot scheme in Wales as urged by the Welsh Language Board, Children in Wales, Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin and the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in another place; and until the pilot scheme has established that the consequences of the proposed voucher scheme are not

683
likely to weaken or damage existing provisions. Can we expect that small but reasonable concession from Ministers?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, even though the debate has begun earlier than anticipated, perhaps I may at the outset apologise to the Minister and to the House for the fact that, because of a longstanding evening engagement, I may have to leave before the end of this afternoon's debate. While doing so, perhaps I may also record the sincere apologies of my noble friend Lord Baldwin who had very much hoped to be able to contribute to our debate today.
As many of your Lordships will be aware, I have had the privilege for some time of chairing the Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education. In 1993 we produced a comprehensive report entitled Learning to Succeed, based upon more than two years of detailed study and analysis of Britain's education system. We made a series of recommendations upon what we saw as being necessary to bring education and training in the UK up to a proper international standard. Subsequently, upon assessing developments occurring after the publication of our full report, we followed up our original recommendations by publishing in 1995 a booklet entitled Learning to Succeed: The Way Ahead.
Although the commission is no longer formally in existence, we nevertheless continue to keep a watching brief on developments in education through the work of a small steering group. I can, I believe, speak with authority on behalf of my former colleagues on the commission and on behalf of those in the steering group in saying that one of the principal recommendations that we made in 1993, and which we reiterated last year, related to the crucial importance of nursery education, and that is the part of the Bill upon which I wish to comment today.
The investigations that we carried out confirmed, as the Minister agreed in his lucid introduction, that research carried out in the USA and in the UK has shown that good quality nursery education has long-lasting educational and social benefits. The Headstart and High Scope programmes in the United States showed that, when this was provided to an adequate standard, children learnt and developed more quickly once they entered primary school; that they also demonstrated much less in the way of behaviour disorders and criminal behaviour in later life; and they also achieved much higher educational standards than those who had not experienced such education. As the National Campaign for Nursery Education has commented, one group of American workers concluded that for every dollar spent on early learning programmes, seven dollars would be saved later through the reduction of educational and social difficulties.
Research carried out in my former university of Newcastle-upon-Tyne compared children receiving high quality nursery education with those attending playgroups and those attending neither. This showed that the first group forged ahead in primary school. Those attending playgroups did a little better than the
684
controls but not nearly as well as those receiving good nursery education. Hence money spent on early pre-school education can be seen to be an excellent investment in any nation's future. We on the national commission were therefore much encouraged to read that in December 1993 the Prime Minister, John Major, stated that ultimately he wished to see every three and four year-old child have access to a nursery education place.
However, it has been unclear since that date as to what perception many members of the public, and indeed some of those in government, hold about its nature and content. While such education clearly involves a component of childcare, and while it is clear that for three year-olds certainly, and usually for four year-olds, trained nursery teachers should he supported in appropriate nursery schools by a nursery nurse, childcare facilities alone do not necessarily provide the educational experience required for the best nursery education. Equally, the teaching of children in these early years is a specialised task which not all teachers trained for primary education possess, and which requires appropriate skills and experience.
It is equally important to stress that early admission to primary schools or to reception classes for four year-olds, while of some benefit can never be an adequate substitute for properly planned nursery education. This needs to be provided in separate buildings, or at least in self-contained premises within primary schools—premises which are available for the sole use of nursery children. The curriculum requires knowledge and understanding of the developmental needs of children, including the factors and interactions which foster and inhibit development.
The Pre-School Learning Alliance, Professors Christine Pascal, Kathy Sylva and others, have done much excellent work in defining early learning curriculum content which lays the foundation for the more formal curriculum of compulsory education which follows. I have also been much impressed by the features of high quality nursery education described in the leaflet provided by the national campaign.
It follows that the essential features of good nursery education are, first, dedicated premises which may, as I have said, be in nursery classes in primary schools—but these must be properly housed and defined—and well trained staff. Much has been achieved over the past 10 years and some local authorities have produced an admirable programme of good quality nursery education not just for four year-olds but in some cases for three year-olds as well. However, the provision has been remarkably uneven across the United Kingdom. Some local authorities provide such education for not more than 20 per cent., and some for almost 90 per cent. of four year-old children, and a much lower percentage of three year-olds. There is of course some excellent provision, as well as some which is mediocre, in the independent sector.
The case therefore for nursery education is now incontrovertible. I urge your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has said, to note the present position in France, as discussed in a Franco-British Council

685
symposium in April this year. Some 10 per cent. of the French budget for education in schools—compared with 4 per cent. in the UK—is spent on this sector and whole-time provision for four and three year-olds is virtually universal. I commend to your Lordships the article by Patricia Rowan in the Times Educational Supplement of 26th April.
But will the Government's voucher scheme produce the results we would all hope to see? Frankly, I must say with regret that I doubt it. What, then, are my principal concerns? The first must surely relate to the take-up of the vouchers. Is there not a strong probability that middle-class parents will apply for them avidly, including even some who may already be paying for private nursery education? Is it likely that in inner city areas in particular, but also in rural areas, less affluent and underprivileged families will seek these vouchers? In other words, will they really benefit families and children most in need? Plainly there is little chance that voucher funding will be enough to refurbish old buildings or to build new. Indeed many authorities have calculated that the vouchers could provide much less per child than they at present spend on publicly-funded high quality nursery education. Why have regulations relating to basic standards of space, light, hygiene and safety been withdrawn with the consequential risk that some may attempt to offer such education in totally inappropriate premises in the hope of attracting voucher support?
While the principle of parental choice is one that I am sure we must all commend, I cannot help but feel that targeted funding provided through local authorities and through the grant-maintained schools system, directed to the areas of greatest need, and especially where existing provision is poor, would have been a much more sensible way of funding the developments that we would all wish to see spread evenly across the United Kingdom. Of course the specific problem of young children with special educational needs must not be overlooked. I must also express serious concern about the availability of properly qualified teachers and the proposals relating to inspection. One cannot but suspect that some of the vouchers will be used to purchase places in childcare facilities which may be satisfactory in a caring sense but which will provide no significant educational experience upon which primary education can subsequently build. The proposals relating to inspection and accreditation of institutions do not at present persuade me either that inspectors with appropriate training and expertise will be available, or indeed that the frequency and quality of the inspections will be adequate to ensure that appropriate education is provided.
I could elaborate much further but my purpose in contributing to this debate is not, I hope, to be hypercritical but to express some of the concerns which have been brought to my attention by many of those working in education and especially in the nursery sector. There are real fears that those local authorities which already provide excellent nursery education will find their provision lessened or impaired as a consequence of the voucher scheme. Indeed, existing
686
funding which they devote to four year-olds is being withdrawn and put into vouchers. The Government assure us—as the Minister has done this afternoon—that there will be substantial new money; that existing expenditure on three year-olds will be unaffected; and that vouchers will restore to local authorities the money they are losing. But will this prove to be the case in practice? Such evidence as has emerged to date about the take-up of the pilot or phase one scheme in four boroughs is not, I fear, encouraging. The Minister may well, of course, have more up-to-date figures, but I have been informed that the take-up so far is only around 60 per cent. in the four phase one local education authorities.
If parents do not produce a voucher, they are unable to find a place for their child or children, and existing institutions receiving few vouchers will suffer. As others have said already this afternoon, it is surely crucial that a full and detailed evaluation of the pilot scheme in phase one should be undertaken before vouchers are extended more widely across the country next year. The Government must tell us what has been the take-up of the vouchers. What effect has the scheme had upon existing nursery education? What evidence has emerged to indicate that such provision of high quality has been extended in the areas under study? What form of inspection of new establishments has been undertaken and what have been the results? What evidence, if any, has been obtained relating to the take-up of vouchers by those families patently most in need? Finally, we shall wish to know what has been the feedback from parents on the value of the scheme to date. Many other questions could be posed but those are some which I trust the Minister will be able to answer at the end of this debate. If I am compelled to leave early, I shall read carefully his response.
5 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it is of considerable significance that in the half a dozen speeches in the debate so far there has been considerable repetition. I shall repeat some facts; and I have no doubt that some of my noble friends will do so. There is nothing wrong with that for two reasons. First, it serves to emphasise the points made; and, perhaps more importantly, it serves to emphasise a fact that the Government should realise: that there are glaring gaps and mistakes in the Bill.
Speaking on the Bill in another place on 19th March, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that the Bill,
"will … deliver choice to parents who want to give their four year-olds the best possible start in life".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/96; col. 264.]
That sentence had a familiar ring. It required only a few moments' thought to remember that a previous Secretary of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, said much the same thing in stronger terms. However, it is about 17 years since that was first said.
Baroness David: It is more than that.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. It was before the noble Baroness,

687
Lady Thatcher, became Prime Minister. But after 17 years we are having the first possible intimation of public nursery education. On the whole noble Lords opposite have sent their children to private nurseries. I do not complain about that. However, it is time that there was an expansion of first-class public nursery education which is free.
The Bill before us is not quite the same proposal. We on these Benches will show that the Bill may reduce the number of nursery school places. Moreover, the scheme is being proposed against a background of a steady expansion of nursery education provided largely, but not entirely, by Labour local authorities.
The pathetic proposals in this Bill are set against the overwhelming case for nursery education—evidence seen not only in this country but in every nation where nursery school education is established. Its value is not in doubt. My noble friend on the Front Bench spent some time on that issue. I hope that in a debate of this kind we need not spend time on it. We are concerned about how nursery education can be delivered. We believe that the proposals are inadequate. Perhaps we should be kind and say that at long last the Government have been converted to seeing the value of education for the under-fives. I only hope that the proposals in the Bill will produce that education.
The basis of the Government's case is that by providing vouchers worth £1,100 for parents, there will be an expansion of the provision of high class nursery education—indeed, they would argue a massive expansion of such provision. On the quantity of that increase, we shall have to wait and see. But I suspect that it will be parallel to the forecasts made by the Government in relation to grant-maintained schools. There was to be a tremendous rush for grant-maintained status. Noble Lords will remember that being said many times. It has turned out that some 1,100 out of 25,000 have chosen to opt out. However, the quality of the increase, if it should come about, gives rise to considerable doubt. What about the buildings and related facilities? What about the number of qualified teachers? That factor is crucial in the development of nursery education. What about proper supervision and inspection? These are vital matters, and if the standards required are not met, great damage will have been done.
Even more important is the fact that the issuing of vouchers in many cases simply will not produce nursery school places. Is not this already being seen by parents in the pilot areas? My noble friend Lord Morris produced a formidable list of opponents to the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I produce one instance more. I cannot forget that in 1994 when a voucher scheme was first suggested, the Secretary of State described such a proposal as "unwieldy", and as recently as 1995 she had not changed her mind because she said that it is "not the favoured option". In the fullness of time it will be interesting to know why there was such a fundamental change of mind—although some of us can probably have a good guess as to why that came about.
I press the point about provision under the proposed scheme. The DfEE said in a briefing note that there is,
688
"no cast-iron guarantee of a place, at least in the first instance, until new places are introduced in response to parent demand".
Demand, apparently, is the answer and the key to it all. I pose the question: how long will the "first instance" last? Will it be weeks, months or years? What happens in the meantime? Nothing, presumably.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I turn to a specific case because I believe that it is important to understand how the scheme will work. The proposals in the Bill are causing great concern in County Durham. The county has an excellent record in the provision of nursery education. However, the details that I shall give will apply equally to other local education authorities which have taken such provision seriously over the years, and which have the same excellent record as County Durham. They take the view, correctly, that the essential difficulty with the voucher scheme is that most of the funding for it is not new money from the Government but clawed back from LEAs on the grossly unfair basis that only money provided by the Government for four year-olds which is actually spent on four year-olds is clawed back by the Government. In other words, local education authorities which receive the same grant but do not value nursery education highly and spend that money on other things, keep their money; and those authorities which have the best record of providing nursery education will lose the most money.
County Durham has 24 nursery schools, 87 nursery units and one children's centre, which provide 7,654 three and four year-olds with free part-time nursery education. Therefore, is it not strange that with that kind of dedication and enthusiasm under proposals purporting to increase nursery provision money allocated by Government to LEAs but not spent in that way is left intact and thus lost to nursery education, but other funding actually spent on nursery education is withdrawn? That seems to be a ludicrous situation.
It is necessary, too, to remind your Lordships that the Government's scheme is for four year-olds only, with an unspecified intention to provide for three year-olds at some time in the future. For those LEAs like Durham which have extensive provision for three year-olds as well as for four year-olds, the three year-olds could well be left high and dry if nursery provision collapses as a result of the voucher proposals.
The figures for Durham County Council are dramatic and should be put on record. The council spends £21.5 million each year providing education for three and four year-olds. In 1995–96 government funding to support this was £10.66 million, only half of the cost involved. To fund nursery vouchers, the Government will take away over £8 million from the £10.66 million.
Have the Government really thought through what might happen to what might be called "good" authorities? If what I have described happens, does it not mean that poor providers of nursery places will keep the government grant which they receive but do not spend on the under-fives and will, in addition, receive the "new money" too?
I want the Government to make this central point clear, so I pose the question in another way. Four year-olds who attend a maintained nursery school or unit

689
will be able to exchange their voucher, worth £1,100, for the same education they receive now, and the LEA will make up any difference in the cost. Is that the position? We bear in mind that it is generally recognised that an LEA nursery education place costs more than £2,000 a year. That figure varies—it is set somewhere between £1,500 and £2,000. For every four year-old who does not take up a maintained place, the LEA will lose £1,100 which could mean that nursery places would have to be reduced.
I turn briefly to the working of the scheme in the pilot areas. Three of the local authority associations sent all or most of us, I presume, a brief which contains disturbing figures. They are that 40 per cent. of initial application forms sent by Capita were not returned by mid-March 1996. Parents had then to apply to local providers from a list supplied by the voucher agency. The associations say that nearly one-fifth of those eligible in the four pilot areas failed to return their application forms. When he winds up, will the Minister say whether the figures are correct? If not, what are the figures? On such a basic aspect of the scheme, we need to know.
It is said, too, that all four of the pilot areas—or should we now call them phase one?—have expressed concern that vulnerable parents may fall through the net. That causes me great concern. Having regard to the bureaucracy of the whole scheme, it would not be in the least surprising but it will be tragic—and that is not too strong a word—if the children of such families were not to receive the benefit of nursery education. They are the ones with most to gain from nursery education.
Applying the principles of the market for an increase in the provision of nursery education could not be more misguided. A golden opportunity has been missed, not least because there is so much good practice throughout the country. A new untried scheme involving so much bureaucracy is completely unnecessary, open to abuse and, we ought to remember, expensive. An assessment of phase one of the scheme is essential, but I find it impossible to accept that the Government will be objective in their examination. The Minister will know that in another place a number of his honourable friends pressed the Government closely on that. I realise that the Secretary of State said that a deep assessment would be made. However, this is the last Government to say that they were wrong on anything, so why do they not have an independent body or person to examine what has happened in the pilot areas? A Ron Dearing—though not necessarily Ron, he has plenty on his plate at the moment—would produce a report which would be broadly acceptable to everyone interested in the scheme and could be carried out with a minimum of expense and time. Unless that is done, there will be as little faith in the assessment of phase one as there is in the Bill as it now stands. Parents will see the measure as the completely inadequate proposal that it is.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being here at the start of the debate; I did my
690
best but I could not make it. I regret in particular not hearing my noble friend's opening speech and that of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
I wish to comment on both parts of the Bill and I start with Clause 6 which allows grant-maintained schools to borrow money commercially on the security of their land and property. Apparently they will only be allowed to pledge surplus property as collateral, property not necessary for their core functions. That does not seem to me to be well defined, but I pass that by.
The question I wish to ask is this: if grant-maintained schools can borrow on their property from the private sector, why not local authority schools as well? The answer seems to be that local authority loans are guaranteed by the Treasury. Local authorities have not been allowed to borrow against their assets since the late 1980s. Their borrowings count as part of the PSBR which the Government are trying to reduce. So local authorities can keep part of their receipts from sales, but the rest has to go to debt redemption. Grant-maintained schools are not obliged to return to LAs the property they took over when they opted out, even if it is surplus to their needs.
My first question and worry about the Bill is this: does it not redistribute assets from the local authorities to the GM schools? Is it not unfair that that accounting convention enables GM schools to borrow to improve their facilities but it prevents local authorities borrowing to do the same because their borrowing is included in the PSBR? I see the attractions of the position from the Government's view. The Bill gives more reason for local authority schools to opt into grant-maintained status. But I am against the method adopted. It is ad hoc and highlights the absurdity of the accounting convention, without doing anything to remove it. If private money needs to come into the state sector—as I think it does—it should be available to all schools on the same terms. That requires all schools be put on the same legal basis as far as their borrowing rights are concerned. In the end, we will have to get rid of the anomaly because it is unsustainable.
I turn to the voucher part of the Bill. In principle, I am all in favour of steps to increase parental choice. I also understand that a choice system is easier to introduce when there is a deficit of places, as exists in pre-school education. I have no worries about the take up of the voucher. Noble Lords quoted the figure of 60 per cent. take up; my information is that to date 13,650 eligible parents—that is 84 per cent.—have applied for the voucher, not 60 per cent. So phase one has been much more successful than was stated at the outset. We know from experience that the take up always expands for every entitlement when information about it spreads, so I believe that take-up is a red herring.
The question I have for my noble friend is rather different. Is a universal entitlement to pre-school education for four year-olds and eventually three year-olds the best way of using scarce resources? I have to point out that despite almost unanimous support for the principle of pre-school education, the empirical basis for believing that it will more than pay for itself in the long run is shaky.

691
I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, that I shall spend time on this. Whenever an opinion is completely unanimous, there must be something wrong with it. It is remarkable how credulous some noble Lords are about evidence which justifies large increases in public spending. Scepticism is a more appropriate Conservative attitude and I intend to apply it to the evidence.
The only systematic research into the long-term effects of pre-schooling—and the long-term effects are the most important—comes from the United States. Major studies in 1985 and 1991 of Head Start, begun by Lyndon Johnson to break the cycle of poverty, as noble Lords know, showed a modest initial improvement which disappeared after two or three years. I quote from the 1991 report: the programmes had "little lasting effect" on scholastic attainment or social behaviour.
A research-focused programme known as High Scope, to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred, tracked two groups of heavily deprived children from the ages of three to 27. The first group which received pre-schooling has caused less criminal damage, incurred lower costs to the criminal justice system, paid more taxes and required less remedial schooling than the second group. That programme has been successful.
What conclusions can we draw from it? The per capita costs of the programme are 12,500 dollars per pupil. That is much higher than anything that has been contemplated here, either through vouchers or current per capita provision. Only 60 children were involved and a high level of parental support was secured. The conclusion is that costly, well-targeted programmes may yield beneficial long-term effects. But that is very different from creating a universal entitlement to four-and three-year education.
The Government have budgeted £390 million of new money for three years. But we know that it will not end there. All experience tells us that the costs will escalate. Already, there are loud cries—we heard many this afternoon—that the entitlement is being under-financed. We are told that £1,100 will not be enough to cover the extra training for teachers, helpers, advisers, inspectors and start-up costs. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to that.
We hear in all this the loud drip of special interest pleading. It is amazing to me that so many noble Lords take these briefings at face value and do not apply an appropriate discount to them. The special pleading cannot be ignored. The Government are creating a predictable and formidable new source of upward pressure on public spending—and that is before three year-olds enter the picture. How does that square with their policy of driving down public spending in the long run—a policy I support?
Nor does the damage end there. It is true that parents will be able to spend their vouchers in private schools. But instead of relying on market competition to force up standards, the Government have decided instead to extend their regulatory powers to all providers of pre-schooling.
692
We are told that it is meant to be a "light touch" system. It does not seem that way to me. Schools will be expected to work towards desirable learning outcomes, specified by the SCAA. They will be expected to adopt good practice—whatever that means. They will be regularly inspected by Ofsted; will be required to publish annual reports covering a large range of topics; will have to satisfy rules about staff qualifications and class sizes; will be subject to health and safety regulations; and will have to teach for a specified number of hours each year. Is that a light regulatory regime? No, I do not think so.
But all the special interests say that it is not enough regulation; we must have much more. It is not parental choice that emerges victorious, but bureaucratic politics. At the first instance of an accident in a private nursery school, all of them will be yelling for more regulation. Is that what the Government want?
It must be wrong in principle to create a universal entitlement to deal with a limited problem. If I wanted to spend the money, I should deliberately direct scarce resources towards deprived children—they are the ones who may need them, both pre-school and at school age—through well-funded, High Scope-type experiments; perhaps by reducing primary school class sizes since there is evidence that smaller classes help learning; and perhaps by extra reading practice in school holidays. Those are the kinds of areas to which this money should go.
There are some good points in the Bill. It allows private money into the system; it extends the important principle of parental choice; it introduces the language of the voucher into our education system. However, I find it unfair in one part and misguided in the other. And I am far from sure what useful amendments can be made without wrecking the Bill.
I conclude, with regret, that I cannot give more support to my noble friend.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I intend to argue on the basis of my own personal regard for nursery education. I wanted it for my own children and tried to get it for those whom I represented in the North of England. This Bill is not the way to set about improving the situation.
I have long believed in the value of nursery education. I started school, 70-plus years ago, in a pit village at an early age. That led me later to understand the great value accorded to education in the Welsh mining areas. It is far superior to the attitude I came across in the leafy suburbs—and for good reasons. I saw the value of pre-school education for my children, who now have children of their own. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Skildelsky, thinks as to the value of nursery education, they will want it for their children. Whatever the researchers say, I stand by my children. They pay for it; they want it; and I want it for a wider group of children. I also saw the value of pre-school education in my north of England constituency, south Leeds. The right reverend Prelate will know that very well. It falls within his area. The Government are not setting about the matter in the right way.

693
I had wanted to say a word about the value of pre-school education, but it was dealt with far better than I could deal with it by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who explained why he had to leave. I therefore take that as read. In his remarks, the noble Lord made the distinction between childcare, playgroups and nursery education. This Bill relates to nursery education, not playgroups. I am glad that playgroups exist. My daughters-in-law have played a part in setting up playgroups. Such groups are excellent. I refer, however, to nursery education. The research referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, showed the great advantage of nursery education for young children.
Among the many letters that we have all received, I cite one addressed to me from the headmaster, Mr. Jones, of Croeserw primary school in Port Talbot, South Wales. The point he raises is relevant to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. His letter states:
"Some of the children in our school enter with no oral skills at all".
These are not children who are mentally ill; they are children who have never been spoken to and are unable to speak.
"They can only make noises and a great deal of time and energy is devoted to remedy this situation".
It is no good leaving it to primary schools. The sooner we have access to such children, the better. Mr. Jones continues:
"Our parents do not have the articulation and influence that more prosperous areas enjoy and so we ask you to defend the defenceless".
I have come across that syndrome myself.
I say to the Minister that it is no good thinking that someone who comes along and says that he is going to set up a private institution can invite such parents down for tea and scones in the afternoon, or for cocktails and olives later in the evening. The parents are a problem. I do not say that in any snooty way; I grew up among, and represented, such people. They need the state to step in and do something about the situation. The private institutions will not do it because it costs extra money. I am not against private institutions setting up if that is what they want to do. But I believe that the concept and approach of the Bill are wrong.
To turn to existing provision, the Bill presently relates to four areas. The Audit Commission points out that the provision of pre-school places for three and four year-olds depends on where the family lives. Education has always been better organised in the great northern cities and the Welsh mining areas, and by the old LCC at the turn of the century, long before the Labour Party came into prominence. The education authority in my city, Leeds, started higher grade schools which pre-dated the setting up of secondary education. Indeed, it broke the law, which forced the Government of the day, in 1902, to set up secondary schools on a basis of higher education. Sheffield is another city in point which had higher grade schools. Those cities have a proud record. They do not lag behind the southern counties or the rural areas. Metropolitan authorities have the highest levels of all in terms of nursery education.
694
As for the existing provision, the different types of schools and the different types of classes depend on where one lives. But the provisions in the Bill will cost money. I believe that the Government would do better to top up the existing provision rather than provide vouchers. My sons are very grateful for what the Government are doing. They already pay for their children to have nursery school education. The Government will now give them a voucher. But vouchers will not help the people whom I tried to represent for 35 years.
I have obtained some evidence from a part of the city of Leeds which I represented. As I said, it has always been a leader. By their nature, the metropolitan boroughs—the old county boroughs—were superior. That is spelt out in a number of letters that I have received from parents. Let me quote from a letter written to me by a school that I did not know as a primary school. I knew it as a secondary school and a Catholic school and after reorganisation the school became vacant. The letter says that in South Leeds, which is the poorer part of Leeds that I represented:
"The total amount being deducted from the Education Budget in Leeds is £10,508m representing 72% of the under 5's SSA allocation. The remaining £3.254m will be insufficient to fund the nursery education of 3 year olds and supplement funding of 4 year olds to the current level".
I put to the Minister that it is believed in Leeds that the scheme will reduce the provision that is already there. We need answers to that. Are those people wrong? Is it wrong that Leeds has nothing to fear and this scheme will maintain the excellent provision that is already there? Leeds is being penalised because of the excellent provision that it currently makes for three and four year-olds.
I have similar letters from up and down the country—for example from Solihull, all parts of south Wales, Neath and Port Talbot. I have quoted from one letter. Let me quote from another letter from Ystalyfera, which is one of the new local authority areas. The lady points out:
"Wales has a long history of providing excellent nursery provision for its three and four year-olds".
What are the Government worrying about? They are doing it for three and four year-olds. If there is a gap at the top, let us do something about it. She points out that Neath, Port Talbot and the city and County of Swansea provide part-time nursery education for all their three year-olds. It is superior and good. The Government ought to cheer, not try to make the situation worse for them. The letter goes on to say:
"The Nursery Voucher scheme may be of benefit to some areas of England"—
where the provision is low—
"but it is totally inappropriate for the children of Wales".
There are a number of questions to put. I had a delightful letter today from a lady from Shropshire, who writes:
"We have a daughter who is currently in a Nursery Class … and a son … We have opted to send our children to school in Wales".
She says that what they do in Wales is superior to what they do in that part of Shropshire. So that lady has parental choice and has chosen to go into an area where

695
the nursery education is superior. As regards Wales—I was born there but have no representational interest there—when one sees what is being done there, let alone in the City of Leeds, why not praise it and not look at it through the rosy eyes of the south of England?
Nevertheless, a number of questions must be put. There is the question asked earlier by my noble friend about Durham and the quality of the existing provision. The value of vouchers covers half the cost. Where is the rest of the money to come from? All the letters that I received raised that point. What shall I tell the parents at Sharp Lane Primary School, the one to which I have just referred. I have had many letters from there. There is good provision. They are afraid that the situation in that school will get worse. What can we offer to assure them that it will not get worse? How should the City of Leeds operate in general to maintain the fine education that it provides at nursery level?
What about the quality of teachers? I fully understand that it is good to put a clever chap who gets a first at university into the sixth form in a good school, without any educational training. It helps the sixth form and works perfectly. But at a lower level that is not the case. I started teaching years ago in an attempt to get into university, which I did. I needed money and there were no grants. I was advised to go into Norfolk, Suffolk or Cambridgeshire. "They'll take anybody there," I was told, "all you need is matriculation. You need no qualifications of any sort. It is run by the squarsons." I beg pardon of the right reverend Prelate, whom I called in aid.
One needs qualified teachers in nursery education. I understand that that is not the case for playgroups. But in nursery education someone is needed who has thought a little about the psychology of what they are doing, for example. Nursery education is not childcare.
Then there is the quality of the buildings. I wonder, from my own experience in Leeds, where the buildings are to come from. Heaven only knows! The schools about which I am talking have been slum cleared and rebuilt as very good corporation housing. But where are the school buildings to come from? Where will they build them? Where will the money for them be found, let alone anything else? I do not see private institutions coming into my old area. For family reasons, the area that concerns me most is that of special needs. The point was put to me by the head teacher of the Gnoll Primary School in Neath, which is right alongside the rugby ground. He writes:
"Children with special educational needs have not been properly catered for in this scheme. This school provides places for partially sighted and blind children from four counties from the age of three".
Will the new scheme provide places for partially sighted and blind children? The letter continues:
"The staffing costs would not be catered for by the voucher scheme".
There are other questions to ask as well with regard to special needs. The Special Educational Consortium notes that currently there are:
"home teaching schemes; early access to nursery education; informal access to the additional expertise in support services".
696
Will the voucher scheme provide those things? I doubt it. The voucher scheme is south of England stuff. It has been devised by people who know only one form of education. It is not the overall scheme for dealing with the problems of nursery education.
There is a problem in nursery education and, unlike other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe that it is vitally important to solve. In the kind of area that I know, it is not sufficient to say, "Pick it up in the primary school and do some reading classes in the holidays." It is much more serious than that. The problem goes much deeper and is more ingrained. This Bill shows the weakness of dogma in policy. It is dominated educationally by those who do not understand the problem areas. It will help my own grandchildren. But all we can do is try to improve the Bill. Time and the general election might do it for us.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I must apologise for not being in my place when the Minister made his opening statement or indeed at the beginning of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I can only plead that I was delayed receiving treatment for a frozen shoulder, which seems highly appropriate as I listened to a number of your Lordships' remarks on this Bill this afternoon.
As chairman of MENCAP, my concern—it is not my concern alone—is that children with learning disabilities should get the best possible start in their educational life and continue to learn throughout their life. The House's Library staff has done its usual excellent job in helping me (and others too, I am sure) to explore the basis for believing, or not believing, that the Bill does indeed ensure that such children do get the best possible start.
The Bill itself does not give me a great deal of information. Thanks to a government amendment at Report stage in another place, LEA's will be able to give some help to providers catering for children with special needs. Providers will have to explain what they are doing for children with special needs, though there is no general requirement on them to do anything. That means that their policy for such children might be, legally, not to admit them.
For further information, I have to turn to government statements. Speaking on the parallel Education (Scotland) Bill last week (Official Report, 13/5/96; col. 356), the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, said that it was the Government's intention that the introduction of the voucher scheme should in no way disadvantage children with special needs; and, specifically, that they should not be financially disadvantaged. The Minister, Mr. Squire, said much the same thing in another place some three months earlier, during the Committee stage of this Bill on 30th February, which can be found in the Official Report, at col. 243.
In the Next Steps document the Government said explicitly that they expected children with special needs, whether statemented or not, to receive appropriate provision. However, just as the high-wire artist remarked that he would have had more faith in what lay

697
ahead had he been able to see that the end of the wire was fixed to something, so I have to remark that I would have more faith in nursery vouchers as a means of securing the educational interests of children with severe learning disabilities if I saw their interests specifically protected in this legislation.
The concerns of those who seek to speak for the interests of disabled children will be familiar to the Minister, and will be reiterated by many of your Lordships at this Second Reading. They are, in brief, that resources will be lost to children under four with special needs; that the essential co-ordination between education, health and social services will become more difficult; that potential providers will be put off by vouchers which fall short of special needs costs and will lack the skills necessary to teach disabled children; that larger reception classes will mean a poorer service for that group; and that LEAs may find themselves with less special needs resources to allocate because of the diversion of resources to the generality of four year-olds. I hope the Minister will be able to say that my fears are groundless and, on the other hand, that the situation will be carefully monitored. If monitoring shows that my fears were less groundless than the Minister believed, I hope that steps will be taken urgently to make good the loss.
I have two other requests. The first concerns the code of practice on special educational needs. I invite the Minister, in replying, to be a little more forthcoming about introducing a firm requirement on all providers to have regard to the code. I accept that some of it may not be relevant to some providers, but the phrase "have regard to" is deliberately designed to secure the application of only those parts of the code which are, in a specific setting, relevant.
Secondly, if I correctly understood the Government's proposals regarding the Disability Discrimination Act, they are that the services provisions of the Act should not bite on places which provide voucher services, but should bite on similar places which do not take vouchers. That seems to me to lack a certain logic and I welcome the assurance that young children will have such protection as the discrimination Act affords.
In conclusion, as the Minister will recognise, I am at present a little like the Israelites in the wilderness when they first encountered manna—anxious to believe that good is intended, but not yet convinced of the value of what is on offer.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in speaking in today's debate I should declare an interest as a governor over many years of a primary school which provides nursery education for three and four year-olds, both full and part-time, with around 50 per cent. of its reception class children as four year-olds. I view with some trepidation the bureaucracy and the administrative implications of what will happen following the passage of this Bill.
Earlier in the debate, in a rash moment, I began to feel a degree of sympathy with the Minister. He seemed extremely exposed and unsupported. When I joined
698
these Benches I was told that at least until the election our work would be about winning the argument and losing the vote—or, as today, not even having a vote. But that seemed to be taking the issue to extremes. Then I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was to speak and in my innocence thought that at least there would be some support for the Minister. The criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, were different in some respects from the criticisms from this side of the House. But I cannot say that they were an overwhelming endorsement of the Government's policy.
It must be said that it takes this administration's unerring ability to misunderstand what is needed in the public sector to turn the provision and the allocation of £390 million of new money in nursery education into the chorus of criticism that we have heard from all the organisations which ought to be praising the Secretary of State. But perhaps the Minister will not be surprised not to have received support in the Chamber today. Reading the debates in another place, I should have thought that they would understand that, if Solihull is in revolt, they really are in trouble.
My concerns about the Bill and its proposals are concentrated in two areas. The first is that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, when he was talking about targeting. My experience in the public sector in housing, social services, in education and in health was in looking at limited resources and agonising where best to direct them. When one looks at the way in which it is proposed to spend this new money, one realises that it is a shameful disgrace. There are areas of great need in nursery education. We know that provision is patchy across the country. We know that some areas are well provided for and some are not. We know that circumstances vary in different areas. One has to look at the right sort of development and not be doctrinaire about the only development being in local authority schools. We must look at grant aiding of playgroups and voluntary nursery schools; we must look at the specific circumstances and how we can address the deficits.
We know too that many three year-olds are in desperate need of support. My support for the value of nursery education comes not only from the evidence adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, but also from experience and observation; from seeing how often the children who cause difficulties in the reception class for their fellow pupils as well as for themselves are the very children who missed out on nursery education. That is an experience which those involved in the primary sector see time and again.
Faced with those kinds of priorities and the need for developing nursery education, what do we get in terms of priorities of expenditure from the Government? We get the dead weight of subsidising those who already pay for nursery education rather than providing a single extra place. One would need to be something of an old-style "tax and spend" socialist to consider that that is the best use of public money in straitened circumstances.
The other waste of money is in the bureaucracy involved in the system. I come to the aspect relating to the introduction of the pseudo-market into a public

699
service battle-scarred from five years' experience in the National Health Service and seeing exactly what market mechanisms have done to both planning and provision. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that it was easier for choice to be implemented in a deficit situation, if I heard him correctly. But that has not been our experience in the National Health Service. Money following patients or money following children is a mechanism that works only if there is enough money and enough provision in the system to start with.
Looking at what the Minister called a "mere device", we see a hugely expensive paperchase—as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned in his contribution—which is based on the belief that the only way to improve public services is by bringing into play purchasing power. I knew that there was something wrong with the system when I went into the local supermarket in Norfolk and saw big posters up advertising the nursery voucher scheme. I knew that somehow we were back into the supermarket mentality where education is a commodity to be traded, where somehow a market would provide the answers—they are answers we have to find—to deciding priorities with limited public spending. The market provides none of those answers. The next thing we shall be doing is calling the four year-olds customers of the pre-school education service as if somehow we had given them power.
The challenges in public services are about improving quality, improving access and targeting on need. The challenges in public services are for us to run efficient and effective public services. I believe that the Bill will be no help whatever in meeting those challenges.
5.51 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, as so eloquently expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, there is a very considerable body of evidence to support the premise that pre-school provision confers great benefits, both to the individuals concerned and to society as a whole. However—and in this I come close to echoing the "appropriate" scepticism of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky—our enthusiasm for this presumption may serve to disguise some of its subsidiary complexities.
Whatever the scheme's other failings may or may not be, I have two primary areas of concern with respect to the nursery voucher proposals as so far advanced; namely, the level of proactive parental involvement that will or will not be engendered by the scheme, and the effect of the application of the concept of "desirable learning outcomes" upon it.
In discussing the subject of pre-school provision, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is a growing body of evidence, over and above that which already exists to demonstrate the merits of nursery education, to support the contention that its value and benefit are considerably enhanced if parents are actively involved in the process. This is not their empowerment to choose the provision to which to send their children or the ability to contribute to its administration. Rather, it is a case of them being involved on a daily basis within the curriculum, actually playing with and teaching their
700
children. By inference, it is principles of self help that should guide much of our thinking on this matter. My worry about the proposals as they stand is that, while I appreciate that there is no element of compulsion within them, they could act as an unwitting but positive incentive to parents to "dump and run", to take advantage of the availability of the provision as a substitute rather than a crutch for their own parental responsibilities.
I concede—of course I concede—that many parents of under-fives are in the invidious position of having to choose between going out to work to sustain their children or staying at home to look after them. That is a stark choice. We can reasonably expect that the proposals will afford such families some relief from this dilemma. But, notwithstanding this worthy objective, do we not also run the risk of devaluing the role to be played by parents in the upbringing of their children at the most formative stage of their development?
I am bound to say that I find it ironic that, in a Session where we have agonised long and hard about the family in the context of divorce, it may be that this comparatively small Bill has within it the capacity to do much more to undermine that institution than the Family Law Bill of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Why? Because it has the potential of further promoting a culture of dependency in respect of a range of duties which, if they are not more properly those of parents, should be undertaken by them in tandem with whatever pre-school establishment they choose to send their children to. Needless to say, it would be highly regrettable if the nett effect of the Bill's good intentions were further to erode and undermine the principle of parental responsibility and the concept of the family.
I am sure my noble friend the Minister will give me every assurance that this is not an intended effect of the Bill. However, I very much hope that he will perhaps be able to go a little further than this. Certainly, I should be most grateful if, when he comes to wind up, he could advise me of current policy towards proactive parental involvement within pre-school provision and the impact that the voucher system is expected to have upon it.
My concern with respect to the concept of "desirable learning outcomes" follows on from this. My own feeling is that, in every respect, pre-school provision should be precisely that; a halfway house between the informal and relatively unstructured environment of play at home and the much more formal and structured environment of education at school. The "learning" element within pre-school provision should be developmental rather than educational.
Set targets of attainment as so far proposed—be they for reading skills, for numeracy or for whatever—fly in the face of this because they weight our expectations for the child too far towards the purely educational at the expense of the developmental and, it has to be said, the familial.
More than this, children should be permitted adequate time to develop their own identities. However worthy they may be, "desirable learning outcomes" imply a form of syllabus which would have to be adhered to if the relevant targets were to be attained. And this could

701
have the effect of stifling the development of the individual within our children during the most formative period of their lives.
Naturally, I concur with the desire of the Government to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that each and every pre-school establishment is of high quality. As I understand it, the criteria to be applied as a measure of sustained and sustainable quality are these "desirable learning outcomes". In a sense, they are as good as any and probably better than some. However, bearing in mind the concerns that I have expressed, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister might feel that some other criteria may be more appropriate for this purpose—something based more intimately upon actual parental involvement perhaps.
There are a number of other issues—pre-school provision for three year-olds, the teaching of parenting skills, the starting age for compulsory schooling, and so on—that the Bill could have been drafted to address. I therefore have it in mind that it is but a small step down a long road and, despite the caveats that I have advanced today, I welcome that small step.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, this debate has seen a damning indictment of the Bill. Even the two Members who turned up to speak from the Conservative Benches have been much less than enthusiastic about it. I thought that we probably would all agree that the expansion of nursery education is a good thing. But the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, even threw some doubts on that. I think the rest of us do believe at least that an expansion is what we want. What we are not at all sure about is that this Bill will provide it. In fact, I think we are pretty sure that it will not.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness said "the two Members who turned up" in such a manner as to imply considerable criticism of my noble friend Lady Young. I assure the noble Baroness that my noble friend Lady Young sent me a note to say that she deeply apologises for the fact that she was unable to be here this afternoon. She was expecting to be here but other commitments went on longer than she was expecting and she was originally expecting, as many of us were, that this debate would take place considerably later—probably at an hour not dissimilar to this. For that reason she put down her name to speak but unforeseen circumstances—the shortness of the proceedings on the Education (Scotland) Bill—prevented her coming.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I have no doubt that he missed the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a great deal.
Like most noble Lords, I have been overwhelmed by the number of letters I have received on the Bill, all strongly opposed to it. But still we hear Ministers declaring that they are extending choice, that parents are the prime consideration and that it is their requirements that must be met.
702
In a response in another place to a proposal that an expansion of places should build on the good practice developed in many local authorities in partnership with voluntary and private sectors, Robin Squire replied,
"These proposals were at odds with our desire to put parents in the driving seat. It is parents who, through their demand for the type of places that they want for their children, will be the driving force behind the expansion of services in any given area. Parents may or may not want that expansion to occur in the maintained sector".— [Official Report, Commons, 13/2/96; col. 256.]
In the light of that, I propose to quote from a recently received letter from a parent:
"I am a parent of young children and am extremely concerned about the proposed voucher scheme. John Major said in 1994 that parents and practitioners should be consulted. I have seen little evidence of this. I live in Solihull—and we presented a petition with 11,500 names expressing our concern … I have not heard one practitioner speak in favour of this scheme.
"How can the Government speak of 'high quality education' for four year olds when it proposes having such a mixture of 'providers' (from qualified teachers with appropriate support in maintained nurseries and reception classes and nursery schools to playgroups—the DFEE in its 'Next Steps' document even suggests that childminders can get together to open a nursery!)…research points to qualified teachers with appropriate support being able to provide an appropriate curriculum (High Scope—and the Newcastle research)".
That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
The letter continues:
"Quality is meant to come under the control of OFSTED. The requirements for the new Inspectors are again as variable as the proposed providers. There is the possibility that a person with an NVQ in childcare could be assessing a teacher of degree level. And 'Desirable Outcomes' are not the same as educational processes…
"The parents in Solihull do not want these vouchers. The 'Solihull Amendment' was voted against at the Third Reading. If parents are to have 'choice' I see no reason why parents cannot vote on this issue—similar to that of Grant Maintained status—allowing the LEA to 'opt out' if that is the majority wish."
This letter puts the arguments I would wish to put against the Bill better than I could, and I endorse them all. She goes on to say,
"There is to be no extra resources for Special Educational Needs".
It is on that subject that I would like to address my remarks. The Special Education Consortium was set up at the time of the Education Act 1993. It is a group of 140 organisations that came together to protect and promote the interests of children with special educational needs. It has been a most effective body. But it is very critical of the Bill. It welcomes the injection of £185 million of new money into the system. However, it believes that proposals will not lead to the development of good quality provision for children with special needs. Indeed, it fears significant harm may be done to the provision for them. They are particularly concerned for those children who do not have a statement (perhaps 18 per cent.). Many of these children now receive additional support through home-teaching schemes, early access to nursery education (often at three years of age), and informal access to the additional expertise in support services.
This support is threatened, first, by the reduced ability of LEAs to plan services, with a predictable budget made available to them at the beginning of the financial year; secondly, the focus on four year-olds which will

703
mean that, in areas where the provision for four year-olds is not universal, places for three year-olds with special needs will go to four year-olds.
The effect of this is likely to be that more parents of children under five will seek a statutory assessment and a statement, to make sure to gain access to appropriate resources. Any increase in early statements will have some undesirable consequences: first, a higher percentage of LEA budgets will be tied up in fixed commitments to individual children; secondly, a reduction in the ability of LEAs to deploy resources for preventive work; and, thirdly, the likelihood of increased use of appeals to the SEN tribunal.
Most of your Lordships here today will remember the care and hard work of Ministers (particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch) and of noble Lords (particularly Lady Faithfull, whom we so sadly miss today—she did not approve of this Bill) in creating in 1993 the code of practice for coping with children with special needs.
The code of practice has been working well and is seen to be effective because of the requirement in the Act to
"have regard to the code"
as a condition of grant. Much was made in another place of the fact that the code was developed on the basis of existing good practice in the maintained sector. The Government have argued that it is not necessarily possible to apply the code, as it stands, to the voluntary and private sectors. The special consortium believes that it is possible for all providers of early years education to work with the code from the start of this scheme and it is important that they should. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made that point.
In the current proposals, all providers will be required to publish their policy. This will cover the admissions policy, the facilities that exist for children with special needs, knowledge and skills in special needs and the links with agencies. However, the consortium argues that unless policies are developed in the light of the code, they may merely become a description of inappropriate or unacceptable practices.
There is anxiety about what will happen in reception classes. There will be incentives to increase the number of four year-olds in them. The consortium is concerned that an enlarged reception class may not be the best setting for four year-olds with special needs, particularly for the youngest of them. In a nursery class or school, class size has been limited in two ways: by the pupil/adult ratio, by a recommendation that half the adults should be teachers; and by the 1981 regulations on teaching accommodation and recreational space. Reception classes, however, are not limited in these ways. There is cause for anxiety here, particularly as the 1981 regulations are to be replaced in September. Anxiety is also expressed on the inspection arrangements. But we shall follow up all these points in Committee. With the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I hope very much that we shall get the provisions for children with these special needs made much clearer in the Bill.
I want to turn to one other matter in which I have had an interest for a very long time, and that is corporal punishment. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and
704
I have been in correspondence with the Department for Education and Employment over the question of corporal punishment in early years care and education and in private education generally. We are very concerned at what we understand to be the Government's position.
It is our understanding that instead of making a clear requirement that institutions providing early years care and education, including those involved in the voucher scheme, must not use corporal punishment, the current proposal is only to require that institutions in the scheme do not use corporal punishment on "voucher-bearing" children. This would leave a range of institutions free if they wish to use corporal punishment on other young children. This flies in the face of two formal recommendations which the Government have received from the highest relevant authorities on human rights. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in January last year and the UN Human Rights Committee in July, formally recommended that the Government should extend prohibition of corporal punishment to cover all pupils in the private sector. We tell other countries they must respect international human rights and the decisions of monitoring bodies. Surely this demands that we should respect them ourselves.
The Government's approach to the issue represents a depressing U-turn from their own policy expressed so clearly last year in the initial report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which states,
"The Government's policy on the physical punishment of children is that it has no place in the child care environment, and this has been implemented in England and Wales through the Children Act Regulations and Guidance".
If it has no place in the child care environment, why are the Government not legislating to prohibit it? It is true that the guidance issued under the Children Act on "Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children" does state that corporal punishment should not be used in Children Act institutions, but, as the Government say, that is merely guidance.
We do not want to hear any more bogus arguments about parents' rights to pay to have their children beaten in private institutions. The rights that parents have derive from their responsibilities for their child's welfare. As the Minister will know, all the organisations concerned with early years care and education are strongly against all corporal punishment. The NSPCC is most concerned about this issue. And in the private schools sector, both the HMC and the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools favour extending abolition to cover all pupils.
We would like an assurance from the Minister that this matter will be urgently reconsidered; that the Government will accept their international obligations and take this opportunity to at least protect all children in early years care and education wherever there may be institutional corporal punishment.
My final word is to remind your Lordships that the home is also a nursery for young children and that training and support should be available to parents as a child's first and most important educator. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, referred to that. Although good professional nursery education provides many

705
benefits that children cannot get at home, we also need to support parents as educators in their own right. There is considerable evidence that parental support and encouragement at home have more influence on educational attainment than school factors, regardless of social class. The other side of the equation is the evidence that lack of parental support and poor parenting are major factors in criminal behaviour, mental illness, child abuse and family breakdown. We also have to remember that there are over 30,000 children on the child protection register.
The message that I want to give to the House is that parents are educators and they are entitled to training and support. We intend to bring forward amendments in Committee to make grants available for parenting education programmes. I hope that they will have your Lordships' support.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken have supported the Government's enthusiasm for nursery education for four year-olds. I endorse that enthusiasm, but with the qualifications which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made. The advantages of nursery education are very much more marked in the case of children who are deprived of the support that they need from their families and are very much more marked when the quality of the nursery education is very high.
I am afraid that I shall infuriate my friends on the Opposition Benches by saying that I strongly welcome and support the voucher experiment—
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Wow!
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I base that opinion on experience. I accept that there is an enormously wide variation in the provision by local authorities and that some local authorities are doing an excellent job. However, I have to say that I have had two experiences with my own local authority which make me support the voucher scheme.
I refer first to the enormous energy and enthusiasm among teachers that has been released by Local Management of Schools. There is a whole new spirit in the schools that I visit in our county. I believe that that has resulted from the removal of the dead hand of bureaucracy.
I refer secondly to the care of old people in our county. About half of our old people's homes have been taken over by a voluntary organisation and the provision is now much better and less expensive. That is why I feel that the removal of the dead hand of centralisation and bureaucracy is probably a good thing. Whether or not your Lordships agree with me, I must point out that there are two unavoidable alternatives. Either there must be competition or local authorities will have to accept more central control to ensure that those which are performing badly bring their standard of performance up to that of the best.
706
Having said that, of course the Bill needs improvement. I should like guidance and help from the Minister on one or two areas when he replies—or later if necessary. First, I have a simple question: will the Bill offer nursery education for three full terms for every child? If it will not, we should look at why not, and consider whether we cannot change it to ensure that it does.
Secondly, are the ground rules the same for all providers? From the briefings that I have received, I have reason to believe that they are not the same. If that is the case, that is a grave defect in the Bill because, if there is to be competition, there must be the same ground rules for all, otherwise there will be a drift towards the cheap and the nasty. People will cut costs to save money. There must also be a level playing field between different kinds of providers.
The areas in which we must consider whether there is a level playing field relate to the quality of the premises, class sizes, the pupil:teacher ratio, staff qualifications and inspections. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the problem of reception classes. If local authorities can provide a reception class for 25 pupils and get the same money per head as if they provided a nursery class for 12 pupils, it is easy to see which they will choose.
Although I believe in having vouchers, my third question is: why are there to be vouchers for parents who are willing and able to pay and who do so at present? The Government's general policy seems to be to target money where it is most needed, but here we have a complete contradiction of that policy.
I am not sure whether it is intended that the vouchers should be taxable as a benefit in the hands of wealthy people who pay tax. Free state education is not a taxable benefit, but if we made the vouchers subject to tax, could we do a deal with the Treasury whereby that tax could be fed back into the system to give more help to children with special needs?
A parent is a child's first educator. The noble Baroness, Lady David, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, have drawn attention to the importance of parents in that regard. We must explore that further in Committee to try to ensure that, so far as possible, parents are not excluded from the scheme but are encouraged to be involved. Parents can help in a number of ways. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, parents need help in preparing their children for nursery school. Parents need help in teaching their children to read and so that they can learn with, and join in the enthusiasm of, those children. A parent's involvement in nursery education means that the child takes it seriously, enjoys it more and thinks of it as being worth while. That is tremendously important.
In that context, I cannot stress too much the importance of home-school links. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, rightly drew attention to their importance. The success of the Highscope Project, as the evaluation report states, was due to the fact that a teacher visited every child at home once a week. They

707
were very deprived children, but that scheme was very successful. We have to do the job properly if we want to be successful.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to a particular group of children for whom provision is not made under the scheme as at present envisaged. I had expected a number of noble Lords to refer to special educational needs and to physical and mental disabilities, so I have not prepared anything on the subject. My main concern is about children with social and emotional disabilities. That small group of children most desperately needs help in the pre-school years so that they can cope with school when they get there. A child's emotional and behavioural problems often arise from the parents' inability to offer the support, love, security and stimulation that it needs. There must also be some outlining of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. That group of children will need special help in nursery schools and they will not be able to get it on £1,100 a year. In my view, there must be special provision for those children. For that small group in our society, nursery education can fill the socialisation gap left by inexperienced and unhappy families. To fail to take the opportunity of this Bill to ensure that such children are helped to become useful and happy citizens would be an opportunity which it would be disastrous to miss. I very much hope to hear from the Minister that that group of children will not be forgotten.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, began his speech with the unique statement that he supported the Bill. However, having listened to his speech, I must say that with friends like that, the Government do not need enemies like us.
The Bill has been debated now for many months in public forums. We debated it initially at the time of the gracious Speech. A pilot scheme has been under way in four local authorities. Like, I should imagine, every noble Lord, I have received a huge amount of mail and briefing material from various interested groups, concerned parents and sceptical teachers.
This Bill starts its passage through our House while the national debate is already well advanced. I believe that it is the role of this House to try to shoehorn a workable system into the voucher framework upon which the Government appear to be set. Nevertheless, it is right to pause to consider the principles and motivations of the party opposite in introducing the Bill. As we have heard from the Minister himself, the word "voucher" does not appear on the face of the Bill. However, that word has a political significance that goes well beyond the provisions of the Bill.
Those who advocate vouchers see two main virtues. The first is that a subsidy is given to those who have already opted out of state provision, thereby blurring the difference between the private and state sectors. Purchasing power is put into the hands of the consumer, and theory predicts that the market will respond to provide the consumer with what he or she requires. The second virtue is that LEAs will be undermined.
708
Planning, quality control and inspection are seen as necessary evils to be minimised wherever possible. I believe that the gist of that argument emerged from the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Those principles provide no basis on which to expand nursery education. In educational terms they are no more than theory. There are many good examples up and down the country of LEA provision that is good in practice, and it is upon that that we should build.
The Government have accepted the need to expand nursery education for four year-olds and have provided some money to initiate that process. Many times the question that is asked is: who will make up the difference? I believe that in the long term the Government intend that parents should pay for the further expansion of this provision. This Bill paves the way for parents like myself, who currently pay nothing for the nursery education of their children, to pay something. I live in the London Borough of Wandsworth, one of the four authorities in phase one of the implementation of this scheme. My daughter is in the reception class of the local primary school. She is too old to receive a voucher, but her younger classmates do. There is no guarantee that when my younger son attends the same school I shall not have to pay something towards the difference between the value of the voucher and the costs of his nursery education. In the case of Wandsworth that is a rather strange argument. That authority already had universal nursery education for all four year-olds. Nevertheless, the system will be in place to encourage parents like me to pay something. I believe that that is where the extra funding will come from to expand nursery education, in which we all believe.
The Government should declare whether they see nursery vouchers as a trial for expanding the voucher system up through the education system. Once a cohort of voucher children (as they are already known) is established, the voucher system itself can follow them up through their education. If that is a possibility the Government should come clean, and we should hold a proper debate about the relationship between private and state education.
There are a number of amendments which are key to making the scheme workable. Many of them have been mentioned this evening. I mention just two. First, there should be a thorough and fully disinterested evaluation of the pilot schemes before the main schemes proceed. My understanding of the position in Wandsworth is that the bureaucratic obstacles can be overcome. I understand that 87 per cent. of vouchers have been redeemed in Wandsworth, but only with a great deal of support from senior educational officers, school secretaries, the voucher agency and the local authority working hand in glove with the DfEE. Wandsworth already had universal provision of nursery education for four year-olds. Further, there is the enthusiastic support of the ruling Conservative group. One has to ask how successful a nationwide scheme will be with agnostic or hostile parents, schools and LEAs. I urge the Government to look at the true cost of implementing these dual-funding sources for nursery schools. Some of the preliminary figures that I have seen indicate that the cost is far higher than originally foreseen.

709
The second area of amendment, which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, relates to special educational needs. The Special Education Consortium has expressed particular concern about young children with special educational needs who do not have a statement. The additional support that many of these children receive is threatened by LEAs' reduced ability to plan services within a predictable budget and with greater focus on four year-olds. This means that in the area where provision for four year-olds is not universal, places for three year-olds with special educational needs will go to the four year-olds. The likely effect is that more parents of children under five will need to seek a statutory assessment and statement to secure access to appropriate resources for their children.
The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs is rightly seen to be effective, because under the 1993 Act there is a statutory requirement to have regard to it. I believe that nursery education providers outside the maintained sector should also be required to have regard to the code of practice. This is one example where the expression "level playing field"—about which we hear so much in so many different contexts—comes to mind. There are many others in this Bill.
This Bill is an example of doing the right thing the wrong way. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, there appears to be universal agreement that nursery education is needed and is desirable. But vouchers are no more than a political gimmick and the Bill should be considered with that in mind.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in winding up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I will not rehash all the arguments against the Bill that have already been made by my noble friend and other speakers. Instead, I propose to make a number of points based on those comments and ask the Minister some questions in the hope that he will be able to provide an accurate response when he comes to speak.
First, it should be noted that I am not Lord Thomas of Walliswood but a Peer of the female sex. Secondly, I declare an interest, in that I am now chairman of a county council, and for many years have been a member of a county council, which is an education authority. About seven years have elapsed since I sat on the education committee, so I hope that noble Lords will accept that I try to speak in a disinterested way.
I start with the part of the Bill which refers to the grant-maintained sector and the possibility of those schools borrowing. Rather to my surprise, I entirely agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said on that subject. It is ridiculous that one set of schools funded publicly can behave differently from another set of schools funded publicly simply because they fall on different sides of an imaginary line laid down by the Treasury some time in the past. I agree that there should be equal opportunities for all. More importantly, I am disturbed that this aspect of the Bill accompanies the
710
decision that on disposal of property a grant-maintained school will not have to yield 50 per cent. of the product of that sale to the local authority. That is of concern because the property was not created out of space, but by the input of tax and probably rate or council tax-payers. I do not see why the whole benefit of it should go simply to parents whose children attend the school at that particular time. I should like the Minister to respond to that point.
I turn now to the part of the Bill which has taken the most time and attracted the most interest. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, there has been a general welcome for the idea of expanding nursery education. My noble friend laid out our party's priorities in that respect. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who gave the debate an academic thrust. What concerns me about this way of approaching increased provision of nursery education is, once again, the waste of money. If we want—I refer again to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said so compellingly—to increase the amount of nursery education available and ensure that those children who might best benefit from it receive that expanded provision, surely we have to use the £400 million in such a way that the extra services are directed towards those children and that they receive the full benefit of that extended provision instead of scattering money in such a way that the most obvious beneficiaries are those people who are already paying for nursery education.
These provisions have been attacked by a number of speakers. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, made a plea for small rural primary schools. Another speaker whose name escapes me made the same plea but from a slightly different point of view. Both speakers suggested that the creation of competition might have an effect which was the reverse of what was intended; namely, it might withdraw children from borderline schools and reduce their viability.
The bureaucracy has been referred to. The scheme's many damaging effects have been referred to. Will the Government assure us that the Bill will not have those undesirable effects? Will they explain how they will ensure that nursery education will be provided where it is most needed? In addition, how will they be able to measure that achievement? How will we know whether the Bill has succeeded or has not succeeded? I have not seen much in the way of standards, measurements or numbers to justify the Bill.
The second matter to which almost everyone has referred is quality. I shall not repeat what was said. We have been talking about inspectors, the requirement for well-educated inspectors, for good provision of buildings, for good and well-qualified teachers, if only to enable the outcomes to be translated into some sort of programme for education. A whole mass of similar points have been raised. The quality of the education provided is crucial to the success of nursery education. Yet the Government appear, if anything, to be relaxing standards. There is a relaxation in the requirement for minimum space and recreation space, for example. There is an apparent relaxation of the teacher-pupil ratios. There is no insistence on a qualified nursery teacher in every institution which provides nursery

711
education. How can the Government justify anything which endangers the quality of education when it is clearly that quality, and not just the child's presence in an institution, which creates the added value for the child? It is after all the child's, not the parents', interests that we should have at heart.
The third matter which I wish to raise with regard to this part of the Bill is the whole question of SEN provision. We have heard noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, with experience and expertise in the subject. Again, I shall not repeat the points that they made. It is clearly of the utmost importance that all providers be required to do what LEAs are now obliged to do, which is to seek out and pay particular attention to those children in institutions who require that attention. Again, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said about the importance of unstatemented pupils and pupils with social and behavioural problems.
I know from my own experience that even in leafy Surrey there is an enormous increase in the number of children with such difficulties. As a chairman of governors, I have been in the incredible situation of having to exclude from school a seven year-old because he was striking his teacher so hard that the most experienced teacher in the school refused to teach the child and could not be persuaded to have him in her class. We wept about it. What can we do when we exclude a seven year-old? What are we doing to that child's progress? On the other hand, what benefit can we give if we begin to respond to such children's needs at a very much earlier stage? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond on that matter. I am sure that from these Benches we will support amendments relating to special needs provision.
Finally, I shall refer to the Government's need to learn and to be seen to learn from the pilot or stage one element of the introduction of the voucher scheme. I am not sure whether the take up has been 60 per cent. or 80 per cent. No doubt the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that point. First, what research have the Government undertaken, or will they undertake, in those pilot areas as to the effect of the bureaucratic nature of the scheme, the outputs of the scheme, or all the matters that noble Lords have raised in the debate? How, when and by what means will the Government measure the success of their scheme? If it is done, will it be done by an independent authority?
Even if after such a measurement everything is 100 per cent. right, members of this House and of the other place have a right and a duty to know what has happened; in other words, when can we see, and under what circumstances can we see, whatever information the Government learn from the pilot stage? As I said, it is our right and duty to do that. Will the Minister tell us what he will do with any information yielded by the pilot? When will it be published? If there are deficiencies, how does he propose to remedy them?
In the debate on the Scottish Bill, my noble friend Lord Addington made the point that it seemed idiotic to go ahead with a full scheme until we had learned from
712
the pilot. I am merely emphasising that view. We need to learn from what has gone before. If things have not gone well, we need to know during the Bill's progress or at some later stage whether it will be possible to remedy whatever has gone wrong. With that, I conclude.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Bill deals with nursery education and capital-raising powers for GM schools. Contributions to this debate have indicated that there are some key areas to which Members from all sides of the House will wish to return at later stages. There is a strong view that a thorough evaluation of the nursery pilot projects should be reported to Parliament before the main scheme proceeds. That is even more true with regard to the Government's proposals for England and Wales than for Scotland because it is proposed that the scheme for England and Wales should be brought into effect in April, whereas the scheme for Scotland will not be brought into effect until August.
There is also the issue of real parental choice and how costly bureaucratic procedures can be justified when parents wish to continue to benefit from the provision that is available in their local nursery or nursery unit attached to a primary school. Why cannot the Government allow parents the ultimate choice of opting out of the voucher system in order to continue using the current provision? The answer to that question will be eagerly read by those who provide nursery education in units, nursery schools, and classes attached to voluntary-aided schools and local authority-maintained schools throughout the country. There is great anxiety about the need to strengthen the inspection regime and to monitor the quality of nursery education that is paid for under the Government's proposals. There is also a need to improve parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangements.
Questions have been raised about grant-maintained schools, although the issue has concentrated largely on nursery vouchers. Surely it is doubly unfair to the schools which remain in the local authority sector and those in the voluntary-aided sector for which special capital allocations are provided if grant-maintained schools which may have benefited from capital projects are allowed to keep all their resources while local authority schools still have to pay that particular debt. It is important that such provisions in the Bill are scrutinised.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Moms analysed in great detail the way in which we fail our children in terms of the provision of early childhood education as compared with almost all our partners in the EU. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon identified the areas of concern which were highlighted during the pilot schemes in Southwark and Norfolk. He mentioned the important issues relating to rural schools. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees that I too have come across children attending school who are unable to speak as a result of their isolation. The cases that I have known have been in rural areas where parents did not understand the problem of how to provide an environment for children.

713
The issue of cost effectiveness and the problems which face the proposals have been mentioned repeatedly during the debate. Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on his 10 years and two years. I ask my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington to note that occasionally there are exceptions to the Labour Party's commitment in LEAs towards the provisions of nursery education. "Sutton" seems to be important in that not only the noble Lord's own authority of Sutton but the Conservative administration of Sutton Coldfield made superb provision for nursery education. There is clear evidence that the people in those areas remain unconvinced by the new proposals which will affect their longstanding commitment.
Speaker after speaker has underlined the point made by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris that there is lack of support for the Bill. I too have received a letter from the Manchester Diocesan Board of Education which is critical of and concerned about the proposals. It concludes by stating that the Manchester Diocesan Board of Education is concerned that moving from the pilot scheme to the introduction of the scheme to all areas after one year would not give time to evaluate the pilot scheme adequately. In the light of those concerns, the board would urge the Government to withdraw the proposals and introduce new ones that will achieve the objectives we all desire.
Surely the Government have learnt that there are many cases in which they do not know best. The voices of parents and teachers and the providers in the public and private sectors are being raised in unison to express anxiety about the Government's proposals. Evaluation time is of particular importance. The problem which voluntary-aided schools have in raising capital was highlighted by the right reverend Prelate. I well remember when during the 1980s the Government wrote to diocesan authorities asking them not to seek capital allocation for nursery unit projects. We do not want to see a situation in which the primary school that a child attends is determined by commercial bartering. That matter must be dealt with during the course of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies referred to the avalanche of letters that he received about the problems of people in Wales. It is critically important that we heed his words of wisdom about the danger of disturbing and spoiling a system which is universally accepted in Wales to be excellent in many areas. More than 95 years ago my grandfather attended school in Wales from the age of three-and-a-half. It would be a tragedy if after all that time one of the Government's legacies was to damage that provision for three year-old children in Wales. I await with interest the answers to the detailed questions asked by my noble friend.
In introducing the debate, the Minister said that the vouchers are not named in the Bill; that they have no face value and that they are a convenience and an administrative tool. What kind of administrative tool can be justified when it achieves the following? In order to continue in a nursery unit attached to a primary school which has a reception class, and in addition to what I have heard your Lordships describe as the complicated system of standard spending assessments,
714
of the amount of grant allowed by central government, of capping levels and of total standard spending we are now inserting a paperchase. I refer to a costly bureaucratic procedure to reclaim part of the money in order to continue to provide what parents are accepting, paying for, using and supporting. How, apart from dogma, can the Government justify refusing to allow parents to say, "We will accept the existing provisions. We do not wish to take up a voucher. We do not wish to see millions of pounds of public money being spent on bureaucratic red tape. We merely wish to say that we will register and sign a form stating that we do not wish to be part of the voucher scheme."? The local authority would then be able to continue to provide a service. That would allow for parents' choice.
The issue of bureaucracy has been raised as well as that of the importance of high quality nursery education. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made his usual high quality contribution on the issue of nursery education. He referred to research. In response to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I should point out that it is very difficult with human beings to make a categorical and 100 per cent. proof argument that if you do "a" with a small child then "b" will result, and that if you do "c" then "d" will result. Indeed, it is almost impossible to achieve those aims.
However, as other noble Lords have said, I should draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, to the fact that there is clear evidence to show that a greater proportion of children from broken homes, or living in poverty, in bad housing or in situations of alcohol or substance abuse and, indeed, those experiencing all-round difficulties, end up with particular needs. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I must not be understood to have opposed the expansion of nursery education, where appropriate. My point is that I am opposed to creating a universal entitlement when the requirement is to target scarce resources on those most in need.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
My noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington referred to the value and importance of qualified teachers. He pointed out how essential that is, and how the people of Durham, the people of Sutton and, indeed, those in Solihull resent the Government proposing to remove from them money which they provided disproportionately through their own council tax contributions.
It is important for us to support the call for proper research into the results of the Government's proposals within the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees said, the importance of nursery education cannot be underestimated. Indeed, it is particularly important that we recognise that fact. In my experience, very few parents will opt for a playgroup as an alternative for nursery education. It is often used alongside as a supplement to nursery education.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lady David referred in particular to children with special needs and learning disabilities. That is a

715
critically important area and one that we must address in detail. The important area of emotional and behavioural disturbance is, again, something which cannot be overestimated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said, it is an important area and one, sadly, of growth. The importance of dealing with and meeting the needs of children with such deep behavioural problems must be recognised.
We have had a very detailed debate. It is one which is being watched by an unusually large number of people. The details of our debate will be read, perhaps, by an exceptionally large number of people who are interested in the matter and who have taken the trouble to write to noble Lords. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to tell your Lordships that he will respond to the parental wishes that have been expressed in correspondence to Members of this House.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said, there are many key areas to which we shall wish to return at later stages. I certainly look forward to what I shall describe loosely as a most interesting Committee and Report stage and, indeed, Third Reading debate. Some time ago my noble friend Lord Skidelsky made the interesting point—and one with which I have often agreed—that universal agreement on one view is not necessarily proof that that view is right.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, suggested, in support of the universal agreement to his views, that virtually all the correspondence he had received had been very much of one mind on the subject of the Bill. That may be true. Like the noble Lord, and many others, I have received a great deal of correspondence on the Bill much of which, I have to say, seems to have come from very similar sources. Most of it has expressed similar views and, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will be pleased to hear, has supported his views as well as opposed some aspects of the legislation.
However, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that those views are by no means universal. Indeed, perhaps I may quote the words of a head-teacher in Wandsworth who was reported as saying on the voucher scheme:
"This arrangement pushes me to raise standards. We cannot afford to be lax or complacent. Anything that forces me to give my utmost should be welcomed".
That extract was reported in the Daily Telegraph in December of last year. Similarly, perhaps I may also quote the National Private Day Nurseries' Association which said that the voucher scheme,
"will stimulate the market to provide more places. It will give parents improved choices and drive up standards through healthy competition".
There are many who see virtues in the Bill, as indeed do the Government. As I said earlier, I hope that that is something about which we can argue in Committee.
I should say that I found the somewhat hysterical reaction from the party opposite to the whole concept of vouchers to be rather odd in the light of its changing policies in so many areas. I ask the noble Lord—and
716
perhaps this is something that he would wish to take up with me on a later occasion, although I do not ask him to intervene now—what is different about vouchers compared to the proposed training credits that the party opposite is now suggesting for 16 to 18 year-olds? Surely they are vouchers but by another name.
Having said that, I accept that there are a number of points that noble Lords would like me to address this evening. However, I am afraid that I shall not be able to cover the wide range of points that have been put to me. Nevertheless, we have considerable time between now and the Committee stage. I shall have time to write in some detail before the Whitsun Recess, or soon after we adjourn, on some of the specific points that other speakers have raised.
However, in effect, I should like to cover six principal points on vouchers. First, phase one and evaluation; secondly, bureaucracy, administration costs and parliamentary scrutiny; thirdly, the allegation that there will be lack of provision in some areas; fourthly, quality guarantees; fifthly—this is obviously something of great importance in this House and a subject which I consider to be of considerable importance in the light of the responsibilities that I have in the new merged department—the special educational needs provision; and sixthly, I should like to say a few words about the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, regarding Wales, the voucher scheme and the need for a pilot scheme. Finally, I shall say a word or two before I finish about the second part of the Bill; namely, grant-maintained borrowing and various aspects of it.
When talking about phase one, I should like to make it absolutely clear that we invited all local authorities to put their areas forward. Every authority had the opportunity to join in the scheme at the formative stage and to contribute to its development. If they had specific concerns about how the scheme would affect their areas, then the way to address them was through taking part in phase one and not criticising it from afar. But I have to say that it is simply their loss. Their communities have lost out too and a whole cohort of children have been denied access to a scheme designed—as I put it earlier—to increase parental choice and expand the availability of provision. Obviously I accept that there are only four areas in the scheme but they all genuinely want to take part in the scheme and make it work. I believe they have a wealth of experience and expertise and their close co-operation will prove invaluable. I am convinced that that can only benefit the development of the scheme.
I believe the close proximity of the three London boroughs will enable parents in one volunteer area to exchange their vouchers at another. That will provide considerable information about such cross-border activity. Obviously Norfolk's participation in phase one will allow the voucher scheme to be tested in a rural community. That is important to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who has served on Lancashire County Council, which is an area I know well, and as regards the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate. I believe that there are enough areas to test fully important operational issues such as publicity, information and the arrangements for issuing, exchanging and redeeming vouchers.

717
Evaluation is an important matter. I believe there is no disagreement over whether the new scheme should be properly evaluated. I can give an assurance that it will be properly evaluated. First, in the short term we shall have to consider the operational arrangements during phase one. Any difficulties in practical matters such as publicity, information and so on will need to be ironed out before phase two. We shall work closely with the phase one authorities and providers and the voucher agency. We shall, of course, pay attention to the views of parents and other interests. But given that practical focus, we do not need at that stage some grand external evaluation of the kind that some noble Lords seem to envisage.
Secondly, in the medium term, the published initial inspection reports will also add to the picture on the crucial issue of educational quality. Inspection findings will be monitored by Ofsted as they become available. Thirdly, in the longer term we need to evaluate the benefits to children's later educational performance. That can only take place when the scheme has bedded down. The effects of subsequent development will not begin to be evident until children progress towards key stage one, and baseline assessment, if developed in a consistent way in response to work now being undertaken by SCAA, could well have a part to play. I can give an assurance that there will be appropriate evaluation. We shall make what information is available available to the House at appropriate times.
There have also been claims that the scheme itself creates excessive bureaucracy; that the costs are excessive; that the money is merely being recycled; and that new burdens are being placed on schools. I give an assurance that the voucher scheme will have small administration costs. We believe that is a small price to pay to give parents the real choice that we are offering. When fully up and running—with costs of some £730 million—the administration costs will be some £20 million, which represents some 2.7 per cent. Most of that will be spent not on administration but on inspection. I am sure that all noble Lords would accept that inspection is important and is valuable. As I have said, the vast majority of administration costs will be spent on the new inspection regime which would be necessary whatever scheme was set up.
As regards the scrutiny that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, sought over the arrangements, the Bill sets out the broad framework and the necessary legal underpinning for the grant; namely, what it can be used for, and allows for the use of the child benefit database, the funding of the inspection regime and so on. The arrangements will include all the bureaucratic administrative detail. I do not believe it is sensible to make that the subject of legislation. As I think I made clear in my opening remarks, the Bill also proposes that the definition of eligible children and providers will be set out in regulations.
As I have said, the arrangements themselves will cover the eligible providers, fixing the amount of grant, the administrative arrangements for assessing how much grant to pay to whom, by what means, and when, and possibly the employment of a contractor to operate the
718
scheme. It is important that we get that right. I can give an assurance that the framework—a careful definition of what activities will be involved—will be set out in the Bill. As I said, I do not think it will be necessary for the House to get bogged down in the detailed administrative arrangements. But no doubt they are matters which we could discuss in some other way at some other point.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, complained about lack of provision in certain areas. I wish to make it quite clear that when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made his original remarks, he made it quite clear that although ultimately places could be needed for all children, we were never guaranteeing that places would spring up over night. However, over time we are confident that new places will come on stream. It is interesting to note that in one phase one area, Norfolk—or for that matter any of the other phase one areas—there are no parents complaining about being unable to find a place. As regards take-up in those areas, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to a figure of not much more than 60 per cent. I do not know whether that figure applied to Norfolk or to all areas. I can assure the noble Lord that the latest figure for all four areas is some 87 per cent. In Norfolk the figure is some 95 per cent. of parents who have taken up the voucher scheme. That does not imply the voucher is too difficult to cope with or that the systems are too bureaucratic. That is encouraging.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking that the amount of money available both for capital expenditure and per pupil in this age group that has been available in Norfolk and the other pilot areas would be the absolute minimum that would be available at any time for pupils were the Government to extend the scheme across the whole of England and Wales?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take it that the noble Baroness is looking for identical sums of administration money available in the four areas to be made available when the scheme goes nationwide. I think that is what she was asking for. Obviously I cannot give that guarantee. Obviously in the first year the administration costs are likely to be higher; that is the point of a pilot. We hope to save money in the second and subsequent years as we go nationwide. The administration costs in this first year—which will cover a wider area than administration—are proportionately greater. However, long term, we are looking at administration costs of some 2.7 per cent., with most of that going on inspection. I believe that even the noble Baroness would accept that that is a cost which it is quite right to expend. We believe inspection is important, and I suspect that the noble Baroness does too.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the Minister gave the figure of 87 per cent. take-up, which is the figure I also was given by the London Borough of Wandsworth. Does he accept that the London Borough of Wandsworth has no idea what has happened to the other 13 per cent.? It does not know why those people have not applied or whether the take-up was fully 100 per cent. before. Does the Minister really think that this figure is as good as he is suggesting?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we would hope to hear more from the London Borough of Wandsworth in due course. As I said, the figure in Norfolk is 95 per cent. I think that is a pretty good figure. This is not a compulsory scheme and we are not talking about compulsory education which starts at the age of five; we are talking about a voucher scheme for those who want to make use of it. It might be worth finding out why some parents did not wish to take up the scheme, or whether they did not know of it, in which case there might be other approaches that need to be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in referring to Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, in referring to Leeds, were worried—this has been a concern expressed on many occasions—that many LEAs, and particularly the high providing LEAs, would lose money. I give an assurance that that is not the case. So long as each LEA continues to recruit as many four year-olds as they do now, they will not lose any money at all. As it is there is an extra £165 million per year of new money to give vouchers to those children not currently receiving nursery education. It is available to many LEAs to increase the provision they have available. Similarly, as regards all those parents who the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, says would like to opt out of this scheme, if they feel that the provision they are getting at the moment is good provision, then they are in effect opting out of the provision by staying where they are. Parents can make use of their vouchers for children to stay where they are. That is perfectly fair. It allows parents to put their money where their mouth is, and it allows other parents to make a similar choice: to send children to the schools or the nurseries of their choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, asked how LEAs will find the cost replacement if the cost exceeds the £1,100 value of the voucher. I can give an assurance that, so long as the parents continue to choose those schools, they will still receive the £1,100; the LEA retains the difference and will therefore be no better off and no worse off than it was. If a great many children leave the LEA schools, the LEAs will lose out. But my belief is that many LEAs will find that, if they provide good places, they have little to fear.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he deal with the position of schools in LEAs which already provide education for four year-olds whose parents, whether through moving address, language, or other problems, do not claim their voucher? I understand that in the pilot schemes the schools are being funded for those children. Will the noble Lord give an assurance that that will continue? If it continues, why does he not fund the provision in the first place and not have the nonsense of the vouchers?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously protection of the appropriate source was needed in the pilot areas. If we found that that problem was likely to continue, it is a matter that we could address. I could, I hope, offer a degree of comfort to the noble Baroness on that matter.
I now turn to guarantees of quality in nursery education. That is very important. We believe that the scheme must be of a high standard. There will be four
720
main elements for assuring quality. Providers of nursery education will have to be either an institution registered or exempt from registration under, I think it is, Part X of the Children Act, or registered as an independent school with the Department for Education and Employment, or a locally maintained school, day nursery or grant-maintained school. They have to confirm that they will work towards the desirable learning outcomes. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into detail as to what SCAA has put forward on that basis, but I think that those are learning outcomes which most would accept as appropriate at that age. They have, further, to agree to be inspected regularly by Ofsted inspectors to maintain standards. I take the rather detailed point made by the right reverend Prelate relating to the nursery sections of voluntary aided schools. If the right reverend Prelate will accept it, I should prefer to write to him on that point. Finally, providers will have to undertake to publish information for parents giving details of staffing, admission arrangements, educational programmes and other important matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, in asking about not insisting on qualified teachers, told us of his interesting experience, I think as an unqualified teacher in the county of Norfolk.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I should hate to upset anyone in Norfolk. It was said to me, "That's where you ought to go if you have no qualifications". That is a different point.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I was speculating whether he had had the honour to teach my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and, if so, to offer him my congratulations on a thoroughly good job. However, I do not know how the ages fit in; we will leave that matter.
As regards not insisting on qualified teachers, it is important to recognise that many four year-olds are already in settings in the private and voluntary sector where there is no qualified teacher. Excluding such settings from the voucher scheme would do nothing for the quality of educational experience for those children. However, by allowing such settings to take part in the voucher scheme, new money would be injected, education inspections would begin and, over time, the quality levered up, should that be necessary. The quality could be high even without qualified teachers. It is vital that we acknowledge where we start from in this field rather than starting from some other point.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky made the point that there was too much regulation and that we should not seek excessive regulation and inspection. We believe that it is right to seek to strike a balance between allowing parents a free choice and giving both parents and taxpayers the assurance that the places exchanged for vouchers are of good quality. I also believe, as I have made clear on other occasions, that inspection throughout the system can do a great deal to lever up standards. I realise that my noble friend may not accept my point. However, I believe that we must seek an appropriate balance.

721
I move to special educational needs. As I said, this is a matter of considerable importance to this House, and one on which this House always provides a wealth of expertise and knowledge which is a refreshing change from possibly other institutions.
The voucher scheme will, for the first time, enable all four year-olds to experience three terms of good quality education. For some children, that means, I hope, early identification of their learning difficulties. Further, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that a firm commitment has been made to consult interested parties during Phase 1 about making it a requirement that all providers have regard to the SEN code of practice—a code which emerged as a result of the Bill going through this House, and one of which we can all be proud.
Further, all nursery voucher redeeming institutions of whatever status will be expected to include in published information for parents details of their SEN policy. That will state the admissions policy and what consideration is given to children with SEN, the facilities available to assist and allow access for children with disabilities, details of staff with knowledge and skills in SEN, and a named member of staff with responsibility for SEN, and links with outside bodies—the LEA and other schools.
As I said, I believe that there will be time for debate on SEN matters at a later stage. I do not wish to delay the House unduly this evening. But, in response to one remark from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Moms, and others, perhaps I may add this. The special educational needs consortium, from which I believe the noble Lord quoted, has accepted that an enhanced value for vouchers with special needs is neither necessary nor practical. No doubt, again, that is a matter that we can pursue. I do not believe that this is simply a question of pouring more money into the proposal but of making sure that the right practices are adopted in the institutions which are allowed to be voucher redeeming.
I turn briefly to Wales and the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and no doubt of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I take those concerns on board. They are matters of a more detailed kind that I should like to put to my right honourable and honourable friends in the Welsh Office. However, I wish to address one point. The noble Lord called for a separate pilot scheme in Wales before we proceed. I do not believe that there is a case for such a separate pilot scheme for Wales. We made it clear that pilots were asked for throughout England and Wales. The simple fact is that there was no volunteer. In any event, it was made clear that any pilot would concern not the principle of the voucher scheme but only the operational aspect.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister place on record that during the time that pilots were being sought, the Government, against the wishes of virtually everyone in Wales, imposed local government reorganisation, which affected the structure and make-up of almost every local education authority?
722
Whether or not people would have wished to take part in a pilot scheme, it was a singularly inappropriate time for them to do so.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that might have been so, but I do not believe that it ruled out the possibility of a bid from Wales. There was no bid for a pilot scheme; and, as I made clear, the fact is that the arrangements for the pilot are not about the principle but about operational arrangements.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the point that has just been made is important. Which Welsh authority would have made the bid when the authorities were in the middle of changing over?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it would have been open to one of the emerging new authorities to make a bid. The shadow arrangements were in place and it was open to them. There was no bid and there is an end to it.
As I made clear, the arrangements for the pilot are not about the principle, they are about the practical mechanics of distribution, and so on. I believe that what we learnt from the pilots in Norfolk and the three London boroughs can be applied to Wales.
Baroness White: My Lords, the noble Lord has no true grasp of the difficulties in Wales which we suffer through the reorganisation of local authorities. I shall not detain the House by going into details, but Wales has more difficulties than most places in England.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that I can take the House much further than what I said. We do not believe that it is about principle but about the mechanical arrangements. Much can be learnt from the arrangements in England; and, as I said earlier, there was no bid from Wales.
Before I touch on the grant-maintained aspect, perhaps I may say a word to the noble Baroness, Lady David, about corporal punishment, on which she feels strongly. I believe that I answered a Written Question on it not long ago. As she knows, we will ensure that all four year-old children where the voucher is used in any institution are not subject to corporal punishment. I accept that the noble Baroness says that it does not go far enough, why do we not just forbid corporal punishment absolutely? That is another question for another Bill and another day. However, in a voucher-redeeming institution it is unlikely that some children would come along with vouchers and a mark on their backs saying: "Do not beat", while some without vouchers—I am not sure who they would be—had a mark saying: "Beat, if necessary". Perhaps we may leave the matter with an assurance to the noble Baroness that an institution will not be able to make the children bearing vouchers subject to corporal punishment. I believe that that goes so far as is necessary. I also feel that there is no question but that we comply with our international obligations in that area.
Lastly, I wish to say a few words about anxieties raised on grant-maintained borrowing. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky asked why we could not let local authority schools borrow. I am sure that my noble friend

723
is aware that the responsibility for capital spending in local authority schools already lies in the LEAs. They can already borrow from the markets, and that is how they finance most of their capital expenditure on schools. However, it has a knock-on effect for the PSBR, and therefore Treasury permission is necessary on occasion. The fact that it affects PSBR is something over which we have no control; and, as my noble friend is aware, it is purely a matter for the rules laid out by the OECD.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm that under the present rules they cannot borrow on the security of their own property?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the individual school would not be able to borrow on its own property, it would be a matter for the local education authority to borrow in the usual way.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I mean the LEAs.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can confirm on what basis the LEA can borrow. It would have to seek permission in the usual way, and it has an effect on the PSBR. It would not be open to the school.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about the proceeds of grant-maintained school asset disposal and suggested that they should go to the LEA rather than to the grant-maintained school. We believe that grant-maintained schools, like local authorities, serve their own community. We believe it is right that they and the children and parents who make use of the schools should benefit from the assets that the schools no longer need.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, would the Minister at least be prepared to concede that where the entire community still has a debt to repay, the individual grant-maintained school ought only to have those capital receipts that accrue above the debt outstanding?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I do not accept that at all. It should be a matter for the LEA. However, no doubt we can discuss it on later occasions.
Earlier this afternoon, I mentioned the three important themes which have underpinned all our reforms over recent years and which underpin this legislation. They
724
are the themes of choice, diversity and quality. Our reforms have given parents a say in the education of their children that would have been unimaginable 20 years ago. Not only do they now have more choice than ever before about the school their children attend, but through the appointment of parent governors they have a say about the way in which schools are run. This Bill takes that principle further, by giving parents the power to choose the kind of nursery setting—maintained, voluntary or independent—in which their children will be educated.
Because that decision will be made by parents, the Bill also supports diversity. Parents should be able to decide for themselves what is right for their child from the great diversity of provision available for the education of the under-fives. Some will want to choose maintained or independent nursery schools or reception classes in primary schools. Others will be keener on playgroups or Montessori schools. That should be up to them, provided that the setting in question is of sufficient quality.
Another aspect of government policy has been to give individual schools the freedom to take important decisions for themselves and to choose the direction in which they want to develop. The Bill takes those reforms further by giving grant-maintained schools the power to borrow from the market to finance capital expenditure.
Finally, the Bill complements the Government's commitment to raising standards in education quality, while parents will make decisions about the kind of nursery education that is right for their child. They need to know that what is being offered is of sufficient quality. Our proposals provide for that through the mechanisms I have spoken about.
Among the many speakers today we have heard some interesting contributions. With the possible exception of parts of the speech of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, virtually all have spoken of the benefits of expanding nursery education. This Bill will provide for just that—for expansion to the advantage of all four year-olds in England and Wales. I commend the Bill to the Whole House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Railtrack Group plc: Share Offer
  Railtrack Group plc: Share Offer
  Electric Vehicles: Excise Duty
  Electric Vehicles: Excise Duty
  Stansted Airport: Aircraft Movements
  Stansted Airport: Aircraft Movements
  Foreign Registered Lorries in UK
  Foreign Registered Lorries in UK
  M.25/M.23 Junction Roadworks
  M.25/M.23 Junction Roadworks
  NATO Multi-national Formations: UK Participation
  NATO Multi-national Formations: UK Participation
  Warsaw Pact Countries: Joint Exercises with British Troops
  Warsaw Pact Countries: Joint Exercises with British Troops
  Warsaw Pact Countries: UK Military Advisers
  Warsaw Pact Countries: UK Military Advisers
  Children: Employment in TV Programmes and Advertising
  Children: Employment in TV Programmes and Advertising
  Prison Service: Plans and Performance Indicators
  Prison Service: Plans and Performance Indicators
  Foreign Nationals in UK Prisons
  Foreign Nationals in UK Prisons