Sitting of 29 October 1996

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

    SESSIONAL RETURNS
    Ordered,
    Returns for Session 1994–95 of—

    (1) Business of the House;

    (2) Closure of Debate and Allocation of Time;

    (3) Private Bills and Private Business;

    (4) Public Bills;

    (5) Sittings of the House;

    (6) Special Procedure Orders;

    (7) Standing Committees; and

    (8) Select. Committees in the same terms as the Orders made on 14th December 1994; and

    (9) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Proposals, &c., showing:—

    (A) the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and those for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute (1) laid before the House; and (2) considered by the Joint Committee and Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, respectively, pursuant to their orders of reference, setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the number of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds;

    (B) the numbers of Instruments subject to parliamentary procedure, other than draft deregulation orders, considered by the House and by Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, respectively, showing in each case the numbers subject to affirmative and to negative procedure; and

    (C) the numbers of deregulation proposals and draft orders, showing for deregulation proposals the numbers in respect of which the Deregulation Committee recommended that a draft order in the same terms should be laid before the House, that the proposals should be amended, and that the order-making power should not be used, respectively; and for draft orders the number in respect of which the Deregulation Committee recommended that the draft order should be approved, and whether or not the recommendation was agreed upon Division, and those which the Committee recommended should not be approved, respectively, and in each case, the decision of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Merchant Ships
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence requirements in respect of British merchant ships. [348]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The defence need for merchant shipping is kept under regular review as part of normal planning.
    Mr. O'Brien: I find the Minister's response disappointing and depressing. Does he agree with the British Chamber of Shipping which has said that Great Britain could not deploy its forces at the moment, because our merchant fleet is not available and we have to rely on overseas shipping? The policies of the Conservative Government have attacked the British merchant fleet bitterly. Will the Minister press the Government to give support to the development of the British merchant fleet so that we do not have to rely on foreign ships?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman, whose heart is in the right place, is a little out of date. Clearly, it matters that we have proper arrangements to be able to transport our crews and equipment where needed. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is not enough shipping and, in 1991 during the Gulf war, of the 142 ships that were chartered only eight were United Kingdom flagged. That was because the Government believed that it was better to charter the necessary shipping at the Baltic exchange at the most competitive rate. The cold war requirements are now no longer the same and we do not need the major convoy tasks that used to be appropriate. Shipping is not always the only option. The Government have taken many steps to reinvigorate the shipping sector and it would be a problem were we not to take a close interest in it.

    Tomahawk Missiles
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current position on the procurement of Tomahawk cruise missiles. [349]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): An order was placed on 16 October 1995 for 65 conventionally armed Tomahawk cruise missiles with the United States Department of Defence. Production is proceeding to plan, to an in-service date of 1998.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend's statement demonstrates that our armed forces are the best equipped in the world. Would not defence industry jobs be jeopardised by a future Labour Government who would not have the same level of procurement?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend talks about the painful consequences of electing a Labour Government, and the

    441
    hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred last week in a debate to the painful consequences of the defence review that he would like to introduce. What was he talking about? Was he talking about the painful consequences of reducing our commitments worldwide and thus abandoning our global role? Was he talking about the painful consequences of slashing the armed forces or of cutting our defence equipment budget or the simple painful consequence of the instability caused by a Labour Government? I think that we should be told.

    Trade Balance
    Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the current trade balance between Britain and the United States in defence products. [350]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The balance of trade remains at around two to one in favour of the United States. That figure is based on the latest five-year average of bilateral defence trade.
    Mr. Anderson: Can the Minister confirm that the current unsatisfactory imbalance of two to one will worsen unless the European defence industry can restructure to meet the challenge of the mega-merged US giants? In that context, will he tell the House whether the Ministry will continue to block the merger of the defence interests of British Aerospace and GEC?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Nobody has asked us whether we ould approve a merger of GEC and British Aerospace. The important issue is that we do well in trade with the United States, which is our second largest defence export market. We have had major successes in the United States. Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace sell about £600 million-worth of equipment a year in relation to the T45 and AV-8B programmes. There is a refuelling programme which Cobham pursues, with £150 million-worth of equipment supplied.
    We need an effective two-way street with the United States, as my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have argued on many occasions over the years. We have some good prospects for selling into the United States. The ASRAAM—the advanced short-range air-to-air missile—is a good candidate for such a sale. It is low risk and cost-effective, and would be an early solution to one of the requirements of the United States.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend remind those who are critical of our collaboration with the United States on defence matters that probably the finest piston-engined fighter aircraft that came out of the second world war was British and American? It had a British Rolls-Royce engine and an American airframe: the Mustang. Without question, subsequent collaboration—especially between Rolls-Royce and the United States—has produced some real winners, as with British Aerospace.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. With his experience of flying, I hardly need to add to his comments. We should also bear in mind the importance of the European dimension. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made a good point, which
    442
    I would not want to diminish, about the need to restructure European industry in order to compete with American industry. We try to encourage British industry to restructure across borders, not just within Europe but between the United Kingdom and the United States, because in the long run only large companies will be able to compete with the vast companies of the United States.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the balance of trade in defence products between Great Britain and any other country, including the United States, depend on the enforcement of Government policy towards that country? The Government have a policy prohibiting trade in defence products with Argentina. Has Rolls-Royce sold engine parts for use in Argentine naval warships?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a precise announcement on that last week, and I have nothing to add.

    Land Mines (Bosnia)
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the present number of anti-personnel land mines in Bosnia. [352]
    Mr. Soames: IFOR estimates that up to 5 million mines, including anti-personnel land mines, may have been laid in Bosnia.
    Mr. Gunnell: Given that our troops are daily facing hazards from those millions of mines, is it not inappropriate for the Minister and his Department to speak of modernising our stocks of such weapons? In view of the dangers that the mines pose not only to our troops but to civilians, we should not import, export or use those weapons at all. Should we not seek an international moratorium on their use, so that anti-personnel land mines can be cleared from areas where civilised people live?
    Mr. Soames: I can safely say that we are doing all that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are not exporting land mines; we are seeking an agreement to abandon their use. No one in the House would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments, although we might express them in a slightly more relevant way, by saying that we need to balance the humanitarian concern posed by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines with a continuing military requirement.
    The House will wish to pay tribute to the young men and women in Bosnia who are engaged in this extraordinarily dangerous and vital aspect of reconstruction, which makes service in Bosnia, as the hon. Gentleman said, especially hazardous. The House will wish to know that all our troops undergo comprehensive mine awareness training before they go. We deplore any injuries caused by these wicked weapons.
    Sir Jim Lester: The indiscriminate use of land mines in civil wars in Cambodia, Vietnam and many other parts of the world has caused great concern and is largely responsible for the pressure to ban them. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain has played no part in exporting or supplying land mines to these countries?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has extensive knowledge of these matters. As he knows, the Government have committed more than £21 million to mine clearance projects around the world since 1991. I know that he will agree that unilateral renunciation by the United Kingdom would not reduce the dangers to civilians. To be effective, any international agreement to ban anti-personnel mines must include these countries of real concern.

    Animal Experiments
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which species of animals are currently being used by his Department or contractors in connection with the development of weapons, vehicles, vessels, aero planes and hardware. [353]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My Department does not use animals in connection with developing weapons or offensive capabilities. Where absolutely necessary it does use a number of animal species to help develop protective measures and procedures to safeguard service personnel against the hazards that they may face on the battlefield and elsewhere.
    Mr. Banks: Would the Minister care to answer the questions about the species of animals that have been used; about how many experiments are being done on them; and about how many inspections are carried out by the Home Office? Those are the answers that we need to know. Many people will find it grotesque that animals should be used to find more efficient ways of killing other human beings—or of protecting human beings.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: That is just what I have said does not happen. We do not use animals in connection with developing weapons or offensive capabilities. All the work that we do complies with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That involves inspections, announced and unannounced, by the Home Office. I have also set up an additional safeguard; I recently set up the independent Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to oversee animal welfare arrangements at Ministry of Defence research establishments. We do not perform animal experiments where it is possible to use any alternative—and would not wish to.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend recall that Max Hoffmann described British first world war soldiers to General Ludendorf as "lions led by donkeys"? Can he assure the House, in the context of British participation in the projected European armaments agency—based on Franco-German armaments agencies—to develop weapons and equipment for the British armed forces, that there will be no question of Her Majesty's Government proving mulish or bovine in the pursuit of an objective that may militate against increased competition and access to British markets of high-quality American defence equipment?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Mulish or bovine? There will be no question of that.

    Saddam Hussein
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of Britain's contribution to the US and allied offensive against Saddam Hussein in September 1996. [354]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): The US military response in September to Saddam Hussein's aggression in northern Iraq, did not directly involve British forces. As a contingency measure some forces were put at higher readiness. The full costs of these cannot be separately identified, but included the deployment of two VCIO tankers to Cyprus at a cost of £88,000.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why has the Department not replied as promised to points raised during the defence estimates debate? A Minister said then that any points that had not been answered would be answered in writing, but I am still waiting for a reply.
    It would have cost $3 million to bring peace to northern Iraq in January this year, but the allies—of which Britain is one—delayed. In September, the United States spent at least $200 million—a part of which must have been paid by this country—on an exercise that has done nothing except consolidate Saddam Hussein in northern Iraq. Is that good value for money?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will write to the hon. Lady, who makes a number of assumptions that I do not share. She believes that a vigorous and expensive diplomatic effort to bring the Kurds together would necessarily have resulted in peace, but I am not sure that that would have been the case. One of her points in a recent speech was that a budget cut made it difficult for the Americans to pursue their diplomatic effort, and she suggested that we needed a more expensive diplomatic effort. She assumes that Saddam Hussein would not have chosen some other opportunity to remilitarise and to repress the population, but I believe that he would have seized any opportunity at any time to test the willpower of the international community. Money was required for a demonstration by the United States—backed by the United Kingdom—that we would not allow Saddam Hussein to get away with aggression, and I believe that money spent in that way is money well spent.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the costs of allowing Saddam Hussein to achieve his long-term goal—sovereignty over the area that produces most of the world's oil—would be literally incalculable? Would not it be totally wrong for us to stand back and leave the entire responsibility for containing that dangerous, powerful and evil man to the United States alone?
    Mr. Portillo: I entirely agree that that would be a catastrophically expensive option, and the United States deserves—and, under this Government, receives—our support. As it turned out, the method used to demonstrate to Saddam Hussein that he would not be allowed to get away with remilitarisation did not involve the direct participation of British forces, but we were pleased to make certain contingency arrangements and to allow the United States to use Diego Garcia.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Churchill: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about British forces in Bosnia beyond the end of 1996. [355]
    Mr. Portillo: If there were any international military force in Bosnia in 1997, we would expect it to be NATO-led and we would expect the UK to play its part alongside our allies.
    Mr. Churchill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that IFOR has proved to be a powerful demonstration of NATO effectiveness, and that a key ingredient of its success has been the full participation of United States forces? Does he further agree that all the efforts made by our Government, our service men and women and our allies in the past four years would come to nothing if the United States does not extend its commitment to maintaining the peace in Bosnia beyond the end of the year?
    Mr. Portillo: Clearly, the international community must be involved in Bosnia next year, and my hon. Friend's assumption—that that will involve a military component—is shared by many others. Any military component must involve the United States, and the US Administration have made it perfectly clear that a NATO operation would have to involve the US. The importance of alliance solidarity is well recognised by the US Administration, but they are waiting, as we all are, for the decisions—whatever they may be—to be ratified at the London conference at the beginning of December.
    Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State will know that the presence of our troops in Bosnia has helped to save thousands of lives. If there is to be a continued presence, the Opposition will support British troops participating with our major allies on the ground. Does he accept that when the winter snows have melted and the refugees have returned, the tasks and conditions confronting any military force will change considerably and that it would be easy for such a force to be sucked into a civilian policing role? Will he therefore give an assurance that if our troops are to participate in Bosnia after the end of the year, they will have clear objectives, rules of engagement and tasks that will be within the competence and expertise of a military force and will not replicate tasks that should be carried out by a civilian police force?
    Mr. Portillo: Of course, if there is to be a military presence next year, it will have clear objectives and the military will be asked to perform tasks suitable to the military. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the policy that we have been pursuing. I am also grateful that Labour policies were not pursued over the past 17 years, so that the troops were available to send to Bosnia.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if British forces are to be in Bosnia next year, they must be properly funded? Will he impress on his Cabinet colleagues—particularly the Chancellor—that that money must come from outside the defence budget or, if it is to
    446
    come from inside the defence budget, that it must be in addition to funds that would have been made available were our forces not to be in Bosnia next year?
    Mr. Portillo: It is, indeed, recognised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the costs of the IFOR mission are eligible for a claim on the reserve.

    Gulf War Syndrome
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy concerning Gulf war syndrome. [356]
    Mr. Soames: The health and well-being of our service personnel is our prime concern. A very substantial body of work is being undertaken, including that by the Medical Research Council and in co-ordination with the United States authorities, on illness that may be associated with Gulf service. We retain an open mind and are determined to get to the root of this difficult and extremely complex question.
    Ms Eagle: Is it not disgraceful that it took five years to discover that highly dangerous organophosphate pesticides were used by our Gulf war troops without protection and that that might have caused some of the problems of Gulf war syndrome? Will the Minister explain why he was not aware of that until recently?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady will know that those matters were aired during the statement on the defence estimates. I am happy to say again to the House that I share the profound concern of everyone that the information should have come to light so late. We deeply regret that it had not been brought to our attention before now and that such a highly pertinent factor should have been ignored. The hon. Lady probably goes too far when she says, in a general way, "without protection"—we do not know that it was without protection. The work that we have laid in hand—very extensive, important, detailed and thorough inquiries—will define and find out exactly the circumstances in which OPs were used. I give hon. Lady my assurance that, the minute that that information is to hand, I shall bring it to the House.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: The House will be aware of the well-justified reputation of the Ministry of Defence as a good and caring employer. In that context, my hon. Friend will be aware that two of the possible factors put forward as causes of the alleged Gulf war syndrome—inoculations and insecticides—were employed to protect our troops. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the vigorous way in which he has dealt with this difficult matter, but will he give an assurance that he is making the maximum possible effort to speed up research, both on purely scientific grounds and to offset the understandable emotions generated by the issue?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who served in the Gulf along with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). Both my hon. Friends are aware of the difficulties that arise in time of war, when everyone is under great pressure and action has to be taken to secure the health and welfare of our service

    447
    men and women. I give my hon. Friend the assurance he asked for: we will get to the bottom of the matter, which is why we have commissioned the finest medical research brains in the land—the Medical Research Council—to recommend what further research we should do. As soon as I have all that information to hand, I shall bring it to the House so that hon. Members can make their own judgment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the views that he expressed.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister understand that withholding from the House for five and a half years information about the use of organophosphates on our troops in the Gulf, was not only inexcusable but emphasises the Government's half-hearted attempts to tackle the problem of Gulf war syndrome? Is he absolutely satisfied that the excellent work of Dr. Coker and his single medical assistant will be sufficient to examine and diagnose more than 1,000 personnel who served in the Gulf?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman always spoils a sensible case, ruining it with his presentation. He and the rest of the House should be extremely cautious about making links between what is important new information and a broad range of illnesses, which may or may not constitute a syndrome. As for the suggestion that we deliberately withheld such information, that is a gratuitous insult and a foolish thing to say. I have told the hon. Gentleman, as I have told the House, that no one regrets more than I do the fact that that information did not come to our attention earlier.
    As for Group Captain Coker, I pay him tribute for the careful and steady way in which he has examined 782 veterans in the past two and a half years with his two medical assistants and a substantial range of other people who are conducting and assisting with the tests. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if we feel that we need more people, particularly on the medical assessment programme, we will take whatever steps are necessary as we always have done. It is a question not of money, but of finding the right way to get to the bottom of this fiendishly complex matter.

    Royal Navy Submarine School
    Sir Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Royal Navy submarine school will move to HMS Raleigh, Torpoint; and if he will make a statement. [357]
    Mr. Soames: The Royal Navy submarine school will move from HMS Dolphin at Gosport to HMS Raleigh at Torpoint, Cornwall. We plan that the school will become fully operational at its new location before the end of 2000.
    Sir Robert Hicks: While welcoming the proposed move to Torpoint, may I emphasise the urgent need for that decision to be implemented sooner rather than later, not least to ensure the continuation of HMS Raleigh as a major training establishment and to help offset the adverse effects that have undoubtedly resulted for the area as a consequence of the changes in our United Kingdom defence requirement?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. From the many representations
    448
    that he and local Conservative Members of Parliament have made to me about that situation I know exactly what he means. I give him my assurance that the submarine school will transfer as soon as it is convenient and possible for it sensibly to do so. I am delighted to be able to tell him that the Plymouth area will gain 182 service and 16 civilian jobs—a powerful illustration of the central importance of the south-west to the Navy. I hear what my hon. Friend has said and I will make close checks to ensure that it is done as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Miller: The Minister said "fully operational" in his response. Will he clarify whether that statement includes the submarine escape tower, which is located at HMS Dolphin? If it does, which will mean the building of a new tower, can he clarify at what cost? If it does not mean that, how will that facility be maintained?
    Mr. Soames: The submarine escape tower will remain at Dolphin. As the hon. Gentleman may or may not know, considerable sums have recently been spent on refurbishing and updating it. The Royal Navy has, in its usual effective and sensible way, managed to combine the use of the submarine escape tower at Dolphin with the transfer of the major part of the submarine school to Raleigh. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, were we to consider making such a transfer, we would clearly consult widely. We would not do so if it were patently a waste of money.
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will recall that my father was a submarines officer, but he may not know that served at HMS Raleigh as a cadet. Will he confirm that the move will not only be more efficient in terms of the use of the defence estate, but will move the training school closer to the submarine operating base at Devonport, which is particularly advantageous?
    Mr. Soames: Indeed I will. All those of us who know my hon. Friend's powerful pedigree will be sustained and fortified by the fact that he made good use of HMS Raleigh. The move is a sensible and effective one. It is the right thing to do and the Royal Navy is pleased to do it. It has also, I hope, been recognised that the move will certainly not be the end of HMS Dolphin, which will continue to play an important part in the life of the Royal Navy.

    RAF Sealand
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce a decision on RAF Sealand, Deeside, in respect of market testing. [358]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I expect to make an announcement on the market testing of RAF Sealand shortly.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for the visit that he made and for his accessibility and that of his Department. Will he insist that the in-house bid is successful? May I remind him that great British companies such as British Aerospace, Siemens and Lucas back RAF Sealand's in-house bid? He might agree with me that the greatest fliers in the world should be supported by a military unit devoted to excellence and safety, and not by a company which is devoted to shareholders and profit.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: As ever, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he does for his constituency. I visited RAF Sealand at his invitation and had a most helpful and informative visit. I saw the work force of RAF Sealand and was most impressed by the work that they did. I shall take into account the points that the hon. Gentleman has made on a number of occasions, not least in the recent defence debate, and also the points that he has made when he has come to see me at the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Murphy: Is it not about time that the Government dropped their obsession with market testing and realised that, while there is nothing wrong with being business like, our armed forces are not businesses? Why does he not accept my hon. Friend's pleas on behalf of RAF Sealand, which is going through this business exercise simply for the sake of it when all informed opinion tells us that the 1,600 people who work there operate the best establishment of its kind in this country?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman is implying that if there were ever a Labour Government, he would drop all commitment to competition. The "Competing for Quality" initiative saves us hundreds of millions of pounds. It gives us value for money. It means that money is available to us to spend on equipment and personnel which otherwise would not be available. It obtains value for money while at the same time preserving flexibility and responsiveness. Those are benefits that it would not be sensible to give up. The impression with which the hon. Gentleman leaves me is that the armed forces could not trust a Labour Government on defence.
    Sir Archibald Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend think that the reluctance of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to accept the concept of market testing and the suggestion that the interests of shareholders and safety cannot be combined is a sign of old Labour or new Labour?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not think that it really matters. It is a sign of Labour. The problem is that we cannot trust Labour on defence. We know that under any Labour Government we would find a reduction in competition, a reduction in the defence industry of Britain and a reduction in the value for money available to our armed services. I simply repeat that we cannot trust Labour on defence.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number of anti-personnel land mines currently emplaced throughout the world. [359]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The United Nations estimates there to be between 60 million and 110 million land mines emplaced worldwide.
    Mr. Pickthall: As the next generation of land mines will be made entirely of plastic and therefore undetectable by currently available methods, does the Minister not think that now is the right time to ban entirely the export
    450
    and import of land mines from the United Kingdom and to front up an international campaign to end the production of these evil weapons?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We have agreed that we wish to see the worldwide abolition of land mines. That is very important to us and we are working very hard to achieve it. We believe that land mines must be detectable. We should also like to see land mines made as self-destruct mines so that they no longer pose the dangers to civilians that we have seen far too widely. The land mines that our armed forces use do not pose the greatest threat to the world's civilian population because they are used by our forces responsibly and properly. That may not be precisely the answer that the hon. Gentleman wants to hear. We want a worldwide ban on land mines as soon as that can be achieved.
    Mr. Robathan: Those of us in all parts of the House who want an end to the use of land mines that kill civilians welcome the Government's sensible lead on this matter. They are trying to stop land mines being produced and maiming civilians. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a bandwagon on to which many Opposition Members are jumping? They try to use the issue of land mines as a stick with which to beat the Government although, as my hon. Friend rightly says, no British land mines maim civilians anywhere in the world.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To a certain extent it is a bandwagon, but we should concentrate on the fact that the Government support a worldwide ban on land mines, so long as that can be achieved and agreed. The Government have paid almost £22 million towards the clearance of land mines throughout the world. We are world leaders in that area and we should take considerable credit for that.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Is the Minister aware that the Manchester-based Co-operative bank has urged every bank in this and other countries to ban the financing of land mines? Those mines kill 24,000 people every year. As it is the Government's policy to oppose any further manufacture of land mines, will the Minister exhort, encourage and commend other banks in the United Kingdom and worldwide to do the same?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: So far as I am aware, anti-personnel land mines have not been made in the United Kingdom for 10 years. We want an effective worldwide ban on land mines. That can be achieved only through international agreement. We are working with other countries to achieve such an agreement, and we shall continue to do so.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend realise how glad we are to hear that we are clearing land mines? The world is strewn with these evil things. Will he encourage the United Nations and other agencies to persuade the polluters to clear up their own mess?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, to a large extent we are doing that. Bosnia is an example. But it is not an easy task, and it requires skilled and courageous people. The skills that we can give people are very helpful. Sometimes this task must be done by people with the proper qualifications.

    Bett Report
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the Bett report. [360]
    Mr. Portillo: In July I informed the House that detailed options were being developed to take forward the independent review's report, and that more work was needed on those options. Progress is being made, and I hope that a report will be produced later this year that will provide the basis for an information exercise within the armed forces.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Secretary of State recall that in February we were told from the Dispatch Box that a definitive statement would be made before the summer? We are now approaching Christmas and the Secretary of State is again delaying that statement. Is not the reality that the Government have thrown the Bett report into the dustbin for party political reasons?
    Mr. Portillo: No. The reality is that it is important to develop systems which help to recruit and retain good people. That requires much detailed analysis. We must ensure that we get it right, and that takes time.
    Mr. Key: Given the number of reviews to which the armed forces have been subjected in recent years, and given the unpopularity of the Bett report, will my right hon. Friend ensure that he does not take the advice of the report's author to do all or nothing, but that he is selective about the changes from which the armed forces would benefit?
    Mr. Portillo: These decisions are in the Government's hands and not in the hands of the author of the report. The Government will undertake those measures that they believe to be in the best interests of the armed forces. I agree with my hon. Friend that such reviews can be the cause of some anxiety in the armed forces. For that reason, we have made it clear that we do not need a defence review, and especially not one with the painful consequences that the Opposition tell us would flow from the review proposed by the Labour party.

    Defence Equipment
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of MOD defence equipment is procured in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) Europe. [361]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We estimate that over the past five years 91 per cent. by value of our direct equipment expenditure, including collaborative programmes, has been placed with United Kingdom industry, and 9 per cent. overseas. We do not have a breakdown of the overseas figure by particular area.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response. Does my hon. Friend agree that procurement policy is important for the future not only of the armed forces but of defence manufacturing capacity in this country, so that we can retain research and development and a skills base in the United Kingdom? That applies not only to large firms such as British Aerospace, in my constituency, but to
    452
    smaller companies such as the 127 small firms that have joined the Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace, which had a turnover of £3.5 billion last year.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree with my hon. Friend. The competitiveness that Government policies have introduced into British industry means that that industry has been successful throughout the world. That is a good story for my hon. Friend and his constituency.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 October. [378]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge the impact of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis on rural communities, and does he accept that that concern is compounded by the problems surrounding the Government's approach to the selective slaughter programme and the fact that different Ministers are saying different things to different people in different places? Will he take the opportunity to tell the House now whether he proposes to carry out the selective slaughter programme that he agreed in Florence, linked to a definite firm timetable for lifting the ban on British exports?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right about the impact of BSE on the rural areas. That is why we have provided so many resources to assist the farming industry through the difficulty. We agreed in Florence, some time ago, that we take decisions—especially decisions on selective culls—on the basis of science. What has happened since Florence is that several elements of the science have changed—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Opposition do not think that we should deal with the matter on the basis of the science. I happen to think that we should. First, the evidence suggests that the selective cull—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: And I would like to educate the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the basis of the science, Madam Speaker.
    First, the evidence suggests that the selective cull will not be as effective in eradicating BSE as was thought. We are discussing that with the Commission. Secondly, we have new evidence on the possibility of maternal transmission, which is also being discussed with the Commission. That evidence needs to be assessed by us, by the Commission and by other European Union members. That is what is happening at the moment. As for the cull itself, pending the conclusion of that discussion, no one has definitively ruled out our proceeding with the cull. That will depend on whether the

    453
    cull is justified, either scientifically or in some other fashion. One impact of the extent to which the over-30-months scheme has proceeded is that some cattle that would have been caught by the selective cull have now been slaughtered under the original scheme.
    Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend recall his visit to the Asian economic summit some months ago, and his subsequent visit to Korea? Is it not clear that that visit was one of the most successful visits abroad, if not the most successful, by a British Prime Minister in our history, bringing with it billions of pounds' worth of investment and tens of thousands of jobs? Does not my right hon. Friend deserve the congratulations of the House, and not least of the Opposition, because many Opposition Members' constituencies will be the direct beneficiaries of my right hon. Friend's efforts?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recalling the success of that visit to Korea. I very much welcome the inward investment that we have seen not only from Korea—I hope that in the future we shall obtain more for the same reasons as in the past: the good state of the British economy—but from other parts of the world. As much has come into this country as into the rest of western Europe added together.
    Mr. Blair: Returning to the Prime Minister's reply about beef, does he recall saying categorically that the beef ban would be lifted by November and that the timetable was in our hands? When does he now estimate that the ban will be lifted? If he says that the selective cull will proceed in accordance with the Florence agreement, why did the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say precisely the opposite in early September, which has caused all the additional cost and confusion?
    The Prime Minister: What I just said, as the right hon. Gentleman will find when he reads Hansard, is that we are discussing the impact of the selective cull in the light of the new science. On that basis, we shall be able to decide whether it is justified to proceed with it or not. Those are on-going discussions. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else in the House would wish us to proceed with a cull, which might turn out to be unjustified, until we have concluded the discussions with the Commission and the other member states. On the development of the over-30-months scheme, the House may be interested to know that more than 700,000 cattle have now been slaughtered and the slaughter rate has passed 50,000 a week, which means that we shall be able to make rapid progress on the backlog.
    Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, some Ministers say that the cull will proceed simply on the basis of science while other Ministers say that they must take account of other considerations and whatever is necessary to restore confidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] I am asked to name them. In the past 24 hours we have had one position from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, another from the Secretary of State for Scotland and, at the last count, no fewer than four positions from the Minister of Agriculture, all of which are opposites. Does the Prime Minister accept that the
    454
    confusion in the Government's position is doing immense damage to British interests and to the British farming industry?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman is confused. The reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) a few moments ago set out precisely and exactly where we are in the discussions with our European partners. Once we have concluded those discussions, it will be clear whether it is right and necessary to proceed with a selective cull. The right hon. Gentleman will recall his own agriculture spokesman saying in the past that we needed to be satisfied that this was justified. I agree with that comment. It might be, but we must examine the new scientific evidence that has been provided. It would be very unwise of us, and very unfair on the agricultural industry, if we did not do that.
    Mr. Blair: If there is confusion, it is shared by the farming industry, most of Europe and, it appears, most of the Cabinet. In fewer than seven days since Parliament returned from the summer recess, the Government have been forced to make a U-turn on stalkers and paedophiles and to change their line on combat knives, and they are utterly sunk in confusion on the farming industry. Then this morning we had the extraordinary spectacle of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment popping up on the "Today" programme saying that she will bring back corporal punishment in schools, only to be reprimanded and contradicted within minutes by the Prime Minister, apparently on his mobile telephone from the train. Are not those the symptoms of a Government who have lost the capacity to govern and whose drifts and weakness are damaging Britain?
    The Prime Minister: Every single word of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is a twisted distortion of the facts over the past week. In opposition he may be able to spend his life springing public relations stunts; in government we deal with reality.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that west Yorkshire has a long and proud tradition of excellence in education in local schools? Will he note that in many urban areas such as mine schools have coped well with difficult children over many years? Does he conclude, as I do, that the problems of Ridings school in Halifax must be uniquely difficult but deserve unique and urgent attention?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that the problems at Ridings school deserve and will obtain urgent attention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has requested the Office for Standards in Education to make an immediate inspection of the school, which will commence today and be completed on Wednesday. My right hon. Friend expects to have that report by Friday of this week.
    I will add a further point to comments made about schools in recent days. It would be wise for everybody to get the matter into proper perspective. Some comments, despite the two serious issues raised, have bordered on the absurd by taking the particular and assuming that that position applies more generally in schools. That is not the

    455
    case. The vast majority of pupils are well behaved and the vast majority of schools are orderly places, and we are determined that they shall remain so.
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 October. [379]
    The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Hara: Christmas is coming and in Christmas catalogues that are easily available young and impressionable people are exposed to advertisements such as for the "Terminator terror sword … monstrous, double handled … 56 inches overall … absolutely awesone" and and "a commando knife complete with a blood channel—ideal Christmas present".
    Will the Prime Minister accept the Labour party's offer to co-operate with the introduction of legislation, preferably before Christmas, to regulate such monstrous advertisements and proscribe the sale of knives and weapons whose only practical purpose can be as instruments of violence?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that there is no dispute about the desirability of banning such weapons where a workable definition can be found. We took extra powers as early as 1988 to ban a series of weapons, and a large range of them are banned. We have also banned the carrying of offensive weapons and given the police powers to stop and search for them—powers that the Labour party opposed and voted against when we brought them before the House. I hope that the leader of the Labour party now realises that he was utterly wrong to take that view. If we can find a proper definition—which has thus far defeated the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation and the Scottish Police Federation—we will certainly move as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary indicated yesterday.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's two-centre approach to on-route air traffic control across the United Kingdom is essential to air safety?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that whatever it was that my hon. Friend might have said was well judged.
    Madam Speaker: It was the sort of short question of which I approve.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 October. [380]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister reply to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and explain how it was that this morning the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was so out of touch with Government policy on corporal punishment in schools that the Prime Minister had to track
    456
    her down on her mobile telephone? I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on delivering for the first time in his career the smack of firm leadership.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady has the grace to chuckle, and I am not surprised. I will tell the hon. Lady what I absolutely agree with—the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has drafted and will introduce to the House tomorrow.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Britain is back in front as the largest investor in the United States, ahead even of Japan. One million Americans are directly employed by British companies. Is that not a true example of Britain's performance overseas?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the extent of inward investment into this country and the extent of productive external investment from this country abroad. We are among the world's largest external investors per head of population, and it brings huge benefits to this country in returned dividends and profits. My hon. Friend is right: it is an indication of the strength of British industry and our overseas investment.
    Mr. Randall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 October. [381]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Prime Minister aware that 20 years ago the fishing trawler Gaul, which was based in my constituency, mysteriously disappeared with the loss of more than 30 fishermen? At that time, the vessel was near the coast of the old Soviet Union. In addition to fishing, the Gaul actually carried out military intelligence surveillance.
    Is the Prime Minister also aware that some two or three weeks ago there was a programme on television entitled, "The Riddle of the Gaul", which uncovered new evidence regarding the mysterious disappearance of the Gaul? For the sake of the people of Hull who lost loved ones and friends as a result of that disaster, would the Prime Minister be kind enough to arrange that the new evidence be looked into with a view to carrying out an underwater search of the Gaul so that all the questions surrounding its disappearance can be settled once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of what that new evidence might be, but obviously the hon. Gentleman has. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman sees my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Of course we shall examine very carefully any evidence that may have been produced and decide how best to proceed.

  BILL PRESENTED
    WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
    Mr. Secretary Hague, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mrs. Secretary Shephard, Mr. Jonathan Evans and Mr. Gwilym Jones, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the financial limit in section 18(3) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975: And the same was read the First time; Jand ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

House of Commons Stationery
3.30 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With regard to paragraph (d) of the guidance on the use of House of Commons stationery, if a letter is sent out on House of Commons stationery, which starts with the words:
"I am replying on behalf of Tony Blair to your letter dated 3 September concerning our invitation to join the Labour party"
proceeds to enclose some information about joining the Labour party, is signed, apparently, by Mr. John Burton, agent to Mr. Tony Blair, and is sent out in an official franked envelope, is that a matter which should properly be directed to the Administration Committee?
Madam Speaker: It is a matter which, in the first instance, should be directed to the Serjeant at Arms, who will question those concerned. If there has been misuse of stationery or postage, those involved will be required to refund the amounts concerned.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FIFTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 October],
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows: Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Sir Norman Fowler]
  Question again proposed.

  Education and Local Government
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.33 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
  "but humbly regret that while the Gracious Speech did introduce a number of measures already put forward by Your Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it did not also embrace other ways of raising standards in our schools including lower infant class sizes, better teacher training, stronger national targets for primary and secondary schools leading to improved literacy and essential qualifications for all; and further regret that the Gracious Speech highlighted measures which will increase division, undermine parental choice, subsidise private preparatory schools at the expense of state schools and will make it more difficult for the efficient delivery of education locally."
  If we ever needed an example of it, we have today an example of the Government in shambles, in confusion, in a muddle and with a crew in charge that could not have managed to sail across the Solent, never mind around the world.
  The Prime Minister's dictum of "Don't mess with Gilly" has become "Save me from Gilly's mess". When the right hand does not know what the far right hand is doing, no wonder it is not clear who is in charge, and no wonder there is no coherence, direction or vision from the Government.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will give way. This is an early start.
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman wondered who was in charge. Will he tell us which party is in charge of the local education authorities in Calderdale and Nottinghamshire and has allowed certain schools there to get into such a state?
  Mr. Blunkett: Of course, between 1992 and 1995, the Conservatives were running education in Calderdale. They forced through the amalgamation of the two schools. If they want to start throwing darts this afternoon, I shall throw a few back.

  459
  Last week, there was to be no Government Bill on a paedophile register and no Government Bill on stalkers. That was the case on Wednesday morning. By Wednesday afternoon, the Government had capitulated and seen sense. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has that to do with education?"] It has everything to do with a Government who do not have the first idea what they are doing, morning, noon or night. Last weekend, there was to be no ban on dangerous knives. Yesterday, there was the possibility of some ban, with a slight equivocation from the Prime Minister this afternoon.
  On the "Today" programme this morning came the coup de grace. At 8.10 am, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was opening up the possibility of bringing back corporal punishment. By 11 am, the Prime Minister was on to her and had overruled. There she was, on a train somewhere trying to listen to a mobile telephone, hearing a crackling message saying, "Gilly, you've got it wrong again. Smacking is our—
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Miss Whiplash.
  Mr. Blunkett: It is not Miss Whiplash, but the Whip has intervened. The cane has been put aside for another era. Thank God for mobile telephones. If she had got off the train not knowing the answer to the question, all her Back Benchers could have continued running around with the media, as they have been, saying how enthusiastic they were about a good beating. Let us face it, the British people would like to give them a good beating if only they had the chance.
  What a fiasco! Last Wednesday, the Government announced a Bill in the Queen's Speech. By the following week, they are not sure what is in or out of it, although apparently this afternoon they are.
  Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Gentleman is talking about fiascos. Does he realise that his suggestion of a contract between parents and teachers has been rejected by every teaching union, including the headmasters? They all think that he is talking nonsense.
  Mr. Blunkett: Ignoring the danger of apoplexy from the hon. Gentleman, let me make it clear that the Labour party is not in the pocket of the teachers' unions. We are not the poodle of any union leader. We do not jump to the television every time Nigel de Gruchy sneezes. That is more than can be said for the Secretary of State and her colleagues.
  We have developed a coherent policy. We laid it before our conference a month ago, where it was agreed. The home-school contracts, which I shall deal with in a moment, were put forward back in 1988. There are no Johnny-come-latelies here. We have developed our policy coherently, through consultation.
  Interestingly, that brings me to the other element in the new Tory armoury—the re-emergence of Conservative family values. We have all heard about those values over the past four or five years. I am reminded of the Parkinson syndrome, which developed a different view of the sort of responsibilities that Conservative Members so often preach about to others. Was it not amazing to find that, on Sunday, the Secretary of State for Education and
  460
  Employment was trying to alter the values forum document before it had even been published? Before we had even seen it and before people could make up their own minds, someone leaned on the Secretary of State at a party, dinner or press meeting, and she decided that the values forum document did not go far enough.
  Let us have some cohesion as we try to build a genuine policy for the future of our country. Let us try to realise that economic and social policies have a major impact on the way that people behave towards one another. That is why the past 18 years have made a substantial contribution to the disintegration of Britain's social fabric, and why social cohesion is breaking down in so many of our communities. One cannot preach the sort of values and mouth the sort of platitudes that the Secretary of State mouthed this weekend when one has doubled crime and tripled the number of one-parent families.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman speaks of preaching values. The Leader of the Opposition is against abortion, but votes for it because his constituents are in favour of it. When the education Bill is introduced and those of us who are in favour of discipline table an amendment in favour of corporal punishment, will the Leader of the Opposition vote for it because his constituents favour it, even though he is probably against it?
  Mr. Blunkett: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has lots of experience of family life and its development. [Interruption.] If his activities and speeches are anything to go by, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who is shouting about gutters, knows all about them. There will not be an amendment—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant to say the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), and I apologise to the hon. Member for Dartford. I was heading in the right direction, but had not quite located the right bit of the county—both hon. Members are to the far right of the Tory party, and develop the same policies.
  The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is that there will be no such vote. As the hon. Gentleman does on occasions, hon. Members will take account of the Whip that will be imposed—as the Secretary of State for Education and Employment knows to her cost.
  Dr. Robert Spink: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I am confused because I do not know what his policy is on discipline in schools and the Government's Bill. Will the Opposition support the Government's move to increase discipline in schools, and introduce new sanctions on unruly children? Will the Opposition support those elements of the Bill? What is the hon. Gentleman's policy?
  Mr. Blunkett: There are only two elements of the Bill which is to be published tomorrow and which we will presumably debate over the next two or three weeks. The first is a complete return to a failed and bygone era of selection, and the second involves straight plagiarism, as the Government try to introduce our policies half-heartedly and without the necessary cohesion to ensure that they work.

  461
  The Government preach—in the Prime Minister's words—about opportunity for all, but in practice they intend to deliver it to the very few. That is the nub of the Queen's Speech as it relates to education, training and employment.
  Dr. Spink: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy?
  Mr. Blunkett: I hope that you will call the hon. Gentleman later, Madam Speaker, so that we can hear the pearls of wisdom that fall from his lips. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seems to be applauding that, so I am sure that we are in for a treat later.
  The home-school contract is just one part of the jigsaw regarding discipline and a partnership between schools and parents. It is a classic example of the way in which the Conservative party does not understand what is going on. If we divide parents, schools and the education system against themselves, we cannot move forward to provide the equal opportunity and high standards that Labour intends to offer to everyone.
  Under the Bill, the home-school contract would be compulsory in some schools but not in others. That would have the same effect as the breakdown in status and selection in our education system: some children would be rejected by schools that consider them unteachable. Those children would then be dumped into what would become sink schools across the country.
  I shall address head on the issue of the Ridings school in Halifax, which was raised earlier. It is a classic example of how division of the education system results in some schools struggling against the odds at the expense of the children and of the staff who are trying to teach them. If there are one or two grammar schools in every town—as is the case in Halifax—some children are automatically rejected and prevented from entering the school. If there is a status breakdown—so that schools have different status, funding, admissions policies and accountability—schools can avoid taking children whom they believe will disadvantage them.
  As a consequence, some schools become secondary modern: they must cope with the children whom other schools will not take and whom other teachers will not teach. Those schools struggle in such circumstances. In Halifax, the problem was compounded by the union of two schools whose pupils and others who should have known better were known to be at each other's throats. Ultimately, the community and the town was divided, and there was division of educational opportunity. It is as simple as that.
  The message from Halifax is very clear: we must reject selection precisely because it denies choice and fails to provide opportunity for all our children. It divides the education system, and it creates haves and have-nots.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Why does the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) send his children to school in Westminster when he lives in Lambeth? Why does the Leader of the Opposition, who lives in Islington, send his child to a grant-maintained school? What is so marvellous about the systems in Islington and in Lambeth that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen choose to send their children elsewhere?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point entirely. I argue not for the denial of choice, but for
  462
  an opening up of choice. My argument is that a selective system, with a grammar school in every town, which automatically denies 95 per cent. of the population the right and the opportunity to enter a school—based not on where people live, on geography or any other rational criteria, but on an examination that precludes children at the age of 11—is a denial of choice.
  I think that it is time that we put that on the Order Paper. Let us be clear: the Government are offering the kind of choice that was offered to the passengers—even the luxury passengers—of the Titanic. First, there were not enough lifeboats. That is a classic case of creating a grammar school in every town and a secondary modern on every housing estate: 5 per cent. have opportunities and 95 per cent. do not. Secondly, the crew did not know how to launch the lifeboats that were available; and thirdly, no one had trained the passengers to use them. Ironically, although the luxury passengers had first access to the lifeboats, that did not save them.
  As with selection in the modern era, provision can be made for the few, but it will not benefit them in the long run, because denying a good education to the many will undermine the economic fabric of society and the cohesion of our communities. It is a simple, known fact that selection destroys cohesion. The Secretary of State does not believe in that part of the Bill in any case; she fought hard against the Prime Minister to avoid having to include it; no one is in favour of it.
  Only 1 per cent. of those consulted—15 out of 1,500—wanted the extension of partial selection. Only 41 schools have taken it up, and 35 of those were dealing only with art and drama, leaving only six taking it up for general selection. No one wants it apart from the Tory party, which, earlier this year, saw what it believed to be a chink of light.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: In a moment.
  The Tories believed that they could embarrass us. That part of the Queen's Speech is nothing to do with standards for all and everything to do with what they describe as clear blue water. Somebody must have pulled out the plug, because we will not be embarrassed by anything whatever to do with selection. I have no compunction whatever in declaring that there will be no further selection under a Labour Government, for all the reasons that I have spelt out this afternoon.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Will the hon. Gentleman help me and the rest of the House by confirming that it is the new Labour policy to strive for a fully comprehensive system of education?
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: That is what the right hon. Lady said in 1974 when she stood for Kingston council.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: And I won.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Lady did not do what she said—and she is blushing.
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend tells us that the right hon. Lady is blushing, but he also reminds us that, in

  463
  1974, she campaigned—successfully, she says—on a programme of comprehensive education for all. I take his word for that, and I applaud her previous policy.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman should understand that I campaigned substantially throughout my career as a local councillor and as chairman of the education committee in Kingston to preserve the selective system, that I did so successfully, and that all my three children went to the selective grammar school.
  Mr. Blunkett: Were not they lucky to be in a home with books; lucky to have a parent driving them forward; lucky to have a primary school that crammed them to enable them to pass the examination; lucky to live in a different era from the present one, which the Government are proud about one minute and denounce the next?
  Let us be clear about the fact that we live in a divided society, in which more than 600,000 young men and women under 25 have no job, no education and no training to go to; in which, even according to the Government's fiddled figures, more than 2 million people are unemployed; in which the long-term unemployed have no hope for tomorrow or for next year; in which more than 50 per cent. of those who have found jobs in the past year have become unemployed again within 12 months; in which—[Interruption.]
  I hear the words "Oh, dear me." It is "Oh, dear me" for the people who are experiencing what I am talking about; for people experiencing genuine suffering after 18 years of Conservative rule; for those who face insecurity in our communities; and for those who know what the phrase "generational unemployment" means and why it has an impact on our schools.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I will not give way for the moment; I have given way sufficiently.
  I want to tell Conservative Members a thing or two about divided communities where people do not have the hope of a job; where teenagers, especially boys of 13, 14 or 15, can see no reason to study, and have no hope of a job or further education.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: That is a disgraceful remark.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am being accused of making a disgraceful remark, but that is the reality in schools and communities. Anyone who knew anything about what is going on and who realised the deep divide and economic despair that so many people face would understand exactly what I am saying. Talk to those who teach in the schools, such as those at the Ridings school, about the divisions, the hopelessness and the housing estates where 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of households of working age have nobody employed—people dependent on income support.
  We are talking about welfare to work; the Government are talking about trapping people in welfare and reinforcing dependence. Three times as many children are now dependent on the welfare state as there were in 1979, but the hon. Gentleman says that it is a disgrace that I should draw attention to the hopelessness and despair of young people with no prospect of a job. It is he and the
  464
  Government who are a disgrace, because they do not even understand the consequences of their actions. That is the sad and deplorable thing. They do not have a clue what they have done.
  I make the Secretary of State an offer. Abandon the divisive—abandon selection and discrimination—and let us unite around those elements of the Bill that all hon. Members could support to lift standards, provide a disciplined environment and ensure that children have the chance of a decent education. If the Secretary of State really wants, as she said this morning on the "Today" programme, to promote those elements of the Bill on which there is general agreement, and the Government want to get those elements through in this legislative Session, let them abandon those elements that no one wants or favours and that are designed purely as party political dogma.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: The young people who are really trapped are those in Labour-controlled authorities such as Islington, Tower Hamlets and Southwark. The official evidence from those places has never been denied. The reading standards of more than half of 11-year-olds are at least two years behind what they should be. The only people who can get away from that are those with the wealth to get away. That is the selection that the hon. Gentleman is offering People such as his colleagues are able, through their rich earning capacity, to get their children out of that system.
  Mr. Blunkett: It is nothing to do with income. With one breath, the Government say that they have offered people choice, with the next they say that the choice is not there, and that they must extend it through further selection. They cannot have it both ways. Either the choice is there for parents and being exercised or it is not.
  However, the House should not take my word for the divisive, corrosive nature of what the Government propose. Take instead the word of the Association of Grant Maintained and Aided Schools, not exactly a Labour-backed or Labour-supporting organisation. Its submission on the White Paper on selection states:
  "This is an extremely divisive issue for the GM sector. Although many of our members are former Grammar Schools and some of those would like to return to their former role, the greater number are well established comprehensive schools which have been successful in raising academic standards and providing opportunities for the majority of their pupils. They would resent changes in the admission arrangements to neighbouring schools that would distort the current level playing field."
  We cannot get anything much clearer than that, or can we?
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment.
  The association continues:
  "Raising standards"—
  this is related directly to the crisis at the Ridings school—
  "of a school with a low average ability serving an area of social deprivation has always been difficult. Creating what in parental perception is a grammar school nearby will make it virtually impossible."
  That is the answer to Conservative Members. If we create division, undermine opportunity and deny teachers the support they need to do the job, we should not be

  465
  surprised if we end up with a fractured society, with a lack of cohesion and an inability to heal the wounds of the past two decades.
  The Government have not just stumbled upon a Britain that is divided against itself. We are not talking of a Government who have had nothing to do with 18 years of right-wing radical change, of Thatcherism writ large. The Government are not an Administration who have had nothing to do with 10 million people experiencing unemployment since the Prime Minister took office. The Government carry direct responsibility for their own actions over the past 18 years, including the damage that they have brought to every community in every part of Britain.
  Let us unite in putting those items on the agenda that matter to people in our communities. Let us heal wounds and ensure that schools can do their job on behalf of every pupil. Let us not confine our efforts to just a few schools that are fit to teach and learn in. Let us ensure that we can once again be proud to give every child a chance. Now is the time for a change. Enough is enough. It is time for a new agenda, with a new Government blowing a new wind of change through the schools and communities of Britain. It is time for a Labour Government.
  4.1 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) began in unaccustomedly lively form. We all noticed, however, when the scriptwriter's text ran out. He conveniently ignored, in his new-found enthusiasm for standards and achievements, the fact that it is the Labour party which runs nine out of 10 local education authorities with the worst GCSE results. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said, those are the LEAs where young people find themselves trapped.
  The hon. Gentleman attempted to glide over the fact that it is his political colleagues in the town halls in Labour Nottinghamshire and Labour Calderdale who are demonstrating their inability to sort out problem schools and pupils. In his statement on Calderdale and the Ridings school, he ignored the fact that in Wiltshire, Bexley and Buckinghamshire, which all run selective systems, the results of the lowest-achieving schools are far higher than those of Calderdale. There is no comfort for the hon. Gentleman in his conclusions on selection in those areas.
  The hon. Gentleman's statements about selection and choice to the effect that his party opposes them cannot sit alongside the actions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and others. We have had much preaching from the hon. Gentleman and it is about time that he put over his message to his right hon. and hon. Friends. He must surely understand that his party's position, which is one policy for his hon. Friends and another for the rest of the population, is a ludicrous hypocrisy.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has not the Secretary of State prejudged Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on the problems at the Ridings school? The right hon. Lady has
  466
  said that there will be no more money for Calderdale council. She blamed the local education authority. Those statements were made before the HMI went in, as it were. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that if Calderdale received the same financial help per pupil as Westminster city council, it could afford to recruit 860 additional teachers? Does not even she accept that that would make a considerable difference to the four remaining LEA secondary schools in Calderdale?
  Mrs. Shephard: I would not dream of prejudging the outcome of the inspector's report, but it is good leadership and sound help from the local education authority, not extra resources, that is required.
  Mr. George Foulkes rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: I shall just finish this point, because I am answering the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
  The hon. Lady, who has had the opportunity to observe the situation at the school at close hand—after all, we are talking about her constituents and their children—might well have taken some action before now instead of standing by, and now, apparently, wringing her hands. It is her political friends in the town hall who have the responsibility for this. But, of course, we must await the outcome of the inspector's report.
  I give way to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
  Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State is factually incorrect when she blames my political friends in the town hall. Her political friends pushed through—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I regret that that is not a point of order, but a point of argument. I very much hope that the hon. Lady will catch my eye early in the debate so that she can make her points known.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State refers, as do many of her colleagues time and again, to two of my colleagues who send their children to local authority schools in London boroughs other than their own. Can she tell me—I should like a straight answer for once—which members of the Cabinet have enough faith in the local authority system to send their children to local authority schools? Once they do that, as I did, I shall pay some attention to what they have to say about the local authority system.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman shows well the prejudices of the Labour party. His party is against choice, selection and diversity in education. The hon. Gentleman should look for the mote in the eyes of his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Secretary of State is well aware of the situation at Manton junior school in Worksop in my constituency, where the teachers are on strike and there is total deadlock between the governors, who insist on a boy going to school, and the teachers, who have said that they will not teach while he is there. The right hon. Lady says that it is for the local authority to solve the problem, but it is her legislation that has handed total power over to the governors. They are

  467
  abusing their powers, because 75 per cent. of the parents have signed a petition asking them to stand down. They are deliberately going against the local council, the parents and the teachers.
  There is now a deadlock. I have asked the right hon. Lady to intervene and meet a delegation, but she will not. I have written to her and I have raised every possible avenue with the Office for Standards in Education and everybody else, but the strike looks like going ahead. Yet the right hon. Lady is simply blaming the local council, which has no powers whatever. What does she intend to do about the situation?
  Mrs. Shephard: The local education authority is in charge. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether, in the first instance, he would take his deputation to see the chairman of Nottinghamshire education committee. I hope that he has now visited the school. I understand that meetings are taking place today and tomorrow. But the simple fact is that there is a dispute—a breakdown of relationships—between the teachers, the head, the governors and the LEA, and that must be solved at local level. I had conversations with the hon. Gentleman earlier, but I am always happy to talk to him on those matters. However, I am firmly of the view that it is a matter for the LEA.
  The hon. Member for Brightside referred, although rather briefly, to home-school agreements. I listened carefully, and I have read what he has to say about his party's proposals for compulsory home-school agreements. I welcome the fact that he will at least support the Government's approach, but—like Margaret Morrissey of the Parents-Teachers Association, Ms Tulloch of the Campaign for State Education and the spokesmen for all the teacher unions—I doubt whether compulsion would work. Parents who support children will not need compulsion, and compulsion would make no difference to those who do not.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend seeks to produce adequate discipline in schools, and we all encourage her in that because without discipline, there would be no education. Many of her colleagues were encouraged by her brave remarks this morning and I can assure her that an amendment will be tabled to restore corporal punishment and to make it available to school governors, should they so wish.
  Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I could deal with discipline a little later: for now, I wish to complete this passage.
  On home-school agreements, the hon. Member for Brightside mentioned partnerships with parents—although he proposes making them compulsory, which is a curious form of partnership—and that sits ill with his party's record of consistent opposition to all the Government's policies that have put parental choice, information to parents and their involvement as governors at the centre of everything that we have done in education. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect to be taken seriously when he says that he wants parents to be partners—especially if he intends to force them into partnership—because he and his party have opposed that very concept for so long and in so many ways.
  Mr. Don Foster: I agree with every word that the Secretary of State has just said, but does she accept
  468
  that her policy is also confused? She will allow schools to choose whether to have a contract, but if they choose to do so, the contract will be compulsory. Does not that mean that Margaret Tulloch, and the other people the Secretary of State mentioned, are also critical of her proposals?
  Mrs. Shephard: I might accept the hon. Gentleman's point if it were not for the fact that, as I have just said, the home-school agreements that we propose to make available to schools—as part of their admission arrangements—are part of a broad tranche of measures that seek to hind parents into the educational process, including, for example, baseline assessment.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the soaring class sizes in Cambridgeshire, which were reported last night in the Cambridge Evening News, are due entirely to the Government's capping of expenditure in Cambridgeshire and are not conducive to raising standards? In one school, Huntingdon county junior school, which is in the Prime Minister's constituency, more than 50 per cent. of the children are taught in classes of more than 30. Does she agree that that will not raise standards in my county?
  Mrs. Shephard: As I have said many times in the House and as the chief inspector has made clear many times, achievement in education depends on the quality of teaching and the quality of leadership. Teaching is, of course, more difficult if classes are extremely large, but the hon. Lady will know that teachers are helped by teaching assistants in many classes, especially in primary schools.
  I wish to return to the Gracious Speech, which has as its principal themes the extension of opportunity and choice. Those principles have guided Conservative Governments since 1979 through four Parliaments and four election victories, and they will guide us through the legislative programme in the remainder of this Parliament and into the next one. The application of choice and opportunity in education means that we now have a system in which accountability, transparency, independence and the choice and diversity provided for consumers have combined to raise standards.
  Mr. George Stevenson: The Secretary of State recently announced that a failed independent school in my constituency will have its status changed to become a grant-maintained selective grammar school. Can she explain how that move, which is opposed by parents, teachers, the local education authority and the diocesan school commission in Birmingham and which flies in the face of local opinion, will help the 107 primary school classes in my constituency that have 30 or more pupils? Staffordshire is right at the bottom of the funding league for education.
  Mrs. Shephard: When we take such decisions, we take into account several factors, including inspectors' reports and whether the change will improve the range of choice and quality available to parents. The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, that Staffordshire was extremely pleased with its current year's financial settlement. I had a letter from the county education officer telling me so, and it was reported, I believe, to the education committee.

  469
  We have made heads and governors accountable for standards in their schools. We have made the education system more transparent, so that parents know what is happening through tests, inspections and performance tables. To help schools, we have given them more independence so that those responsible have the freedom, including much more budgetary control, to deliver rising standards. It is no coincidence that the greatest successes have been achieved where those principles have been taken furthest: in grant-maintained schools. Of the top 32 schools identified by Ofsted, 14 were GM.
  Sir Donald Thompson: My constituency is in Calderdale, where one school is unfortunately in the headlines. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should wait for the inspector's report.
  Schools in my constituency are places where people want to go. A junior Minister visited what could be called a hard area and saw an exemplary school, because the schools in my area have exercised choice in all the ways that my right hon. Friend mentioned. We heard the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) say that he would close aided and grant-maintained schools. He will have to sort that out with the Churches and others, but I assure my right hon. Friend that schools in my constituency are extremely good.
  Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear that. The education Bill that will be introduced tomorrow aims to ensure that parents have even more choice than at present and that schools get even more support in raising standards and maintaining discipline. Rising standards and rising achievements in education are the key to personal fulfilment and economic success, and are the foundation stones of a civilised society.
  Mr. Redwood: The Government have offered a grammar school in every town if parents and local people want it. How would one go about applying for such grammar schools, and when will they be available? There are three towns in my constituency with no grammar schools.
  Mrs. Shephard: A number of ways of achieving that aim will be outlined in the Bill to be published tomorrow. If local education authority schools wish to become grammar schools, they will be able to take that decision. If they come up against a hostile LEA, they will be able to refer to the holder of my office for a decision. If grant-maintained schools wish to increase the selective element of their intake, they will be able to do so up to 50 per cent. without having to take further advice or apply to the Department. There are various approaches, and we shall enhance choice and diversity and provide what parents want.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: If, as the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) says, the secondary schools in his part of Calderdale are a credit to the council, will the Secretary of State pay tribute to them? Does she recognise that if schools are doing a good job in most of Calderdale, the problems at the Ridings are specific to that school, and she should wait for the inspector's report?
  Mrs. Shephard: I thought that that was what I had said, twice.
  470
  I did not recognise the landscape painted by the hon. Member for Brightside. Again, he conveniently ignored the achievements. One in three of our young people now receives a university education, which is almost the highest proportion in Europe, whereas in 1979 only one in eight had that opportunity. Some 29 per cent. of our young people now get two A-levels—double the figure of 17 years ago—and more than 40 per cent. get five good GCSEs or better instead of a quarter, as in 1979. Some 40,000 young people are on modern apprenticeships, and 75 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds are in education or training. GNVQs are now firmly established, with 92 per cent. of GNVQ students this year being offered a provisional university place.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: In the light of what my right hon. Friend has just said about the mistakes in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), did she notice his mispronunciation of something that he called "coup de gras"? Did he confuse that with the foie gras eaten by new Labour, or does he not know his coup de grace from his elbow?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend demonstrates his linguistic skills. I noticed the hon. Gentleman's error, but as he was in full flight, it seemed unfair to point it out.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The Secretary of State read out a long list of successes. Why has there been a collapse in provision for special needs children in Cheshire—a matter about which I receive letters daily? Whose fault is it? Is it her fault, or is the Conservative ruling authority—and its partnership with the Liberal Democrats—to blame for that council-wide problem?
  Mrs. Shephard: Given the favourable financial settlement for Cheshire this year, it must be a question of the selection of priorities.
  The achievements that I listed have come from the Government's education reforms, all of which have been opposed by Opposition Members, whose Luddite views were so perfectly encapsulated by the hon. Member for Brightside. Yet again, he made it clear that he is opposed to choice, opposed to selection and opposed to every measure that we have put in place to raise standards.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: I will make some progress now.
  The hon. Member for Brightside wants to fudge performance tables by introducing "economic and social indices". Yet, as the chief inspector of schools has pointed out, the most successful secondary schools achieve GCSE results six times as good as the worst performers in similar circumstances. If they can do it, so can all. Opposition Members, of course, would say that if all cannot, none should have the opportunity.
  Education has been bedevilled for far too long by those who make excuses for poor performance instead of encouraging the good, and the hon. Member for Brightside made it clear today that he belongs to that dishonourable band. The fact that children come from inner-city areas or poor backgrounds is not a reason for accepting poor standards. It should be an additional spur

  471
  for schools to make up for the disadvantage by providing a good education. That is the way out of cycles of deprivation, enabling all students to reach their potential.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is not it somewhat ridiculous for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to hinge his entire education policy on a diatribe against selection that is based on one experience in one town, when there are grammar schools all over the country in towns such as Colchester that co-exist successfully with comprehensive schools and sixth-form colleges? Does not that prove comprehensively that selection and achievement go side by side?
  Mrs. Shephard: I am afraid that, yet again, the hon. Member for Brightside has demonstrated a paucity of policy and has sought to ignore the facts.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Secretary of State who, like everyone else, is concerned about breaking the cycle of deprivation. I hope that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is concerned about that also. However, would not his selection policy—while providing what the right hon. Lady calls opportunity for some—deny opportunity to others? Is she claiming that the policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman and the selection policies to be included in the Bill will not deny opportunity to some, because in the past—as she must admit—they surely have?
  Mrs. Shephard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and to my earlier points about the achievements of, for example, Wiltshire, Buckinghamshire and Bexley. There is no evidence to support the comfortable theory expounded from the Labour Front Bench that selection must result in reduced standards—that simply is not true.
  We are concerned about standards. We have already done a great deal—all of it opposed by Opposition Members—but there is, nevertheless, more to be done. We are, therefore, introducing a national curriculum for initial teacher training, so that every new teacher learns the methods that really work for reading, writing and arithmetic, on which all other skills are founded. We are reforming in-service training for teachers and setting up literacy and numeracy centres. We have introduced training for head teachers, leading to a new professional qualification, because the quality of learning for children depends on the quality of teaching and leadership in schools.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: Will the right hon. Lady explain why it took 17 years before she started to tackle the issue of teacher training?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady has not been in the House for long—nor have I—but even she can hardly have failed to notice that the education agenda of the Conservative Government has been full of education reform, all of which was opposed by Opposition Members. We have sought to tackle low standards, lack of
  472
  choice and lack of parental involvement. We have, indeed, reformed teacher training and we are now continuing to do more.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: I want to make progress; I shall take more interventions shortly.
  The enabling and empowering of individuals that is provided by education is vital, because, as I have already said, education is the foundation stone of a civilised society. Although individuals, families, Churches and voluntary organisations—indeed, everyone—has a part to play in that work, it is clear that, to use Mrs. Lawrence's words, it is in school that much can be done to ensure that our children adopt the values on which our civilisation depends.
  That is why the teaching of spiritual and moral values is already part of the national curriculum and why that work, together with adherence to the daily act of worship and the school's interaction with the broader community, is already inspected by the Ofsted. It is also why Conservative Members value the work of the 7,000 Church schools within the system, whereas Opposition Members would reduce their power and change their nature—without, I understand, even consulting them.
  Teachers need clear, practical advice to help them to fulfil their responsibility to provide pupils' spiritual and moral education.
  Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) intervened in the Secretary of State's speech, yet she has not had the courtesy to stay for the answer that the Secretary of State is giving. It is appalling.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is a matter of opinion, not a point of order for me.
  Mrs. Shephard: I forgive the hon. Lady—I suppose that she will not be missed.
  That is why, last January, the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority set up the National Forum for Values in Education and the Community. Its remit was to recommend to the SCAA
  "ways in which schools might be supported in making their contribution to pupils' spiritual and moral development",
  and
  "to what extent there is any common agreement on the values, attitudes and behaviour which schools should promote on society's behalf'.
  The forum involves 150 organisations and individuals—teachers, governors, parents, teacher trainers, the major religions, academics, the legal profession, the media, youth workers and employers. The SCAA will publish a document on Friday for wide-ranging consultation on a common core of values and attitudes, on how those might be dealt with in schools and on how best practice might be supported.
  Schools already do much good work in that area. I must stress that they cannot on their own achieve changes in social behaviour, but they have a strong desire to take a firm stand on values and behaviour, and we can equip them with practical ways of tackling those matters.

  473
  The family, its role and how it might be bolstered, has been discussed by the forum, and at some length in the press. The forum stated:
  "we value families as sources of love and support for all their members and as the basis of a society in which people care for others".
  Five members of the forum wanted to go further, emphasising that
  "children should be nurtured and developed within a stable moral and loving home environment with preferably both mother and father present in a happy marriage relationship".
  Mr. Blunkett: As the Secretary of State is now quoting from a document that is to be published in three days, and an addendum to it, would it not be a courtesy to the House that it be now published?
  Mrs. Shephard: Of course I shall give thought to that matter and will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that if a Minister chooses to quote from an official publication in a debate, it has to be given to the House so that hon. Members can check it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not think that it sounded like a state paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] Order. We shall probably now find out whether it was or not.
  Mrs. Shephard: It was not a state paper, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am quoting from press coverage of the document, but there is no problem. We can ask the SCAA to make the paper available immediately to Members of the House. There is no problem.
  Rightly, the SCAA wants to look at responses before it decides on the wording of an agreed statement of shared family values. As the debate starts, I can do no better, as the Archbishop of Canterbury did recently in another place, than echo the Chief Rabbi's words from his book "Faith in the Future":
  "It is as if, in the 1950s and 1960s, without intending to, we have set a timebomb ticking which would eventually explode the moral framework into fragments. The human cost has been colossal, most visibly in terms of marriage and the family. There has been a proliferation of one-parent families, deserted wives and neglected and abused children".
  That is the legacy that we have inherited from moral relativism. That has weakened and partly replaced the traditional attitudes which people of all faiths and none used to regard as a bedrock of decent behaviour. I welcome the start of a debate on how we can begin to regain some of that lost ground.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: In making her welcome comment on the need for a return to traditional values, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, as with religious teaching, wider ethical teaching needs to be firmly based on the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which is the foundation of our laws and customs?
  Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He will obviously make a valuable contribution once the debate starts.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I am sure that, like me, my right hon. Friend has seen in today's The Times the reporting of the document that we are all about to see. She will also have been in contact with Frances Lawrence, my constituent, about her manifesto. Does she agree that it would be useful to children if they could recite the four points set out in The Times today which it is suggested that they might learn, but that of much more value would be the ten commandments, whatever the religious background of children, because the ten commandments give a proper ethical and religious basis to life?
  Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He will no doubt be extremely interested in the debate and will contribute to it.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: As we are only a day away from Hallowe'en, may I invite the Secretary of State to put on her other witch's hat—that of Secretary of State for Employment? She talked about family values. Does she agree that one of the biggest destroyers of family life is that too many parents—fathers and mothers—cannot spend time with their children because of the relentless pressure of overtime and extra hours? Will she in this speech take a step to the centre and support the eminently commonsense idea of a 48-hour limit on average on the working week, to allow parents to spend time with their children?
  Mrs. Shephard: No. We are still two days away from Hallowe'en.
  I shall now deal with the Bill to be introduced tomorrow. Its main theme is the carrying forward of the principles of choice, standards and accountability. I have already outlined some of the measures that will be introduced to increase selection and choice. In addition, primary schools will be required to assess all new pupils, to help teachers plan each child's education and to establish a baseline against which future progress can be measured.
  All schools will be required to set targets for improving their performance in the key subjects of the national curriculum. We shall extend the powers of Ofsted to include the inspection of local education authorities.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: My children either were educated or are at present being educated in Calderdale, so as the Secretary of State mentioned Ofsted's powers, may I comment on the Ofsted inspection? It would be a great pity to investigate one school and its problems without taking into account the havoc that has been wrought on education in Calderdale in the past few years by the twists and turns of the Government's policies. It would be much better to have an independent inquiry into what the past 17 years of those twists and turns have done to education in Calderdale.
  Mrs. Shephard: Over which the hon. Gentleman's political friends currently preside.
  I now come to the matter of discipline.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: This must be the last intervention.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the absence of choice and opportunity results in a

  475
  system of class segregation? That is sadly what happened in Glasgow after the abolition of selection and grammar schools. My children attend council schools in Southend-on-Sea. The four grammar schools there, which take 25 per cent. of the community, offer unique opportunities for able, working-class children to enable them to break through the system. That does not damage other pupils, who also have great opportunities. Does she appreciate that people in Southend will be disheartened and disillusioned by the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), whose policies would serve only to deny opportunities to able, working-class children?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench are listening.
  Good discipline is a prerequisite for raising standards. The Bill will include the measures that teachers have asked for to strengthen their ability to tackle disruptive behaviour. The proposed Bill will require each LEA and each school to set out their arrangements for dealing with disruptive pupils. It will allow schools to detain pupils after school without parental consent. It will increase the flexibility available to impose fixed-term exclusions, and will ensure that independent exclusions appeals committees take account of the interests of other pupils and staff at the school, as well as those of the excluded pupils. It will give schools the right not to admit pupils who have been excluded from more than one other school for up to two years after the most recent exclusion.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: Not at the moment; I am sorry.
  Everyone has had fun talking about what may or may not have been said about corporal punishment in our schools. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall remind the House of what I said.
  Mr. Stevenson: I saw the right hon. Lady on television.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman could not have seen me on television, because I was on the radio. Or perhaps he could. God knows what mood he was in.
  I shall remind the House of what I said, as opposed to what I have been reported as saying. The Government have not included in the Bill a provision for the restoration of corporal punishment, nor do we intend to do so, because there has been no demand for such a measure from any professional group. There is a wide range of views on the subject. My personal view is that corporal punishment can be a useful deterrent to bad behaviour in school. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister takes a different personal view. The Government's position, however, is that we shall not put the restoration of corporal punishment in the Bill. Although amendments may seek to do so from either side of the House, we shall not give them Government backing.
  Mr. Blunkett: May I clarify that statement? The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that an amendment would be tabled. If it was, would the Secretary of State vote for it?
  Mrs. Shephard: I said that we would not give amendments Government backing. That should be clear.
  476
  As I said, one of the purposes of education is to prepare young people for their adult working life. The correlation between education standards and employment is clear: graduates are only half as likely to be unemployed as non-graduates, and those with no educational qualifications at all are three times more likely to he unemployed than those who succeed academically.
  Under-achievement for young people is not just a problem at school; it is a legacy that will haunt and deprive them throughout their adult life. Jobs are coming on stream and have risen by nearly 750,000 in the past four years. They are principally there, however, for people with the knowledge, skills and flexibility to take advantage of the opportunities that a modern economy has to offer. As more jobs become available, unemployment is falling for young people and adults. In Britain, free from the restrictions of the social chapter and a national minimum wage, young people's job prospects after leaving full-time education are among the best in Europe.
  Young people and their parents should understand exactly what would be in store for them if the policies advocated by the hon. Member for Brightside were ever put into practice. He would deny them jobs through the social chapter and a national minimum wage, and youth unemployment would rise to the levels in France and Spain.
  Opposition Members make every excuse for failing schools. They complain about resources, the burdens of the national curriculum and conditions in our inner cities. They do not seem to understand that their friends who control the LEAs where most of our poor performers are to be found are a major part of the problem. Of course, conditions in inner cities can be difficult. Of course, teaching the national curriculum to a high standard is a demanding task—so it should be, if it is to give young people the standards of education that they deserve. That is no reason for some teachers, heads and LEAs to accept low standards, because other teachers, heads and LEAs succeed while facing identical problems.
  Inner-city schools, such as Small Heath school in Birmingham or the Central Girls Foundation school in Tower Hamlets, can succeed. Moreover, schools that were failing, such as the Northicote school in Wolverhampton, can be made to succeed. Those are inner-city success stories. Those schools do not give up on their pupils, do not have low expectations of their pupils and do not accept low standards. What they deliver, others can deliver, too.
  For 17 years, we have conducted an increasingly successful campaign to extend choice and opportunity and raise standards in schools. That campaign has been consistently opposed by the Labour party. We owe it to future generations to continue that campaign. With the help of the new measures set out in the Gracious Speech, we intend to do so. We shall ensure, throughout this Parliament and into the next, that the life-chances of Britain's children are not despoiled by the Labour party.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: May I draw the attention of the House to a matter that is relevant to what the Minister has just said about disruptive children? The front page of this morning's edition of The Independent carries the headline:
  "A perfectly ordinary junior school for 200 pupils, closed by one naughty 10-year-old. Why?"

  477
  The teachers of that school in my constituency have issued notices to take strike action tomorrow. The headmaster closed the school yesterday and there is deadlock. The problem has been on-going for the past two to three months and I drew it to the attention of the Secretary of State when it started.
  That problem concerns not just my constituency—more than 11,000 children throughout the country are now excluded from school. This nationwide problem has attracted so much attention because of the difficult position in which teachers now find themselves. They are forced to draw up league tables, pass standard assessments and achieve all the results that the Secretary of State has been boasting about. Yet, when it comes to disruptive children, teachers have no help whatsoever.
  The Secretary of State's suggestion might help in some small disputes but it would not solve the problems of Manton school in my constituency, where there is deadlock between the teachers and the board of governors. The problem centres around a disruptive lad called Matthew Wilson, aged 10. He has been given great publicity, with his picture on newspaper front pages and in The Mail on Sunday colour supplement. I hate to think what it is doing to the poor boy. At the end of July, Manton school said that it would no longer accept him because of his disruptive behaviour towards the staff and other pupils.
  Manton is a small mining community in a low-income, deprived area where the pits have been closed and everybody knows each other. Most of the parents went to that school; they know the governors and every kid. It is a community proud of its history, but where nothing is really secret.
  Matthew Wilson has had many problems. A couple of years ago his father died and his mother had a serious operation. He formed an attachment to his sister's boyfriend as a father figure and that poor man was killed in a motor bike accident. The boy needs help. There is no question about that. The teachers and parents at the school, however, said that they could no longer have him there because the other kids were not being taught. The board of governors, which now has all the powers, disagreed. The chairman of the board, Mrs. Eileen Bennett, said that the boy should go to the school. I do not know how the press got hold of the story but when the pupils went back in September there was total mayhem because the governors had decided that the boy would be taught one-to-one and the cost was to come out of school funds. So the parents went on strike. Fifty parents said, "If we have to pay for that lad out of the budget, our kids will suffer. So we won't send them to school."
  It is the first time that I have ever known parents to go on strike and pull their kids out of school, but they did it for a good reason. The pits in the area have all closed and there is massive unemployment. Despite enterprise zone promises, no new jobs have been created. Those working-class people know that if their kids do not get some sort of qualification and education, they will have no future. They care just as deeply as middle-class parents about grammar schools and class sizes.
  The board of governors, however, lost touch with the parents and insisted on the child returning to school. They wanted to show who was boss and were determined to
  478
  take on the union. So they set up the one-to-one funding, kept the boy out of school and said that it would cost the school £14,000 of its budget. It has already cost £3,000. The local authority said that it could do nothing as it had no powers to disband the board of governors. Three quarters of the parents said, "The governors have handled this matter badly. We know who they are—they are neighbours of ours. They are playing politics." But the governors refused to stand down.
  I sent a petition to the Secretary of State asking her to use her powers to request the governors to stand down and offer themselves for reselection. It suggested that they should keep well in with the parents so that the school could be united. She refused, saying that the governors were not acting unreasonably or unlawfully. I think that they were acting unreasonably, as they went against the local council, the parents, the head teacher and the teachers. They were out of line with everybody. If that is not acting unreasonably, I do not know what is. The Secretary of State, however, refused to use her powers to disband the board of governors and have elections.
  Mr. Brazier: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the parallel position of a school in my constituency, where a boy was excluded for pushing drugs and a panel appointed by the Labour local education authority, including a Labour councillor, also went against the governors' wishes? The common factor in both cases seems to be a Labour local education authority overcoming the governors' wishes.
  Mr. Ashton: I will not give way again to that sort of diversion.
  I asked the Secretary of State to meet a parents' delegation during the recess, but she refused. She told me to see the local council. Its headquarters are 30 miles away, but council officials came to the area. Again, the parents refused to return their children to school because the governors were adamant. I persuaded the parents to return their children on three separate occasions, but they were so angry about the school having to fund the disruptive boy that they took their children out again. All the time, there was enormous media coverage. The effect of press and television coverage on disruptive children has been diabolical.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) will refer to another case in Calderdale. Matthew Wilson was shown on television receiving a Chinese massage in his underpants. The chairman of the governors said, "It will relieve his tension and do him good. It is a special form of psychotherapy." The boy has also been promised a trip to Disneyland. There was coverage of that case in The Mail on Sunday colour supplement. People were interviewed in the street. Children were saying to cameramen, "I've been on television before. Do you want to interview me?" What is all that doing to disruptive children?
  Could not the Secretary of State include in her Bill a provision stating that, as with court cases involving a minor infringement such as vandalism, children under a certain age should not be identified? That strict law forbids children being used by the media. Kids are great imitators. Where there is violence or fighting in a school, it is often to prove who is the cock of the school—as we called it when we were lads. Half a dozen kids want to

  479
  prove who can fight the others, who is the bravest, who will show off more and who will be the first to make the teacher lose his or her temper. There is much of that sort of bravado.
  There are ways of solving the problem of disruptive kids. If such a boy is one of the oldest in his school, he can be moved to the senior school down the road, where he will be one of the youngest boys. However, that requires extra funding—something that schools do not have. Because funding is left in the hands of the governors, every school says, "We're not having that bad kid." At one time, disruptive children were swapped around a bit but today, funding is so tight and insulated that there is no flexibility.
  Mr. Spearing: What was the situation in my hon. Friend's local education authority before the Government insisted on local division of finance, school on school? Was there at least the possibility, as in many places, of the local education authority making funding available in respect of disruptive pupils, so that the success and education of other children was not prejudiced? Is that not the root of the problem?
  Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend knows the answer because he is much more experienced in education than me. There was that flexibility.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: There is nothing to prevent an LEA coming in with special funding, to provide one-on-one education separate from the school's budget. If Nottinghamshire used some of the money that it spends daily on publicity for the council, that authority would have ample funds.
  Mr. Ashton: I will take the right hon. Lady's message back to Nottinghamshire county council. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for answering my point about one-on-one funding, but she has not replied to my point about teachers refusing to teach. Even if funding is available for one-on-one tuition at a different school, sooner or later the boy in question will have to return to his original school. Kids want to be at school. The boy is now saying that he will behave himself if he can go back to school, because he is fed up with being taught on his own—which is understandable.
  The petition against the governors of Manton school still exists. I approached Ofsted. I am glad that it is moving into Calderdale, but it refuses to move into Manton. Ofsted said that once the dispute is settled, it will immediately hold an investigation—but not now. Again, there is a total deadlock. The governors will not back off, the teachers will not back off, the council does not have the authority to move in and take over, and neither Ofsted nor the Minister wants to know. Who the hell does want to know? I am been trying to pull the four or five strings together for two months, yet there remains a deadlock.
  Mrs. Shephard: The LEA could do a number of things in addition to the action that I suggested. It could make its central teaching and advisory staff available to the school by short-term secondment. The LEA could arrange alternative tuition for all Manton's pupils, notwithstanding the strike. The authority could offer suitable alternative tuition to the parent of the pupil concerned because not all the alternatives have been
  480
  explored. The LEA could bring itself to back publicly the governing body. I saw the chairman of the governors on television, who said:
  "The LEA said they are behind us. It would be more helpful if they were in front."
  Mr. Ashton: I welcome the Secretary of State's advice and will pass it on, but I will give another version of the comments made to her. The chairman of the governors, Mrs. Eileen Bennett, is a Conservative party nominee. She stands for the council as an independent in a rock-solid Labour area in which the National Union of Mineworkers held strong during the miners' strike. How Mrs. Bennett got to be chairman of the governors, I do not know. She is a great Conservative sympathiser. If the other governors had another chance to vote for their chairman, I do not think that they would vote for Mrs. Bennett—but I will be kind.
  I am convinced that not only Mrs. Bennett but the right hon. Lady and the Tory party would like teacher strikes this winter. They think that any strike—whether on the railways, in the Post Office or in schools—will produce votes for the Tory party. There is a hidden agenda. This is not just a small issue for Manton school that is attracting big headlines. The problem is affecting 11,000 children and hundreds of schools, where teachers are fed up to the back teeth. Perhaps the teachers were fed up with having to achieve league tables, increased class sizes and being pressurised. Teachers are taking early retirement in ever-increasing numbers. Many teachers, who have already had enough, see disruptive children as the last straw. If a strike starts in Manton this week and it spreads, that would suit the Government and it might suit the union. However, the kids and the parents in the middle would be the ones to suffer.
  The Secretary of State has not made any concrete proposals. She could stop the Manton problem by dissolving the board of governors and asking for new elections. I guarantee that if there were a new board of governors, the problem would end in a week. The right hon. Lady will not take that action because secretly she thinks that having teachers on strike throughout the country would be a vote winner for the Conservative party in a general election. That is what lies behind the Manton school problem.
  4.58 pm
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I do not believe that single cases make particularly good arguments, but I sympathise with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in one respect. A disruptive child makes it difficult for the teachers and the parents to maintain their efforts to provide a good education for the other children. There is obviously a problem with that child. I hope very much that the local education authority, which is the proper authority, will manage to resolve it. It is time that people sat down around a table and worked out a resolution of that problem.
  I welcome the Bill promised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. During its passage, we shall discuss discipline in schools, among other things.
  Schools deliver the most effective education. They do the job of opening the minds of children best when those schools are orderly. We have asked a great deal of teachers in the past few years. They have had the

  481
  demanding job of rediscovering the things that they must teach and of ensuring that they meet the standards to enhance the children's basic education. Those requirements are right.
  We make things very difficult if we, as a society, say that the only people in the country who can now instil moral rectitude in, and order among, children are teachers. Teachers have had to become social workers; they have had to become all things to all men. That is patently absurd. It is absurd to expect teachers, who frequently are confronted with not only abusive or violent pupils but abusive or violent parents, to answer for all the ills of our society simply because, in western Europe and the Americas, we have allowed ourselves to become obsessed with political correctness. We have become so obsessed that we refuse to allow the people who teach, members of a good and honourable profession, to react publicly and openly about how they feel with parents who are abusive and with children who are totally out of order.
  It is important for us to support teachers who ask for some authority to be restored to them—who ask, not to be given the right to bring up children from scratch, but to be given back the authority to enable them to establish order in places of education. They are there to educate children.
  The newspapers and other media, among others, indulge in another mistake a great deal. They imagine that, if children have an education, they will automatically go on to obtain a job. Teachers can only do their best to open the mind and intellect of children. They cannot guarantee those children a job; they can guarantee to enable those children to obtain the skills that will enable those children to find the training that will enable those children ultimately to obtain jobs. Teaching children to read and do maths and teaching them basic science and technology are the first steps to enabling children to get a job. Teachers cannot and should not be expected to teach children moral behaviour and how to conduct themselves in an orderly way. They can contribute to that, but they are not the first teachers.
  Children's first teachers are their parents. If the mother and father are out of control, it is hardly surprising that the children are out of control. No doubt other hon. Members will have been told by teachers from their constituency of terrible experiences. A teacher in my constituency was put in hospital by a parent—I suppose it was a parent; it was certainly someone associated with the child—who decided that they did not like the fact that the teacher had reprimanded the child in class. We cannot, as a society, expect teachers to give their best in opening the minds of children if we expect them to fend off violent and irresponsible people who have no self-control.
  I prefer not to indulge in a great moral debate. We need to tell teachers, "We shall give you the authority"—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to do just that—"and we shall give you the means whereby you can exercise control in your schools." In that way, we can at least restore the balance for the teaching profession, which, as my right hon. Friend said, has done a magnificent job. It has helped with all the different measures that have been introduced during the past 17 years. It has made possible significant achievements.
  482
  Examination results have improved, and children go to university in far greater numbers than we ever contemplated.
  At one point during my time in the Government, one in 10 children went to university. The figure is now one in three. That is a tribute to the extension of university places and to the people who teach in our schools. We, as a society, should support those people to the hilt to enable them to do the job that they have chosen to do, by giving them the backing of the Government measures that will be introduced and of the local education authorities, which have a major responsibility to ensure discipline in schools.
  In mentioning the Bill that is to be introduced, I should declare an interest. I have an interest in grant-maintained schools because I am vice-president of Grant-Maintained Schools Ltd. I also have an interest in the assisted places scheme in so far as I am a part of the Girls' Public Day School Trust and I am chairman of the governors of an independent school in north London.
  I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering extending the assisted places scheme to preparatory schools, because I strongly support the idea of allowing talented children, from families who do not have the means to send them to the schools of their choice, to go to those schools.
  As a former pupil of a school in the Girls' Public Day School Trust, I believe that we offered to girls throughout the country, without exception, one of the very best educations that anyone can receive in this country. It is single-sex education, and 25 per cent. of the girls who attend Girls' Public Day School Trust schools are supported by assisted places. That means that those girls get an opportunity that would otherwise have been denied them.
  I was furious and outraged when, in 1975, the Labour Government decided to get rid of the direct grant system, so preventing children from poorer areas and from financially disadvantaged families from going to schools that would give them an excellent opportunity in life. The majority of girls who go to the 26 schools run by the Girls' Public Day School Trust manage to go to university. Those girls hold top jobs in every walk of life. They do well and are a credit to their families.
  Why on earth does the Labour party want to abolish the assisted places scheme? I ask, as others will: if the Labour party really believes in excellence and in giving opportunity to children who are otherwise, especially economically, deprived, why does it not promise to extend the assisted places scheme considerably? Why does not it offer many more children the opportunity to attend independent schools and receive a good education?
  I do not understand the logic of wanting to deprive people of an opportunity to do well—of wanting to deprive parents, especially. Remember this: many of the young people who go to Girls' Public Day School Trust schools and many independent schools, come from single-parent families. They are children of parents who want their children to do well enough in life to climb out of the economic disadvantage in which they have found themselves. What is wrong with that? I genuinely ask that of Opposition Members, who seem to be locked into a system which failed decades ago and has continued to fail. The notion that every child is born with the same ability is patent rubbish.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does the right hon. Lady not realise that we oppose the assisted places

  483
  system because it gives privilege to the few at the expense of the majority? If the right hon. Lady will tell her Ministers to spend the same amount on each child in the public sector as is spent on each child in the independent sector, I will support her 100 per cent. Does not she realise that a few people are being subsidised at the expense of the majority?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I fail to understand his logic. The majority of those who send their children to independent schools pay their taxes and support the state system, but choose to spend more to give their children a different education. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that being allowed to spend one's taxed money on whatever one chooses was the benefit of living in a free society. [Interruption.]
  I should like to make a further point to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who seems very excited. The abolition of the assisted places scheme will not provide a pot of gold for any prospective Government who might come in as an alternative to our extremely good Conservative Government. It would benefit perhaps one child in 16 at the most. It is misleading nonsense to say, "We shall abolish the assisted places scheme and then all your children, all you poor people, will get a much better education." That is untrue. It is high time that somebody said loudly what the benefits would be. Those benefits would be minimal and would not fund anything—certainly not the aspirations of the hon. Member for City of Durham, laudable though they might be.
  I welcome the extension of grant-maintained status. I was probably one of the earliest people to believe that grant-maintained status would become the norm for schools and would be of great benefit to pupils, parents and teachers. It is a pity that we are still slightly hidebound by bureaucratic local authority procedures for the allocation of school places. I do not know how many hon. Members came across that problem during the summer.
  It is important that we should be able to deliver choice and diversity. Sadly, we cannot always do so when parents choose a school, for good and sensible reasons, only to find that the local authority will not allocate them a place there and that the appeals system appears not to be as fair as they would like. I am not pleased to be making that point, but the Government need to consider it. Schools should have a greater say in choosing the children whom they take in. It is better for children to go to the schools that their parents want and for parents to have an opportunity to choose the schools that they prefer for their children. That is reasonable in a free society. I dislike the allocation of places by overseeing bureaucracy. It leads me to wonder seriously whether the role of the local education authority is still too overbearing.
  The remarks of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw raised some interesting issues relating to the role of local education authorities. Many LEAs refuse to allow schools in their area to opt for grant-maintained status. It is reasonable to argue that it is not up to the local education authority because the governing body chooses, but we all know the pressures that can be brought to bear on a governing body and on voting parents. Little notes have gone out in my constituency to the parents of every child in a school saying, "If you vote for grant-maintained
  484
  status, your school will lose £800 this year and £1,600 next year." It is nonsense, of course, and quite wrong, but let us not deny that it happens.
  We should also remember that many LEAs claiming to be giving their schools the maximum amount under the local management scheme—85, 90 or 95 per cent., whatever it may be—are misleading parents, because they do nothing of the sort. They retain far more than that. My LEA retains 30 per cent., after taking into account the way in which money is paid back to it by schools for the services which the authority says that they must buy. A considerable sum which is not properly managed or used is going back to local education authority. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to think about that and to see whether it might be considered for a Bill after we have won the general election and a successful Conservative Government are returned.
  I welcome the Government's measures and wish them every success.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I disagree fundamentally with many of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). I spoke immediately after her last time the House had a major debate on education, when I was so incensed by one of her remarks that I suggested that it should be widely published, so that people would know where she stood.
  I hope that the right hon. Lady's opening remarks today on morality in schools will also be widely published, because they were very sensible. I was delighted to hear her say that teachers cannot be expected to take on the full burden. They have a part to play in this important issue and we should give them more trust. Although she did not say so specifically, I suspect that she might agree that our schools are already highly moral places, providing good examples for young people on issues of right and wrong.
  The right hon. Lady will be well aware that many schools find themselves under considerable pressure on the issue, not least because the significantly overcrowded national curriculum has made it very difficult for teachers to devote as much time and attention as they might to what in many schools is called personal and social education—a vehicle for dealing with some issues of morality. I very much welcome her early remarks, but I shall explain later why I disagree fundamentally with some of her other points.
  It was said of Calvin Coolidge many years ago, "He don't say much, but when he do he don't say much." That is a particularly apposite remark on this year's Queen's Speech—it don't say very much at all. However, it speaks volumes about the Government. They have run out of steam and run out of ideas. Many of the proposals in the Queen's Speech are aimed more at trying to embarrass other parties than at trying to solve the many problems of our society.
  We are meant to be debating local government and education today. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment did not mention local government. Perhaps that is not surprising, because we know that the Conservative Government are no fans of local government. That is no shock, because the Conservatives have no power base there. My party now has many more councillors than the Conservatives and

  485
  controls four times as many councils. However, that does not absolve the Government of the responsibility to respond more effectively and robustly to the problems of local government.
  The Gracious Speech refers to one Bill on local government, which will bring forward precious few measures far too late. What a pity the Queen's Speech did not contain a serious local government Bill to give local authorities a general power of competence for the first time. The Prime Minister is keen to talk about the notion of subsidiarity—devolving power downwards—in relation to Europe. What a pity he does not take a similar view on the need to devolve power downwards from central to local government in this country.
  Legislation to give a general power of competence to local government would enable authorities to take action that they believe that local people want at local level. It is a pity that such a Bill could not have had tacked on to it a Government commitment to remove capping and thus to remove the ludicrous situations which currently exist in local government as a result of capping. I would not expect it from the present Government, but it was a pity that they did not propose a change to the way in which local taxes are raised—a change from the council tax to a form of local income tax.
  The Queen's Speech is also sadly deficient in terms of education. What a pity the Queen's Speech did not propose education legislation to scrap the ludicrous and cumbersome nursery voucher system. What a pity the Government did not say, "We have had trials of our nursery vouchers in four local education authorities and we will take account of the results and then act." If the Government had taken account of the results, there is no doubt that they would have decided to scrap the nursery voucher scheme and, perhaps, come to the House for the first time with a clear commitment to develop a high-quality early years education system linked to care provision for all three and four-year-olds in this country and a commitment to make available the necessary resources.
  One aspect that particularly worries me is that the Government seem to have lost interest in the nursery vouchers scheme. They are so keen to go ahead that they have lost interest in their own proposals. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary might like to intervene and explain why we were told, during the passage of legislation to introduce nursery vouchers, that great importance would be attached to the inspection of the various settings in which nursery provision would be made. The Minister will be well aware that, instead of allowing Ofsted to carry out the arrangements, the Government brought in an outside contractor, Group 4, to handle them. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that over the past few days inspection contracts have been handed out by three people from Group 4 with little or no knowledge of the inspection process, and an Ofsted representative was not even invited to be present during the process. The House should be told why that happened.
  Dr. Hampson: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the two experiments in Norfolk and Westminster have created substantial increases in the number of nursery places. He should know that Liberal and Conservative-held wards of the city of Leeds provide
  486
  parents with the least chance of securing nursery provision. The Labour authority continually boasts about the level of provision in Leeds. But in my area that level is one in 10; in some of the inner-city Labour-held wards it is one in one—almost every child. The Liberal-held wards are also suffering under the present system, which the hon. Gentleman seems to back.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman takes no account of the funding mechanism in local government around the country and the differential difficulties encountered in many parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman was foolish to refer to the nursery voucher trials in Westminster. The view of Conservative-controlled Westminster council of nursery vouchers is well known. It recently made its comments to the Select Committee. Written evidence which it submitted to the Committee stated:
  "the scheme is bureaucratic with much of the extra administration falling on our schools."
  It also mentioned the increased difficulties faced by parents. Would not it have been better if the Queen's Speech had referred to a new Bill to scrap nursery vouchers and introduce a proper system of high-quality early years education? But that has not happened.
  What a pity that the Queen's Speech contained no clear commitment from Government to increase the resources available to the education system. One year ago I warned in this Chamber that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut the level of income tax in the Budget, it would lead to cuts in our schools. Sadly, I have been proved right. In the intervening 12 months a large number of teacher posts—about 4,000—have gone. That loss has led to a rise in class sizes, with all the consequent effects.
  There has also been a worsening in morale and an increase in the number of teachers and head teachers taking early retirement due to stress-related illnesses. Buildings have continued to crumble and schools have continued to suffer from shortages of books and equipment. It would have been wonderful to have had a Queen's Speech in which the Government made a clear commitment, this year at least, to make increased investment in our schools a top priority. Increased investment would allow the introduction of high-quality nursery education, boost the supply of books and equipment in our schools, provide more support for children with special educational needs, provide teachers with much-needed high-quality in-service training and provide a significant boost in spending to try to tackle the appalling backlog of repairs and maintenance to school buildings.
  Right hon. and hon. Members who have listened to the list that I have just given will be aware that improvements in every one of those sectors would bring improvements in the classroom. They would help to reduce class sizes and to improve the quality of the buildings, making it easier for teachers to teach and for children to learn. Giving the teachers the tools that they need—books and

  487
  equipment—would raise pupils' motivation and ensure a reduction in the discipline problems that the Government are rightly keen to resolve.
  Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose contributions in the House we always enjoy.
  Mr. Pawsey: I agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said about capping—if by saying that I blight his position in his party, I am genuinely sorry. Is he aware that an answer to a parliamentary question that I received only today states that the amount spent in schools is about £15.25 billion? If the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is not enough, by how much should it be increased? Will he say a word about the degree of holdback that has occurred in local education authorities?
  Mr. Foster: In his second point, the hon. Gentleman may be referring to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who talked about 30 per cent. As I understand it, the 30 per cent. level—even using the mechanism that the right hon. Lady mentioned—goes against the Government's intention. It would also run contrary to my view of the proper levels of delegation. I believe that the current 85 per cent. level is about right. It enables variation between different parts of the country and different sorts of local education authorities. I am delighted—I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is equally delighted—that the Government have dropped their inane intention to introduce a 95 per cent. level of delegation.
  The hon. Gentleman has asked his first question so many times that I wonder why he bothers to ask it again. I have placed my answer clearly on the record: the figure is approximately £2 billion. As, this time, the hon. Gentleman forgot to ask me how the money would be raised—I know that he intended to do so—I will answer the question. If necessary, and if there is no other way of finding the money, we would be prepared to raise the level of income tax by 1p in the pound.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for answering questions that I did not ask. I welcome his comments about holdback and local authority budgets. Is that now Labour policy? I am sorry, is it Liberal policy? There is now so little distinction between the two Opposition parties. May I assume that the Liberals will join us in requiring local education authorities not to withhold so much of their budgets from schools?
  Mr. Foster: I did not say that. I was very clear, and the hon. Gentleman does me a slight disservice in not having listened to me. I said that the 85 per cent. level—which is current Government policy—is approximately correct and that we should not go significantly beyond it. However, some local authorities will choose to do so of their own volition. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the many parliamentary questions that have been asked on that point, the level of delegation is much higher in some parts of the country, including in Liberal Democrat local authorities such as Somerset.
  488
  On discipline in schools, about which many hon. Members are concerned, I share and support some of the Secretary of State's comments. She was absolutely right to say that we must have higher expectations of pupils. For all sorts of reasons, teachers often do not have sufficiently high expectations of their students. We must also have higher expectations of our teachers. I think that it is appropriate to re-establish the concept of teaching as a profession. We must give our teachers, as professionals, the support that they need, with the General Teaching Council as their professional body. As occurs in other professions, we must ensure that teachers have adequate and appropriate levels of continuing professional development.
  If we re-establish teachers as professionals, we shall expect a great deal of them in return. We shall expect them not to resort readily to strike action—as has occurred in the two cases that are currently in the news. I do not believe that such action is helpful in either of the cases that are being debated in the press.
  Mr. John Maxton: The real problem in schools lies in low pupil and parent expectations rather than low teacher expectations. Children who come from very deprived areas and whose parents and brothers and sisters are unemployed do not expect to obtain jobs at the end of their schooling, so their expectations while at school are very low.
  Mr. Foster: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman only in his initial assertion that teachers do not have low expectations of pupils. I think that teacher expectations are too low in some cases. However, I entirely accept his point that pupils and their parents often have very low expectations of children's likely achievements.
  I agree with the Secretary of State's remarks about raising self-esteem and having higher expectations, and it is correct that the new legislation will enable schools to introduce detention for pupils even if parents are unhappy about it, subject to giving appropriate notice. I support the Secretary of State in that aspect of the legislation. I believe also that she is right to introduce an additional layer of exclusion possibility within schools. When the Secretary of State removed the indefinite exclusion, I said that it was a mistake. I think that I have been proved correct and I welcome the fact that she is now reintroducing at least a partial additional level of exclusion possibility for schools.
  I support the Secretary of State's remarks and the Bill's proposals regarding target setting and the need for schools to be very clear about their role in benchmark testing, which I support. However, I have difficulty with the Secretary of State—as will others when they study the proposals in detail—over the issue of home-school contracts. I disagree fundamentally with the Labour party's proposal to make home-school contracts compulsory in every school and to require parents to sign them before their children can enter the school.
  It is vital that we improve the relationship between home and school. Far too many parents are not prepared to support either their children or the school that they attend. However, forcing people to sign a piece of paper will not solve that problem. It can be solved only if schools and parents work together to develop a better understanding of their rights and, more importantly, their responsibilities.

  489
  The Secretary of State made that point: partnership is about working together to develop something. We shall not succeed simply by signing a piece of paper. The reality is that those parents who wish to support their children and the school will sign happily. Those parents who do not wish to support their children or the school may choose not to sign—in which case, where will the child go—or they will sign, but the contract will have no meaning. Therefore, I do not believe that that approach will work.
  I am equally worried about the Government's proposal. The legislation introduces a system whereby individual schools will be free to decide whether to use a home-school contract as an entry requirement. The problem that I have described with the Labour party proposal would exist for those schools that choose to take up that option. The Secretary of State generously pointed out that many organisations involved with schools expressed considerable concern about the proposal within 24 hours of its announcement. The Campaign for the Advancement of State Education and the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations have made particularly strong remarks about that issue.
  If the Secretary of State were in the Chamber, I know that she would listen very carefully to the comments of one person. Joan Sallis is highly respected in the area of education. She has been involved in the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education and with many other bodies. She is a frequent contributor to education debates and she makes it clear that she has no party political allegiances. Her views are heeded around the country and I believe that the Government should listen to them.
  I asked Joan Sallis to share her views about this issue. In a letter that I received yesterday, she says that the Government's funding policies are forcing many excellent home-school liaison schemes around the country to fold. She continues:
  "I was always taught that unenforceable law is bad law".
  In her most telling point, she says:
  "The link with admissions is ludicrous: children have a legal right to education and the only logic of basing admission on a signed contract, and retention on its fulfilment, is to have sink schools which don't demand parental support, a form of selection more savage than any yet proposed."
  Twenty years ago, Joan Sallis was one of a group of people who formulated the Taylor report. The issue of home-school contracts was discussed at that time and is covered in that report. As it is such an important part of the Government's proposals, I ask the Minister to make available as quickly as possible the minutes of the relevant debates which took place in developing the Taylor report. I am told that hon. Members on both sides of the House would find them helpful in our deliberations on the Bill.
  We support some of the proposals on discipline, but we have some concerns—especially about home-school contracts. I am delighted that we do not need to have a lengthy debate on corporal punishment; that argument was had and won 10 years ago. Anyone who thinks that we can reduce the violence in our society by using a violent sanction should seriously think again. The evidence 10 years ago showed that caning and other corporal punishments were not a successful means of reducing indiscipline in our schools. I am surprised that the
  490
  Secretary of State even floated the idea, albeit only as a means of assuaging a few right-wing Tory Back Benchers—one of whom is about to intervene.
  Mr. Robathan: I have never discussed the matter with the Secretary of State. What has happened over the past 10 years while bien pensant people such as the hon. Gentleman have been saying how marvellous it is that we have done away with caning and that there is less violence in society? I believe that our streets have become more violent.
  Mrs. Mahon: Because of Tory policies.
  Mr. Robathan: Not because of Conservative policies, but because young men, in particular, no longer leave school with respect for themselves and for others or with the self-discipline that ought to be taught in schools. Part of that may be due to the abolition of corporal punishment.
  Mr. Foster: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who is performing the classic manoeuvre of desperately trying to find someone else to blame for what has happened and taking no responsibility for policies that he and his hon. Friends have supported for many years.
  Mr. Robathan: Not I; I was not here.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that he was not here, but to my knowledge he has been here for four and a half years; he should accept responsibility for what he has voted for during that time.
  Mr. Steinberg: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman and I would not be as rude as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
  When I first became a head teacher, I used corporal punishment. My experience of using the cane on several occasions taught me that it did not work, because the same pupils kept coming back time and again; the naughty children who misbehaved were never deterred in the slightest by the cane, and the other children could be dealt with in other ways. Corporal punishment simply did not work.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience and he is absolutely right. Many years ago, I visited a school and looked at its punishment book; it listed one child who had been caned time after time.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: In a moment—the hon. Gentleman must wait until I have finished responding to the previous intervention.
  The punishment book showed that one pupil had been caned on 12 separate occasions and that on each occasion his crime had been failing to attend detention. On the 13th occasion, the crime was listed as
  "Failing to attend detention—again."
  The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) is right to say that there is no evidence that corporal punishment works.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to intervene. Perhaps he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  On selection and grant-maintained schools, let me first make it absolutely clear that my party is opposed to selection, because we do not believe that that is what the vast majority of the people want; they know that a selective system may ensure a reasonably high standard of education for a few, but that it does not ensure high-quality education for all. The provision of high-quality education and excellence for all should be fundamental to our education system.
  I do not want to refer to the details concerning the Ridings school, but I am in no doubt that the selective procedures that have taken place in the area have played their part in the difficulties that the school is facing.
  It is bizarre that the selection debate is in part about an attempt—I do not know whether it is the eighth, ninth or 10th such attempt—to refloat the failed Tory flagship policy of grant-maintained schools. Conservative Members may not know it, but in the past 12 months, despite all the bribes and all the relaunches of the policy, only 0.5 per cent. of all eligible schools held a ballot for grant-maintained status; it is a failed policy and the Government are flogging a dead horse. The sooner they give it up and start to concentrate on ensuring that increased resources are put into securing high-quality education for all, the better. Sadly, the Queen's Speech contained no such proposal and is therefore wholly deficient in relation to education as well as in relation to local government.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. George Walden: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on keeping her head in the morality maze, when many others have been losing theirs, and on her general efforts to improve standards in education. That is enough praise, as she is not here to receive it, and as I want to get on to some criticism.
  I oppose the whole concept of assisted places. The Conservative party has a warm conscience about the assisted places scheme, and when anyone has an excessively warm conscience about anything, that normally means that there is something wrong with it. There are two things wrong with the assisted places scheme: the principle and the practice.
  As I understand it, the principle is supposed to be about bridging the enormous divide between state and private schools; it does not bridge the divide, but widens it, for reasons that I shall explain. Money is transferred from the state sector into the private education sector, so a so-called independent school ceases, by definition, to be independent, and becomes reliant, at least in part, on state handouts. It is an important point of principle that an independent school should, by definition, be independent, if it wishes to remain private and to restrict access to those with sufficient money.
  By subsidising such schools, as they are doing, the Government ensure their continuation in their present, highly harmful form. That is another major objection of principle to the policy. A further fundamental point of
  492
  principle—I could talk about principles indefinitely, as there is so much wrong with the scheme—is that the entire concept of assisted places is de haut en bas.
  Hon. Members should note the word "assisted", with that little redolence of the National Assistance Board and the outdated concept of welfare of 30 or 40 years ago. We are throwing crumbs down in a Victorian manner; the scheme could well have been administered by a Victorian charity commissioner. That is why the scheme is socially as well as educationally backward; we are working from the top down and throwing crumbs to poor, deserving children.
  Unfortunately, in practice many of the crumbs are intercepted by the agile hands of the middle classes. It is no use for Ministers to tell me that 80 per cent. of the recipients of assisted places schemes have below average incomes; that is a totally meaningless figure, because, as everyone knows and as I know from talking to people in the independent system, many of those people may technically have low incomes but, by God, they are not lacking capital.
  Constituents have asked me, as they must have asked other Conservative Members, how they can get an assisted place. Sometimes, especially when I know their backgrounds and their houses, I say that it is really not for them, and that that was not the idea behind the scheme. However, they persist, and they get the cash. They get it because, as people in independent schools tell me frankly but privately, the scheme has largely benefited clean-break divorcees. That is what it is about, and let us not pretend otherwise. Of course some places go to deserving children, but an awful lot do not. There are major objections to the scheme, in principle and in practice.
  What is the Labour response? It is to abolish the scheme. I want to abolish it, too, but Labour's response has as much intellectual and practical validity as our policy. By abolishing the scheme and replacing it with nothing, Labour will blow up the one inadequate and fragile bridge that we have built between the two very distinct sectors of education—the independent and the state sectors. That is a purely negative policy.
  The idea that we can sprinkle the £100 million, which is soon to be £200 million, in penny packets around the state sector is not entirely factious, because there is a problem of class size in the state sector. However, it again underlines Britain's problem, which is not suffered in most European countries, of the permanent interface between the public and private sectors.
  Dr. Hampson: One figure that Labour spokesmen always overlook is the fact that it would cost £350 million to reduce classes even by only two.
  Mr. Walden: I accept my hon. Friend's figure, but my point is that our position is intellectually and practically indefensible, as is that of the Opposition. That is typical of the failure of the House as a whole to confront the distinguishing feature of our education system—our system of apartheid, about which no one wants to talk because it is embarrassing for both Government and Opposition. That is why we end up with our ridiculous system.
  I suspect that there is an element of political provocation behind our policy in extending the scheme. We are trying to put the Opposition on the defensive.

  493
  In purely political terms, we will probably succeed. That will not help the country; it may help us a little in the general election, but I am not even sure of that. The Opposition have to reply, "We do not want to help the few; we want to help the many." The old, trite, primitive, typically British, anti-elitist argument, which has done so much damage to our education—and, in passing, to our culture—comes out yet again. I shall reprise later, and I shall try to make the same points again.
  The Opposition's policy is negative. It will cut the one bridge. The private schools will be even more of a zone of money and privilege than now. Is that what the Opposition want? My criticisms may seem too easy; we need a solution. I have just published a book—it is very cheap at £9.99—in which I try to spell out my solutions. They are not easy; I understand that. Much of our time in the House—and I shall not be here for much longer—is wasted in our education debates. That is not because we cannot improve the system. I give credit to the Government for improving it, and to those Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen who have begun to admit there may be something philosophically wrong with state education.
  However, there will be a clear limit on how far we can improve the system. We may make it more adequate, but it can never be more than second rate when we are the only country in the western world where the two sides of Parliament send their children to different schools. It is the only country in Europe in which the top 7 per cent. of society do not give a damn about what goes on in the rest. They do the sensible thing and send their children—and I always have to add that I did so, too—to private schools. Why? Education in private schools is not simply better but overwhelmingly better: 68 per cent. of A grades in physics at GCSE level are gained by the 7 per cent. of children in private schools. That is a catastrophic figure. We all know the arguments inside out. That is part of what is wrong with the debate.
  Private schools, of course, have more resources and they are by definition selective sociologically, but those are not the only explanations. There is a third important point. The educational philosophies and expectations of the private sector are, by and large, superior. That is why people who have any money send their children to the private sector. While almost all the professional classes continue to do that, they will not be interested in what goes on in the rest of the schools.
  When we discuss disciplinary problems—by God, one sympathises with the economic backgrounds of the people involved and the challenges they face—we should remember that in Britain, uniquely, the most powerful, articulate and educationally discerning people are not, and will never be, involved with those problems. They will weep a little tear and say that there should be more resources for education, but they will not get deeply involved, because they have no personal interest.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about "this country", but the Bill deals with two countries, England and Wales.
  494
  The situation that he describes in England does not apply to Wales. We do not have such a divide. His analysis is irrelevant to Wales, as is the Bill.
  Mr. Walden: I am prepared to take the hon. Gentleman's assurance on that. I still think it is possible to talk about the majority of the people of this country, who happen to live in England, great, as a half-Scotsman, as is my respect for the people at the top and at the side—the Scots and the Welsh.
  Mr. David Trimble: What about us?
  Mr. Walden: And the people on the other side of the water. If the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) does not mind, I shall stick to the big picture, because most people in the British Isles happen to be English.
  Mr. Spearing: The answer to the last point may lie in the different attitude to and culture of education in the different countries. From his hard work on the matter, in which he says that there is no bridge between the sectors, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the full cost per pupil in a school with assisted places is significantly greater than that in the true community sector? Does he agree that, if people want those schools, they should ensure that the facilities, opportunities and standard of education available at them are available to all? Is not that the big criticism of the philosophy of the assisted places scheme?
  Mr. Walden: I know what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, despite some signs to the contrary, I am a realist. There is no prospect that any Government will raise spending in the state sector to the level of that in the private sector. Let us be frank. My book is called "We Should Know Better", for those hon. Members with £9.99 after our recent increases. My proposals start from the situation as it is. I do not start from some planet Mars where we can bring up state spending to private school levels. No one will do that.
  Instead of Conservative Members sometimes having—I am sorry to use the word—a hypocritical attitude to what I call the great divide, which, in a negative sense, conditions so much of the under-achievement in Britain, and instead of the Opposition's evasive or punitive attitude to private schools, we should start from where we are. We should be realistic and ask how the hell we can open up the privileged sector. It must be done voluntarily; let us have none of the old nonsense about abolishing private schools or having envious attitudes to them. We need a positive and gradual policy. I could go on for some time—for 230 pages—but that would be very boring for me, not to speak of other hon. Members.
  Curiously, I consider the matter very politically. I was surprised when the Daily Mail serialised my book, because I thought that it might be a bit radical for it. It is not a left-wing newspaper. No doubt some of my hon. Friends think that I am a screaming lefty from the way that I talk. I was trying to work out why it had serialised the book, when I realised that it is read by the middle, middle, middle classes. That is why the Leader of the Opposition reads it carefully. The middle, middle, middle classes are not resentful about private schools, and nor am I. They just want to get into them.

  495
  It was interesting to receive a telephone call from the Leader of the Opposition's chief of staff. I was told, "Tony Blair has read your book; could you come and talk to us about it?" I had two choices. First, I could say, "I don't talk to snivelling socialists like yourself." Secondly, I could say, "Yes, obviously." I said, "Yes, obviously," and obviously I talked to the Leader of the Opposition. I said that I would make the matter public because I did not want any trivial, primitive nonsense about underhand contacts, defection and all the rest of it. I made the matter public, and, as no one was interested, perhaps no one noticed. It is conceivable, however, that someone noticed, because a few weeks later I was assured personally by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he, too, would read my book.
  I was genuinely surprised by the amount of, not cross-party—I do not like that term, because it assumes a permanent divide—but different ranges of, reaction to what I had to say. I was the more surprised because people seemed to think that what I was saying was new. It seems self-evident—it stares at us rather like a big nose or carbuncle on someone's face—that I am talking about the fundamental education problem. If we do not face it and think—
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: There are other problems.
  Mr. Walden: If my hon. Friend thinks for a second and considers how any society, remembering that education is not a mechanism but a culture, can solve its problems in dealing with education in the absence of any interest being taken by its most powerful members, he will understand that, although we can and do improve things, there will be a ceiling on how far we can go. We face a limiting factor that is not present in other continental countries. I shall not talk about America, which is sui generis.
  I am not basing myself on consideration of class. I am trying to push that behind us. Our problem is class first, education second. Let us put education first. Let us admit that private schools are overwhelmingly educationally superior. That is a fact. Before I hear predictable interventions, I suggest to Opposition Members that they read Mr. Will Hutton's frank acknowledgement in his book that the superiority of the private sector is part of the problem.
  Mr. Maxton: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is right. At one level, the independent sector has superior facilities. One of the major problems, however, is that the independent sector's approach to education is so traditional that it colours the way in which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the administrative class thinks. One of the problems with many of our state schools is that they try to ape what happens in the independent sector instead of trying to find a better way forward for education provision.
  Mr. Walden: It is the hon. Gentleman's attitude that: is traditional. I beg him to read one page in my book where I try to correct the old-fashioned, left-wing attitude that he has taken up. The traditional teaching to which he refers is not taking place in private schools nowadays. For example, 35 per cent. of private school graduates who move to university study science and technology. I understand that 25 per cent. study the arts. Only 2 per cent. study Latin.
  496
  Let us put behind us an old-fashioned social attitude to private schools and think about what they are achieving academically, which is becoming better and better as girls' private schools come on. That, curiously, exacerbates the divide in achievement between the private and state sectors.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the superiority of private schools in England. It is the assumption that that is connected in some way with the greater resources that the private sector enjoys compared with provision for the state sector. Will he take into account the fact that the achievement of private schools in England is matched, and in many instances more than matched, by state schools and voluntary schools in Northern Ireland, which have exactly the same level of resource, by and large, as schools in England, Wales and Scotland?
  As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, the difference between the private sector and the state sector may have more to do with cultural factors. In Ulster and Scotland, where we have much the same cultural attitude to education, we have a different approach to education and a different approach in the classroom from that adopted elsewhere.
  Mr. Walden: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, I have no alternative but to accept it. I do not know enough about Northern Ireland to challenge him. I did not go deeply into the matter in my research, because I was told on reliable hearsay that the situation was different in Northern Ireland and therefore not typical of the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Mr. Maxton: What about Scotland?
  Mr. Walden: I note what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) says. It seems rather typical of our communally evasive approach to the problem that, as soon as it is raised, 90 per cent. of those around us start what we used to describe as pushing on the periphery. They say, "What about Scotland, what about this and what about that?" They will do anything but face the central problem that, at least in this part of the United Kingdom where I speak, which I believe contains about 50 million people, we have what I consider, and what I know those on the Opposition Front Bench consider, a damaging system of education division, which no other country in Europe has, and which will hold us back.
  I bore myself, and I will not be boring hon. Members for long, because I will not be in this place for very much longer, but I have one other criticism of selection. Given our primitive education culture, we have yet another primitive debate about selection. I am hesitant about the Government's selection policy.
  Once again, it is common sense to recognise that there is an element of political provocation in the timing and nature of the Government's proposals. Selection is a dangerous area in which to play that game. To say, "Let us have grammar schools in every town," is, both intellectually and practically, a vulgar proposal. How can one possibly say that without being aware of the different circumstances of every town?
  What is the point of reliving the dead debate about selective education versus secondary modern education? It is a social and class-motivated debate. Let us put all

  497
  that behind us. Instead, let us have a serious debate about selection. Let us consider what has happened in more advanced countries than our own, where there is selection not so much by ability as by aptitude. The process takes place over a longer period. Let us not have the primitive debate that has taken place yet again today. I read Opposition Members' speeches rather carefully, and even they are beginning to edge towards the need for diversification, which the Government have the credit for introducing.
  We all know that there is a problem. We all know also that the comprehensive approach is by definition self-contradictory. It represents the logic of Groucho Marks. The children of the upper middle classes will never go to comprehensive schools. Therefore, our system of schools can never be comprehensive.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I always listen to my hon. Friend with interest on these matters. I share his hope that we shall move towards selection by aptitude, which is something that is fit for the 21st century. We should not go back to the tired old dogmas of the 1960s and before. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that, under the present comprehensive system, a comprehensive school that serves a suburb is infinitely better in terms of its raw material than a comprehensive school that serves an inner city or large council estate, as happens in parts of Taunton in my constituency?
  Mr. Walden: That may be so. I know a little about our country, and I know that comprehensive schools are very good schools for the children of other people. I am sorry to say that that is my overwhelming experience in my party. That is my overwhelming experience in discussing these matters with those I meet in society. In other words, the degree of education hypocrisy is profound, and that is reflected in the Chamber.
  There is a marked reluctance in this place—I have recognised it again today, and I did not expect anything else—to confront the problem. I have no expectation that either of the major parties will do so. I thought, however, that, before leaving this place, I would throw my penny's worth into the fountain to see what happened.
  6.9 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Nothing in the Queen's Speech depressed me more than the proposal to allow more schools to select. Before the education Bill becomes law, I urge the Government and anyone interested in state education, including the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who showed such an interest in having grammar schools in every constituency, to visit Halifax and talk to members of the local education authority, the governors of LEA schools, the children who attend the Ridings and their parents and ask them about selective education and choice.
  Riding is a strange word. It is an old Yorkshire word which means thriding—to divide into three. That is what we have in Halifax—a three-tier system. When it comes to selection and choice, I urge the Government and everyone interested to talk to councillors in all parties in Halifax and ask them why secondary education in Halifax is in such a mess.
  498
  The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), who is no longer in his seat, said how good the comprehensive system was in his constituency. Yes, it is good. It has well and long-established comprehensive schools which sometimes, in the past, provided an escape route for people in Halifax. Unfortunately, they are now mostly full. That system has existed there for years and that is exactly what we want in Halifax—nothing more, nothing less.
  Halifax has always had a selective system. Because of the disastrous Education Reform Act 1988, probably the worst modern education Act ever, one of our local authority secondary schools—the Ridings—faces a crisis. The world's media have trekked to our doorstep and, if headlines are anything to go by, most had an instant scapegoat.
  The Secretary of State, I am sad to say, was no exception, when she acted in a most irresponsible manner at a press conference last week. Without consulting the LEA, or any of the teachers, parents or governors, she decided to play party politics with the feelings of the children who attend the Ridings and their parents. She prejudged the inspector's report. She decided who the culprit was and drew her own conclusions before sending in the inspectors. She did not speak to the LEA until half an hour before the press conference and I had to follow her to the press conference before she would see me.
  In contrast, I pay tribute to the director of education, all councillors of all political persuasions, the parents and the teachers at the Ridings who, compared with the Secretary of State, have conducted themselves with much dignity, in the face of extraordinary publicity.
  Because the Secretary of State was so badly briefed about the Ridings, she appeared to be unaware that the amalgamation which has been the cause of so much of the trouble there was implemented by a Conservative-controlled administration. Some Labour councillors objected, pointing out that, without adequate resources and money to rebuild part of the school, the merger could be explosive, and they have been proved right.
  I want to concentrate on what should be done now, not apportion blame. The councillors involved in that decision were faced with falling rolls, so they knew that the two schools had to be merged. Nor should the teachers or the council officers be blamed. If blame is to be laid at anyone's door, it should be directed at the Government, who, through their policies, have done more to bring about the situation at the Ridings than anyone else.
  I do not know how many education Bills the Government have introduced during the past 17 years. I have been told that it is 18; it is certainly many. But they have all had one aim: to introduce and encourage selection. They have thrown admission policies to the forces of the market. All that on the pretext of parental choice—what rubbish. What choice is there for many of the pupils who attend the Ridings? There is none.
  When a school is burdened with 135 children with special needs, when nearly 50 per cent. of the pupils qualify for free school meals, when a school takes 20 pupils who have been expelled from other schools and when it is surrounded by grammar schools which are highly selective and by opted-out schools, it is cruel to make comparisons, as happens in the league tables. Such comparisons show nothing about the children and what

  499
  they can achieve. After everything that has happened to education in Halifax, does the Secretary of State seriously believe that parents who sent their children to the Ridings had a choice? Of course they did not. Choice is a sham, as the right hon. Lady knows well.
  The crisis at the Ridings should be put into context. I do not dispute that there are disruptive children at that school. Like every other Opposition Member, I deplore disruption and violence of any sort in the classroom. We all have a duty to try to do something about it. Since the late 1970s, Halifax has put forward more schemes than I care to remember to bring about a comprehensive system to do something about the inadequacies of the education system offered to most children in our town.
  As I have said, Halifax has two highly selective grammar schools operating the 11-plus that now take pupils from outside the area. I understand that they are now rejecting some of their own sixth formers with A and B GCSE grades because they can get more A-grade pupils from outside. That is causing some problems. That is the brave new world of competition in education which Government policies have introduced.
  Halifax also has two secondary Church schools which have opted out and the LEA is left with four secondary schools which are bursting at the seams. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) knows one of those schools well. He has visited Sowerby Bridge school in my constituency which has 13 mobile classrooms, one of them 30 years old.
  One reason I so much resent the criticism which has been made is that the Labour group has been in charge for only 18 months, but it is still trying to do something about the problems. Most recently, a school is being built at Withinfield in Southowram. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), told us to repair that school, where children were packed in like sardines; but the LEA has committed itself to building a new school there, because anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that that is the only answer.
  In Northowram, the most Tory ward in Halifax—I live there, so I know—money has been spent on a nursery and a new library for the primary school there. No political bias has been shown there. The local education authority is very responsible. If LEA schools received the same financial assistance as the opted-out schools and the grammar schools, there might not have been so many problems at the Ridings.
  The Secretary of State, at her press conference, denied that schools in Calderdale were underfunded. She said that that was ridiculous. Not all are underfunded. Some are very favoured. I want to put on record some of the facts about funding. Since 1991, because of the unfair funding of grant-maintained schools—double funding by the Government in an attempt to bribe schools to opt out—Calderdale has had to pay £1,093,000 more to the grant-maintained schools than the equivalent LEA schools received in cash and services. Because of the capping regime, the only way in which such additional payments could be funded was by cutting local authority services. In addition, the introduction of the common funding formula has meant that, in the past two years, grant-maintained schools have received a disproportionately high share of any increase allowed by the Government.
  500
  Even worse are the proposals for 1997–98 in the common funding formula. For all the Secretary of State's preferred options, the proposals would mean an average reduction in the allocation of resources for special needs of 15 per cent. Those allocations are for the LEA to provide services for special needs children in all schools, including grant-maintained schools. In Calderdale, if the proposals go ahead, they would mean a reduction of more than £750,000.
  The reduction in the LEA special needs allocation would lead to a further increase in the funding of grant-maintained schools. That is not fair, by any measure. Schools such as the Ridings would suffer. As well as that increase, the grant-maintained schools in Calderdale have been given a capital grant of £2.9 million, but the Secretary of State has told us that the problem is not one of resources. If she thinks that is so, please will she throw the same amount of money at the LEA schools? We will tell her whether it has made any difference after a few years. She certainly has not minded throwing money at the grant-maintained schools and the grammar schools.
  I wish to consider briefly the effects of the three-tier system on other aspects of education policy in Halifax, especially the policy of integrating children with special needs. As I said earlier, the Ridings has 135 children who have special needs, ranging from stage 1 to extreme needs. Some 59 are on the register with behavioural problems. Those figures expose the Secretary of State's cruel charges against the children and their examination results. We must not forget that the children went from a secondary modern to an amalgamated school, and the selective system distorts the results. Credit could have been given for the improvement, albeit small, which happened in such a short time.
  We should compare the Ridings, with 600 pupils, 135 of whom have special needs, to the nearest grammar school, which last year had one child with special needs on the register. The other grammar school had three. People can draw their own conclusions, if they are fair-minded. It is not true to say, as some people have, that the Ridings did not exclude pupils permanently. Of course it did. Last year, it excluded two pupils permanently, as did the nearest grammar school.
  The Ridings had to shoulder another burden: it had to absorb all the pupils excluded from other schools. It has taken an extra 20 pupils who have been excluded from other schools, so 20 out of the 61 so-called unteachable children have already been excluded from other schools. To its credit, Calderdale council does not let excluded children wander the streets. It already spends £500,000 of its limited budget to send 24 disruptive youngsters to special schools outside Calderdale.
  The Secretary of State accused Calderdale council of not doing anything to help the Ridings, but it has taken steps and I shall list a few. It has seconded an advisory teacher to work with the middle managers on aspects of curriculum development and production of curriculum materials. It has assisted the school in the introduction of a computerised system to develop basic reading and comprehension skills. It has made limited resources available to support initiatives taken by the school. The council has also assisted the school to make available a residential experience to all year seven pupils. It has also helped to set up a task force to deal with the behavioural problems at the school. The council has now appointed a new head and deputy head and has started building a

  501
  sports hall. Any suggestion that the governors and the LEA failed to act when it was apparent that the school faced considerable difficulties is without foundation.
  A few months ago, I visited the Ridings school at the request of the governors. They wanted to talk to me about some of the problems and the new buildings that they wanted. They told me about the serious disciplinary and practical problems that they had faced since amalgamation. Since then, I have spoken to governors and teachers, who have all complained about growing problems. The Secretary of State asked what I was going to do about the Ridings. I invite her to come to my office to look at the file on the Ridings if she thinks that I have not tried to play my part to help that school. I live next door to one of the governors, so it is difficult to get away from the subject.
  When I met a small group of governors and the head teacher, they spelled out some of the problems they faced. They said that it was not possible to deliver national curriculum physical education at the school. They have only one, inadequate, indoor facility—a gymnasium with changing rooms that accommodate only 30 pupils. Science is taught in various labs scattered around school, which is inefficient and presents hazards when equipment has to be moved. The technology curriculum is restricted and provision for the emergent sixth form is non-existent, because the school was originally designed for 11 to 16-year-olds. The hall is used for assemblies, examinations, tests and PE and massive daily chair removals are necessary. Some parts of the building and campus are falling into disrepair. They have real problems in that school and it is not fair to say that the governors and teachers did riot know about them and had not tried to face them.
  Over the weekend, I was inundated with telephone calls from concerned parents, teachers and others. Like the union involved, I welcome the Government's intervention, but only if it is genuine. We must all hope that the Secretary of State's inspectors show more professionalism and objectivity than when she prejudged the outcome of the inspection in a knee-jerk reaction at her press conference last week. Like many others, I have every sympathy with the teachers and governors, because they have had a horrendous job.
  I am sure that the inspectors will make some criticisms, but the narrowness of the remit given to them means that they will not see the overall picture. Only five inspectors have gone in for only two days and they will not consider the selection system, which I believe to be the major problem in Halifax. Such a system means that we end up with schools such as the Ridings, which has become a whipping boy. The teachers were told to cope and we have seen the resulting cheap headlines, but the blame should be directed at the Government.
  I hope that, for the sake of the children, governors, teachers and parents, we get a swift, honest and practical report. If the inspectors' opinion is that there is no hope for the school, let them say so and close it. If the school can be saved with sound practical measures which will be backed up by resources from central Government, the report will be supported by everybody in Halifax, not least the children and parents from the school. If the inspectors decide to close the school, they must tell us where the 600 pupils will go. They cannot go to the three remaining,
  502
  under-resourced LEA schools, because they are bursting at the seams. The grammar schools will not take the pupils, because they operate a selective system and the Church schools are full.
  If people wish to see the future results of more selection, I suggest that they go to Halifax. For every state grammar school set up, they will get at least two Ridings, because such schools do not come separately—they come as a set. If one sector is deliberately underfunded and the other sector has money thrown at it, they will face the same problems that we face, which are a direct result of Tory Government policy on education.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: Unlike the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I welcome the Gracious Speech, especially the references to widening choice and diversity, improving discipline and raising standards in schools.
  Recently, we witnessed the Leader of the Opposition offering the Prime Minister support on certain items of legislation. I wonder whether we shall hear a serious offer in the winding-up speeches tonight. I doubt it, because so far in the debate we have heard only some cheap, knockabout, claptrap stuff from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). The red thread that runs through the Labour party's education policy has always been one of opposition—never positive, always negative. Opposition Members have opposed every reform advanced by the Government. It does not matter how practical, important or necessary the measure; the Labour party opposed it, usually for cheap political advantage.
  The House will remember that Labour opposed Ofsted, grant-maintained schools, the national curriculum and testing, league tables, nursery vouchers and greater parental involvement. Opposition Members are locked into a 1960 time warp where only one type of school—the neighbourhood comprehensive—is acceptable and where all excellence should be levelled down. They would abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and the assisted places scheme. I wonder how long the independents would survive, were new Labour to abolish the old charitable status of independent schools.
  By contrast, we have consistently argued for greater diversity and choice, believing that not all children are alike and that they have different abilities, needs and talents, which can be recognised and developed in different environments. That is why we support the concept of selection. I welcome the Prime Minister's words at Bournemouth. He said:
  "If parents want more grant maintained schools, they shall have them. More specialist schools, we shall provide them. More selection, they'll have it."
  The new education Bill will give schools greater freedom to select pupils by ability.
  In marked contrast to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), in my constituency we have a boys' grammar school and a girls'—Lawrence Sheriff and Rugby High School for Girls. I therefore speak with some knowledge of the excellence of those schools and of the high schools that surround them. It is significant that we in Rugby have excellent primary schools. The standards at those high schools and primary schools are good because of the 11-plus examination and the need for

  503
  primary schools to meet the challenge that it presents. Pupils who attend the high schools also benefit from the added rigour in the primary schools. The effect of selection, therefore, is felt throughout the school chain and not simply in the grammar schools.
  I believe that education best takes place in a disciplined environment, and that greater efforts should be made to ensure that it exists. Accordingly, I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement that all schools will be required to publish a policy on discipline and that schools will once more be empowered to give pupils detention without first obtaining parents' consent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to receive the support of my hon. Friends. I also support the proposal that schools be represented at exclusion appeal hearings and that the interests of the entire school should be taken into account at those hearings.
  I welcome the legislation that will enable schools to introduce home-school contracts in their admission procedures. Those contracts should be strongly written and require the active co-operation of parents. Education does not take place in a vacuum—or only within a school. It is a process that occurs in the home and the school, so a partnership between parents and teachers will be to the decided advantage of the children. Parents should clearly understand the importance of the commitment that they give when they sign a school contract.
  It is a mistake to assume that all learning takes place in a classroom. Recently, I visited a primary school and was told that some children entering reception had little grasp of language and little understanding of relationships. So many children these days do not enjoy any real conversation with adults. They are parked in front of the television, and that is it. Parents must understand that their children need to learn speech and be reasonably articulate before going to school.
  One of the matters that causes me concern is the increasing number of exclusions from the nation's schools. Exclusions result in the children who most need education and discipline being put outside the school gates where the devil will soon find work for idle hands. Some of those who are excluded will, no doubt, be involved in and commit misdemeanours.
  Many of those who are or will be excluded would have benefited from being caned, as they would have been in my day. I therefore argue that if a school wishes to insert in its contract with parents a clause that would allow the school head to use the cane in place of exclusion, such a clause should be inserted and the contract signed by the parent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am obliged to my hon. Friends for their support. Most parents, I believe, would prefer their child to be caned on the hand, rather than excluded from school and lessons.
  Mr. Robathan: Of course they would.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his comment; he is right.
  Those who refer to the European Court of Human Rights—to the case of Warwick v. the UK—should recall that there was not a court ruling, but a decision made by the Committee of Ministers on 2 March 1989. I have a copy of that decision. I am anxious that teachers should have all the sanctions that they need to ensure proper discipline in the nation's schools. Corporal punishment is
  504
  one of those sanctions. The mere fact that it was available would, in most cases, be sufficient. The cane in the corner of the head teacher's study is a powerful deterrent.
  It should also be recalled that, uniquely, here in the United Kingdom the teacher acts in loco parentis—that is, the teacher stands in place of the parent in the school. The teacher should be empowered to use the same amount of discipline as a loving and caring parent.
  I come now to the role of local education authorities in providing education for the nation's children. I hope that the public understand that the Department for Education and'Employment does not run the nation's schools. The overwhelming majority of schools, as the Opposition continually remind us when we debate GMS, are controlled by Labour LEAs. They can exert a fundamental influence over the character and running of schools. We in Parliament vote the funds and lay down the general principles, such as the national curriculum, but the teaching methods and the term-by-term running of the school lie firmly in the hands of Labour and Liberal-controlled LEAs.
  The LEA has advisers, teacher advice centres and a bureaucratic machine well equipped to bring heads and governors into line. It sends out a steady stream of letters and circulars, all designed to influence the way in which the teachers teach and the schools deliver education. As Chris Woodhead said:
  "What counts is not class size but teaching method."
  That method is decided principally by the LEAs, the majority of which are Labour controlled.
  One of the reasons why I am a committed supporter of grant-maintained schools is that grant-maintained status breaks the chain that binds schools to LEAs. The GM school can decide many of its own policies and priorities. That is one reason why grant-maintained schools are so popular with parents and achieve so much success. They succeed because they enjoy greater freedom, with less interference from LEAs.
  There is, however, another reason why I am increasingly suspicious of the role of the LEA—this point was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). I recently read a paper produced by the Centre for Policy Studies on school funding. I was interested to note that, of the national schools budget, £12 billion goes to schools and about £4 billion to LEAs—in the main, Labour local education authorities. On average, LEAs deduct more than 26 per cent. of total school spending money in England.
  The writer of the pamphlet suggests that education is not deprived of resources: the problem is one of mismanagement of resources by LEAs. The total proportion of funds deducted by LEAs—this point was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Bath, who I am sorry not to see in his place—ranges from 26 per cent. in Havering to 39 per cent. in Barking and Dagenham. It is argued that LEAs keep £3 for every £7 that they share among their schools. An average of £594 a year is withheld by LEAs for every pupil in the country, whereas schools receive an average of £1,808 for each pupil.
  Extraordinarily enough, the problem arises because there are three separate budgets: the general schools budget, the potential schools budget and the aggregated schools budget. Those three budgets mean that the whole system of funding the nation's schools is fudged.

  505
  Those who believe that the maximum amount withheld is "only" 15 per cent. are mistaken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to have the support of the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I therefore believe that the new education Bill should include a section devoted to the reform of school funding. It should ensure less holdback for LEAs and more money for schools, because that is what this House intends. Parliament is anxious that schools' money should be spent in schools, in the classrooms and on the nation's children.
  Mr. Robathan: What on earth do LEAs spend this 15 or 39 per cent. on? That is what confuses me. What do they do with all the excess money?
  Mr. Pawsey: The pamphlet to which I referred, entitled "School Funding: Present Chaos and Future Clarity", sets out in great detail exactly how LEAs waste the money. I repeat: I want the funds to get to the classrooms. I do not want the money spent on the bureaucracy that surrounds town and shire halls, as it so often is.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: If the hon. Gentleman is so committed to the money going to the classrooms, I am surprised that the Conservative Government have been creating even more local education authorities in England, Scotland and Wales.
  Mr. Pawsey: That argument would carry more weight were it not for the fact that the hon. Gentleman ignores the GM schools, which cut the cord that used to secure them to the LEAs. Possibly unlike the hon. Gentleman, I want more GM schools to emerge. After all, that is what the parents want, because it gives them more control and makes the schools more receptive to their wishes and more responsive to local needs. Perhaps if there were more GM schools there would be fewer schools of the type described by the hon. Member for Halifax.
  More money should reach teachers and the classrooms where the real work of education takes place. I want more of the available cash to be spent on teaching children and less of it to be spent on bureaucracy. If we adopted that policy, it would be welcomed by teachers and parents alike.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Listening to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), as I usually do, I was struck by what a typically arrogant Tory speech he made, as he usually does. He implied that the electors are wrong because they have voted for Labour authorities. He seems to think that they should automatically vote in Tories. Does he not realise that we have so many Labour local authorities precisely because people were sick to death of the mess that the Tories had made of local government? Does he not realise that it is because of the mess that the Tories have made in Calderdale and Halifax that things are as bad as they are?
  This year's Queen's Speech clearly shows that the Government are bankrupt of sensible policies. The proposed legislation of last week was either innocuous or
  506
  extreme, none more so than that arising from the Government's dogmatic education policies. Those policies favour the minority against the wishes and benefit of the majority. Measures to establish new grammar schools, to extend selection, and to extend the assisted places scheme to the primary sector will all create an even worse two-tier system in education than the Government have already produced.
  A Gallup poll conducted earlier this year found that only 19 per cent. of the public thought that selection should be encouraged, while 77 per cent. thought it a bad idea. The Independent on Sunday of 30 June 1996 stated:
  "The Tories have therefore invented all manner of devices to smuggle in selection by the back door—city technology colleges, specialist schools, opted-out schools. Ministerial assurances made again and again that none of these novelties were designed to bring about a new generation of grammar schools were lies."
  It is now clear that this most reactionary education policy is being drawn up so as eventually to bring back total selection throughout the education system—grammar schools and secondary modern schools. Yet Tory education policies have been rejected by the vast majority in this country. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister trundles along in his own sweet way with his crackpot ideas, even though he must be aware that local voters have swept Tory education committees out of every town hall in Great Britain except for four London boroughs and a single county, leaving Tory education authorities responsible for only 2 per cent. of our schools. Fourteen LEAs are Tory-free zones—the Tories do not have a single seat on their education committees. That just shows how much confidence people have in the Tories and their education policies. The clearest sign ever came from Milton Keynes, where the Tories campaigned in the local elections on the platform of a return to a selective grammar school and were heavily defeated.
  For years, the Government have promoted the myth of parental choice, but the more the system becomes selective, the more parents will find their children being turned away from schools that are full, both specialised and selective. The policies promoted by the Government have led, not to parents choosing schools, but to schools choosing their pupils. As more surplus places are removed, choice will become more limited because schools will be full. Parents may express a preference, but they do not have the right to choose a school.
  The fact is that when, each year, the time comes for parents to choose a school for their children, a large number of them cannot get their children into the school they want. At that time of the year, my postbag is always full and my surgeries are full of parents desperate for me to take up their cases and enable their children to attend the school nearest where they live. Selection will make that worse.
  I suspect that the Tories themselves recognise the pitfalls of selection because they envisage a legislative safety net whereby the 50 per cent. selection powers of grant-maintained schools, the 30 per cent. selection powers of specialist schools and the 20 per cent. selection powers of LEA schools will not apply if children are otherwise unable to find school places. The Tories are worried that their supporters will be unable to find places in local schools because of the selection arrangements. That is happening already in my area, where there is no selection at present.

  507
  If more selection is foisted upon us by legislation, it will mean multiple application procedures for parents, which will benefit only those with the skills and information to protect their children's interests. As usual, the less vociferous and the less well-off in our society will suffer. As more children are bussed around their local area, more public resources will be diverted from the classrooms into school-home transport, and sensible planning will have to give way to more fragmentation. In my area, Durham county council estimates that if only 10 per cent. of its schools were selective, its extra first-year costs would be £0.4 million, rising to nearly £8 million if a total selective system were introduced.
  The comprehensive system has succeeded—it is not a failure, as the Tories would have us believe. Had secondary moderns—the type of schools to which the Government want to return us—continued, the huge increase in the number of students entering higher education in the past 30 years would not have happened.
  Hon. Members can be certain that a system that allows only a small number of children to be selected for grammar schools while the rest go to secondary modern schools will not go down well with the vast majority of electors—particularly Tory electors. Rather than being an election winner, it will be an election loser for the Tories. Even Westminster council—that bastion of Toryism—warned that by giving schools greater freedom to select pupils, one could be seen to be diminishing parents' rights to select schools. As a result, there could be fewer—rather than more—satisfied parents.
  It is a sad fact that right-wing dogma has created such a crazy system, but even crazier is the fact that, despite all the vilification heaped on comprehensive schools, there is no proof that they have failed because the Government have never evaluated their successes. Recently, independent research has found success despite the existence of selective schools.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steinberg: No, I certainly will not. The hon. Gentleman spoke rubbish for 20 minutes, and I will not give him an opportunity to give us some more.
  The successes in the comprehensive system were made clear in the 1996 research by Ben and Chitty.
  Up till now in my speech, I have concentrated on the evils that I believe exist in the selection system, and on what parents, local authorities and the Government might want. One thing that I have not commented on—frankly, no hon. Member has referred to this in the debate—is what children want.
  Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you refresh my memory? In 1976, did not the then Labour Prime Minister call for a great debate on education as he believed that the education system was failing his grandchildren?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Whether I recall it or not is beside the point—that was not a point of order.
  Mr. Steinberg: That was an appalling abuse of parliamentary procedure by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. That is the typical of the way in which
  508
  the arrogant Tories present themselves in this place. I will now return to what I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted.
  We must ask what children want and how they Feel about the selection procedures. I have personal experience of what it is like to sit the 11-plus examination and fail. It was a traumatic experience at the time, and the sense of failure never leaves as one gets older. I do not want hon. Members to go "Ah!" nor do I want any sympathy from the House, but my father died when I was seven. My mother was convinced, and rightly so, that the only way in which anyone could progress in the world was to have a good education, and her ambition was for me to pass the 11-plus and go to a grammar school.
  I can clearly remember the despair on the morning when the results of the 11-plus were announced in the hall, where everyone was lined up as the headmaster read out who had passed. My name was not on the list. I have never known a feeling like it, and to this day I can remember the horror. I ran away from school to my grandmother's because I was so ashamed of failing, and I was unable to face my mother, who had placed such store on my passing that dreadful examination.
  As it happens, I was fortunate in that I went to a secondary modern school that held GCE exams—there were not many of them at that time—where I did reasonably well. I got my GCEs and transferred to a grammar school—which, incidentally, was the only place where one could do A-levels at that time. I got my A-levels, and I went to college.
  Mr. Matthew BanksA happy ending.
  Mr. Steinberg: Yes, a happy ending, but the vast majority of youngsters did not have such a happy ending. That is the point—the vast majority who failed the 11-plus did not go to a secondary modern school to try for GCEs. They were unable to take GCEs at the school they attended and, consequently, their education was second class. That is the system that the Government want us to return to. It is absolutely appalling. It seems to be fashionable these days for people to say that they failed the 11-plus but went on to have a successful career. That may well be the case, but failure was traumatic at the time and it made a lasting impact. We must not return to those days.
  The proposals in the Queen's Speech regarding grant-maintained status show that the Government are still flogging what I would call a dead horse policy. Immediately before the general election in 1992, the then Secretary of State for Education—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—predicted that an avalanche of schools would opt out as soon as a Tory victory was assured. To this day, he continues to get his figures wrong.
  Grant-Maintained Schools Ltd. claimed that 2,000 schools would quickly opt out. In 1992, after the election, the then Secretary of State said that
  "by 1996, most of the 3,900 maintained secondary schools, as well as a significant proportion of the 19,000 maintained primary schools could be grant maintained".
  The present Secretary of State claims that grant-maintained schools are increasingly popular with parents. They were, but they are not so popular now that the money has dried up. The boasts and propaganda of Tory Ministers were bogus, as we all know. Figures released recently show that

  509
  there are only 1,100 grant-maintained schools in operation, while the number of LEA schools remains at more than 24,000. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said today that the LEAs responsible for those 24,000 schools had influenced them not to opt out. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous in your life? How could 24,000 schools be influenced by Labour LEAs? What a load of rubbish.
  Even though all the evidence shows that the British people do not want grant-maintained schools, this arrogant Government press on with their implementation. We have seen the absolutely despicable behaviour of the Secretary of State, who played appalling politics when a school in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition voted not to opt out. On the say of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), the Secretary of State requested an inquiry, although she had been told by the head teacher that he was happy with the situation. That is an example of how low the Tories will stoop—they will question the legitimacy of decisions because they do not like them. The Secretary of State had to admit eventually that she was wrong and that there had been no misdemeanour in that area.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: The Secretary of State called the investigation not at my behest, but at the behest of the headmaster, who had written to her to complain. A copy of the letter was passed to the media at the time, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. He should not misrepresent what went on.
  Mr. Steinberg: With great respect, I do not accept that. A letter from the headmaster, which was printed by the press, said that he had no objection to what had gone on and was quite happy with the situation. He added that the hon. Member for Stockton, South had originated the complaint. [Interruption.] We have different points of view—I know which of us the House will believe.
  The Government are now going to allow grant-maintained schools to create nursery classes, sixth-form classes and boarding facilities and to expand their capacity by up to 50 per cent. without needing central approval. They are going to allow the Funding Agency for Schools to set up new grant-maintained schools in all areas where it thinks that they are needed and to charge the cost to local education authorities. How, in the name of heaven, does the FAS know what a local area needs? Only the local education authority and the people living in the area can know that—not a remote Tory puppet such as the FAS.
  Allowing grant-maintained schools to expand by 50 per cent. without approval undermines the planning role both of the FAS and of local education authorities, which have a strategic role to play in each area. The Bill goes a long way toward introducing a free market into that sector of schooling—something that, in the past, successive Secretaries of State have refused to allow. In addition, allowing the FAS to set up new grant-maintained schools in all areas undoes another part of the Education Act 1993, which stipulates that 10 per cent. of pupils in any area must be in GM places before the FAS can propose a new school. The new proposal further compromises sensible planning.
  510
  In response to claims that GM schools are achieving better results than local authority schools, it is worth quoting Local Schools Information, which says that
  "local education authority comprehensive schools cater for 50 per cent. more pupils entitled to free school meals than grant maintained schools and that when the performance of the local education authority and the grant maintained comprehensive schools within the same LEA is compared by reference to free entitlement, there is no significant difference in performance."
  It is clear that the Government intend, in their usual underhanded and cynical way, to create more grant-maintained places at the expense of local education authority schools. Schools and parents will not opt out, so the Government will force them to use grant-maintained schools by reducing LEA places and increasing GM places. Of course, places at those GM schools will be available through selection—another example of how the Tories will extend selection by the back door.
  Instead of announcing in the Queen's Speech that they intend to reduce class sizes in primary schools, the Government announced that they intend to extend the assisted places scheme beyond schools that cater for secondary pupils. Primary school children will be brought into the scope of the assisted places scheme. The Government will now spend an extra £140 million during the next financial year subsidising private school places.
  The Government ignore the advice of the National Association of Head Teachers, which says that class sizes are clearly significant for behaviour and results. Ofsted concedes in its report on independent schools—I repeat, independent schools—that smaller class sizes are important; but because Tory Ministers and the Prime Minister say that class sizes do not matter, Ofsted plays down the importance of class sizes in the state sector.
  Mrs. Mahon: They have been nobbled.
  Mr. Steinberg: Exactly, they have been nobbled.
  The importance of smaller class sizes in the early years of education is widely recognised by experts, but the Tories ignore that and put more and more money into the private sector.
  The measures announced by the Government in the Queen's Speech have nothing to do with choice. The Tory propaganda of giving parents choice has always been a con and a sham—the real aim of Tory education policies over the past few years has been to take money from the state sector to subsidise the private sector. The policies on selection, grant-maintained schools, the assisted places scheme and the nursery vouchers scheme all transfer wealth and resources from ordinary people to better-off people to subsidise private education.
  The proposals on discipline in the Queen's Speech are weak. They do not address the real problem, which concerns local education authority support for schools. The dash to integrate or close special units because of lack of resources is one of the main reasons why we have so many discipline problems in our schools today. In addition, the Government's rigid requirements on deregulation have broken up valuable behaviour support services. I do not oppose giving schools the power to detain pupils after school without the consent of their parents, or to exclude pupils for 45 days in any year instead of the current 15 days per term. Having said that, I nevertheless believe that head teachers' professional judgment in respect of expulsions is not given enough support.

  511
  I am not at all sure about home-school contracts. I am afraid that the parents who would most need to be bound by the contracts are the very parents who could not care less about their children's education or what their children get up to in school. The only time that such parents show an interest is when they can get themselves on television because their children have been excluded for bad behaviour. Contracts will not help their children at all. Perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic—I hope so.
  Mr. Don Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not approve of the policy expounded by his hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench this morning?
  Mr. Steinberg: I am saying that I am very sceptical about it—
  Mr. Devlin: If you had left him, he would have dug himself in.
  Mr. Steinberg: I would not have dug myself in. The fact is that I have my own views on education, but for between 95 and 99 per cent. of the time I agree with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. However, I am not sure whether home-school contracts will work. I shall be interested to see schools try to use them and I shall be delighted if they work, but I am sceptical.
  The truth is that the Tories have allowed education and discipline to decline while giving priority to private education. Last year, the Tories pretended that they gave the education budget an extra 4.5 per cent., but the actual increase was only 3.2 per cent., funded by cuts in other council services. Even the rising rolls were not fully funded, and last year's teachers' pay award was not funded at all. Tory Government cuts in education have led to large class sizes, crumbling buildings and not enough teachers, books or equipment. Those are the problems we face in education—selection and subsidising the private sector only make matters worse.
  In conclusion, I shall quote from the report produced by the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations from its third state of schools survey, which states:
  "The results of our survey give us genuine cause for concern. We set out to discover whether parents' fears, such as rising class sizes and the lack of books and equipment, were justified. We now know that they are. The survey confirms that not only are class sizes rising, staff morale is low, teachers are asked to teach subjects in which they lack confidence and there is a need for more books and equipment."
  A continuation of all this right-wing rubbish will not solve the country's education problems. Instead, it will continue to divide education into a two-tier system, in which those who can afford it will have a high-class education and the vast majority who cannot will receive a second—class education. That is what the Government have been developing for the past almost 20 years.
  7.8 pm
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: The House will be relieved to learn that I have not written a book, and so shall not be spending a great deal of time boosting it.
  Today's debate is devoted not only to education, but to local government, about which we have heard little so far. I notice that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local
  512
  Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration is to wind up the debate. I shall not spend much time talking about matters other than education, but I want to start by welcoming the promise in the Queen's Speech of a local government and rating Bill that will allow for the possibility of 50 per cent. rate relief for village shops.
  It is extremely important to those of us who live in rural communities to maintain the village shop, which is a vital element of village life and an important social centre. It may be that village shops will become more important commercial centres as, over the next few years and as a result of new technology, more people are able to spend a proportion of their working life at home instead of having to travel to work. I warmly welcome the measure.
  Also, we may have to start thinking how we can help towns as well. The growth of towns helped to diminish the commercial viability of villages, but the viability of towns is in turn being diminished by the development of new out-of-town and edge-of-town shopping centres. We need to consider measures whereby towns can be helped, or can help themselves, to ensure that they retain their viability and that there is a balance between that type of shopping and the other type, which involves travelling some distance.
  I should have been happy to see in the Queen's Speech some promise about improving compensation—a development of the Land Compensation Act 1973. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration will be aware of the impact of the development of Stansted airport on my constituency. The process by which people are compensated for the loss of value in their properties deemed to have resulted from the airport's development is slow and that is causing great distress in many cases—it is certainly causing great annoyance. I hope, therefore, that it will not entirely escape the Government's mind that some improvement in compensation needs to be made.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), towards the end of his speech, called for a new agenda in education, but there was little on his agenda today. He did not even seem to speak to the terms of the amendment on which we shall no doubt vote later. He did not talk about the specifics of that amendment and certainly did not suggest how the education improvements that the Labour party wants are to be funded. All we know is that there is a commitment to take away the assisted places scheme, as though that would deal with all the remaining problems in education. A certain number of children would presumably have to come back into the maintained sector if they were not being assisted in education elsewhere. I do not understand how the Labour party can condemn what is going on without giving a realistic account of how it would find the funds to bring about the improvements that it wants.
  By contrast, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, seemed to have an agenda that was stuffed full and I puzzled as to how 1p on the standard rate of income tax would pay for it all. If one assumes that that would raise £1.5 billion, which would have to be split among more than 100 education authorities, the result would be £1.5 million each. That would not go far when spread across all the ideas that the hon. Gentleman put forward.

  513
  We are all aware of the great discipline problem in our schools. Two Opposition Members spoke with feeling about the circumstances confronting them. Although there is a problem with discipline in schools and there always has been, it is as well to remember that all the rest of our schools—barring those enjoying half term—are working, and working reasonably normally. We ought to be careful that the debate on education is not skewed by the circumstances that are occupying the headlines.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: Tell that to the Front Bench.
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: The hon. Lady, who has been an expert in the sedentary comment throughout her time in the House and ought to know better, should say that to her two hon. Friends, who felt sufficiently concerned about the problems in their constituencies that they had to speak at some length.
  I wonder whether the problem being faced and dealt with, with fewer headlines, in many schools, is one of growing numbers of difficult children or whether it is becoming more difficult for some schools to cope. Clearly, in so far as there are some ill-disciplined children, they are spread throughout many schools and are not the preserve of one or two. The vast majority of schools are managing to cope without arriving at the extreme situations that we have heard described today. An uncomfortable number of children may be being excluded, but by and large one has the feeling that the teaching profession and the administrative bodies—be they governing bodies or local education authorities—have the expertise and are able to deal with the difficulties.
  I accept that we need to include the power to exclude in the Bill, but I wonder about the use to which it will be put as a result of the legislation. Perhaps there will be more special pupil referral units, but are they to be an end in themselves or a route back into mainstream schools? I am not entirely clear how it is envisaged that those will work, given the feeling that seems to be becoming entrenched that a child, once excluded, will be difficult to get back into the system.
  On the whole, I support the idea of a home-school contract, but I much prefer the Government's idea of having such contracts in certain cases rather than the universality suggested by the Opposition. I would like to think that, for most people, an implicit contract already exists. They want their child to be educated at a certain school by virtue of their decision to send the child there and it seems unnecessary for them to have to sign a piece of paper as well. Alas, something extra may be required from parents in cases where difficulties have arisen, and perhaps it is reasonable for them to have to do so.
  I hope that the power to detain a child in school after school hours without the permission of the parent will be applied with care and sensitivity. Again, I am speaking for a rural area and I am all too well aware of the transport difficulties. I would feel some concern if a child legitimately and properly suffered the punishment of detention but then faced the problem of how to get home in the dark. One does not need too vivid an imagination to worry about the dangers that such a child could face,
  514
  so we have to think that aspect through carefully, although effective forms of punishment have to be available to teachers.
  On choice and diversity—a subject that has taken up a fair part of the debate—it is true to say that as far as Labour policy is concerned choice equals division. There is a fundamental difference of approach between the two sides of the House. I honestly think that the Conservative party speaks more with the instinct of the parent in this matter. Parents are trying to exercise some element of choice and commitment. That is a grain with which we should work, rather than trying to obstruct it. Judging by what has been said today, the Labour party seems to want to take away any vestige of choice. It is no good complaining that choice is not absolute and should therefore be denied to everyone. Under that arrangement, one would send one's child to the school that one was told to send them to and would have no creative input in the decision, which would be a considerable step backwards. We are saying that there should be an opportunity for schools to develop. Opposition Members should remember that many grant-maintained schools are essentially comprehensive schools and that they now want to build on their successes.
  At the same time, I hope that the Government will recognise that geography is a factor when it comes to trying to create diversity and extend choice. What is possible in a town, with three of four schools whose characters might be developed in different ways, is not so easy in rural areas—it is difficult to see how that sort of diversity can be achieved there. We have to be careful to take in the geographical factor and to remember that, in those circumstances, money will be needed to expand existing schools if not to build additional schools to accommodate the expression of popular choice.
  Perhaps, the private finance initiative can be harnessed more effectively to that end than it has been thus far. My part of the county of Essex has no single-sex girls school. The only opportunity for education in such a school is across the border in Hertfordshire. There are precious few places in relation to the number of people seeking them. There would be better balance in the available education opportunities in my part of Essex if we had a single-sex girls school. At present it is almost impossible to see how that could come about. If ways could be opened for that and other types of development, that would be welcome.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) invited us to sympathise with the problems of the child who fails an academic selection test. I understand what he says, but I hope that he understands the feelings of rejection, puzzlement and desperation on the part of children who are excluded for no apparent reason from a particular school other than that 143 applicants for 45 places does not work. How does one explain to children of 11 that their friend two or three doors away can go to that school while they cannot, when there is no logical basis for the distinction and it is made purely on the basis of numbers? I invite the hon. Gentleman to see that there is more than one side to that coin. Many people accept that selection on the basis of ability and aptitude carries more understanding among parents and children than perhaps the hon. Gentleman was prepared to allow.
  The role of sport in our schools is close to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Without wanting to disturb the national curriculum too far, we are trying to boost the opportunities for sport in schools. For all sorts

  515
  of reasons, there will be some difficulties in achieving that quickly. I shall not list all the reasons, but they are fairly obvious.
  We have talked about contracts. Can we not talk about them in another context? There could be a contract between many of our voluntary sports clubs and schools to provide coaching opportunities to young people. Moneys can be directed towards clubs through the national lottery or various other foundations to enable clubs to use their capacity to help coach youngsters. I believe—it may be an old fashioned view—that if youngsters have more opportunity to play sport, that is helpful for self-discipline and social contentment.
  I believe that diversity in education is helping choice. It does not make it perfectly available to everyone on demand, but it is helping. It is also boosting standards. The policies offered by the Government and the ideas that they put forward in the Queen's Speech are more exciting and hopeful than the drab conformity which seems to be the only alternative offered by the Labour party in a recall of the 1960s.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I shall make just one quick point about school sport. I speak as a Scottish Member of Parliament, so I am not always all that aware of what is happening down in England and Wales. What destroyed school sport in Scotland, particularly team sport, was a long strike by teachers because they were not properly paid and felt that they were not being properly looked after by the Government. During the strike, school sports disappeared and it has taken a long time to get them back.
  We must not emphasise only the major team sports. Surely the aim should be to give youngsters a broad spread of sports from which they can decide which one to take on into later life, whether golf, tennis, judo or whatever. I have a son who plays rugby. I want to see him playing rugby at school. He plays club rugby very much in relation with his school.
  Sir Peter Fry: Would the hon. Gentleman be interested to know that no less a rugby luminary than Mr. Cliff Morgan, who is not particularly well known for his dedication to the Conservative party, said clearly that the decline of Welsh rugby began when the grammar schools were abolished?
  Mr. Maxton: In Scotland, that would not be true. The problem with Scottish schools rugby is that it is dominated by boys from a small number of schools in the independent sector rather by those than from state schools. Even when a state school team wins in a trial in Glasgow, 12 out of 15 boys come from the five independent schools rather than from the other schools. Out of 45 boys selected from three school districts in Scotland—Central region, Lothian region and Glasgow—only five came from the state sector. We cannot encourage rugby in the state sector if that is what happens.
  As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I do not often hear the Secretary of State for Education and Employment speak, but every so often I hear colleagues and Conservative Members tell me how good she is. Her speech today was one of the most appalling speeches that I have ever heard from the Front Bench. I wondered
  516
  initially why she was taking so many interventions. By the end of her speech, I had worked it out. If there had been not one intervention in her speech, she would have sat down within 10 minutes. She had nothing to say. She kept taking interventions, making points in response to them and hoping and praying that someone else would intervene so that she could keep her speech going for the 43 minutes or whatever it was for which she spoke.
  The Secretary of State kept saying that selection and choice went together. I do not see how selection and choice go together. Let us imagine that I am a parent of a 10-year-old child about to go into the secondary system in England. In Scotland, the child would do so at 11. Let us say that I want to send my child to a particular grant-aided school. The school says that, to get in, the child must pass an examination. My child fails that examination.
  It is not me, the child or my partner who has made the choice, but the school. I do not see the difference between that and the system under which the local authority decides what school a child goes to. Where is the parental choice which supposedly has been at the core of the Government's argument about education? The introduction of selection is the denial of all choice in education.
  The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) said that choice was often denied under the LEA system because parents could not get their children into specific schools. I accept that parents choose from two schools which are the same the one they think is better, but under a selective system they choose between two schools that are radically different. One school is supposedly best because it has the brightest pupils, and the other takes the dimmer pupils. That is the major difference between the two systems.
  One reason why the 11-plus was abolished was that on educational grounds it often failed to select the right pupils, as it so obviously did in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). He should obviously have been selected. One has only to look at his career since to know—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) may laugh, but my hon. Friend went on to do A-levels, go to university, go into teacher training, become a teacher and then become a head teacher. That is not the normal route for someone who fails the 11-plus.
  If the hon. Member for Blaby had been here when my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) spoke in a recent Scottish debate on education, he would have heard him describe the trauma that occurred in his family, not when he failed—anyone who knows my hon. Friend knows that he is an exceptionally bright academic—but when his brother failed the 11-plus. There was great trauma in the household and the parents were in despair that the child was to go to a secondary modern, or junior secondary as it was called in Scotland.
  Unlike my hon. Friend, his brother went to junior secondary and did not sit his O-grades or take A-levels. He left school at 15 and worked in the shipyards in Greenock. When he was 17 or 18, he realised what a waste that was, so he educated himself, and he is now professor of aerodynamics at an English university. The system failed to select: some children in grammar schools

  517
  should not have been there, and some children in junior secondaries, or secondary moderns in England, should have been in grammar schools.
  Mr. Rod Richards: Cannot the hon. Gentleman see the difference between parents having their first preference rejected by selection, and possibly their second or third preferences accepted, and not having any preferences at all because the education authority dictates which school their child should attend?
  Mr. Maxton: Under legislation that the Government have introduced, local authorities cannot dictate the choice of school. I have some sympathy with parents who move into an area in, say, October or November—perhaps because their jobs have taken them there—and cannot get their children into the local secondary school because it is full as a result of parents exercising parental choice. They have a right to feel aggrieved. The school their children should attend may be next door to where they live, but they have to travel two or three miles to another school.
  It is argued that comprehensive education has failed in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, comprehensive education has not failed the vast majority of pupils. It has given more children more opportunities to succeed in education and in whatever they do thereafter than the old selective system did. As my hon. Friend said, the expansion in higher education under the Conservative Government and the last Labour Government would not have occurred without comprehensive schools. Higher education would mainly have been limited to pupils from grammar schools, which would not only have damaged children but have caused excessive damage to our society.
  Throughout this century, one of the major problems has been the failure properly to educate enough of our population. Children in this country lose badly compared with children in the United States, France or Germany. Far from comprehensive schools failing our society, the Government have failed comprehensive schools. They have consistently under-resourced schools, and have constantly changed the curricula and the structures by introducing new ideas. The Government have always made it clear that they do not believe in the comprehensive system. As a result, the morale of teachers is very low.
  My family has 130 years of teaching experience, mainly in Scotland. Most of my family on my mother's and my father's side were teachers. I was a teacher, my wife was a teacher, her father was a teacher and her brother is a teacher. Despite that tradition of teaching, none of the next generation of children—my brother's children, my sister's children and my in-laws' family—is opting for teaching. Why? Because they believe that the teaching profession is not properly regarded by society, and is badly paid compared with other professions taken up by people with ability. Teachers feel that they have no real option, because many Conservative Members do not agree with the comprehensive system and do not send their children to comprehensive schools.
  There has been much talk about discipline and morality. I do not accept that there is a breakdown in the moral structure of our society. The same arguments were made
  518
  in the 1960s when the Beatles grew their hair long and youngsters copied them, and when there was an upsurge in the taking of soft drugs. When mods and rockers rioted in the streets of Brighton, we were told that our society was collapsing around our ears. That was blamed on our schools.
  We cannot expect schools to solve the social problems that arise from other sources. Discipline can be a problem in schools, but it is the indiscipline outside school that causes the problems, not what is happening in schools. I made the point to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that children who live in deprived areas do not see the point of going to school. Their fathers and mothers are unemployed, they live in poor housing where they have no chance of doing their homework, and their brothers and sisters and most of their friends are unemployed. They are wrong, and we should ensure that they see schools as better places than they do now.
  Some children succeed in that system, largely because of their parents. I hope that the two women on the Opposition Front Bench do not think that I am being sexist, but I must say that it is usually the mother who provides the drive and motivation to improve her child's position. Bright children may succeed, but it is difficult for ordinary pupils in such deprived areas to become motivated.
  Motivation is vital in education. Children need to feel that there is some point to what they are doing, and that there is an end product. The end product, after four or five years of listening to teachers teaching them subjects that they do not find interesting and that they do not think are relevant, is a visit to the social security office, to be told that they cannot have any dole money. They may be unable to find a job, and if they do find one it is very low-paid. It is easy to understand why many of those kids stay away from school, or cause problems if they go to school.
  Let us not put the blame entirely on indiscipline in schools. Of course unruly children cause problems in some schools. That is true even of the independent sector: in the 1830s, Marlborough college was burnt down by rioting students. We should not believe that we can solve problems in schools simply by tightening discipline.
  There is also much talk about a moral code. I always feel queasy when politicians talk about moral codes. The idea of a daily religious service in schools is abhorrent to many people. Fewer than 20 per cent. of people in this country attend church on anything like a regular basis, yet their religion is shoved down the throats of the other 80 per cent. I am not religious: my children have never been christened. I openly and proudly announce that I am an atheist. But I did not take my children out of religious education in school. Cowardly? Perhaps, but I never wanted to make my children feel that they were different or stood out, because to make children feel that they are radically different from their contemporaries is the worst thing that one can do to them.
  Why should I have had to make that choice? Why should I have been put in that position? I do not believe in religion, and my children certainly do not believe any of it now—so why should they have been made to have religious education?
  The second aspect of the moral code is that we must bear in mind the fact that intelligent young people's moral standards are different from ours. We cannot impose on

  519
  the new generation, even on those who know best, a moral code that stems from the 1940s and 1950s. Modern contraceptive methods have meant that the sexual morality of our young is different from the one in which we were brought up. More casual sexual relations are now possible, without the side effects—children. Young people now are also more tolerant of sexual relationships that are not the norm. For instance, they are much more tolerant of homosexuality.
  Many young people do not see why it is right—or, if not exactly right, certainly not condemned out of hand—to drink 10 pints of beer with one's pals or have a few whiskies after a game of sport, and it is all great fun, whereas, if someone takes one ecstasy tablet, or smokes one reefer of cannabis, that is both morally and legally wrong. Our youngsters do not altogether understand when people say that it is wrong to take drugs, but that, although one should not really do it, going out and drinking 10 pints of beer is okay.
  Finally, as I said earlier when I was talking about motivation, the real answer to the problems in our schools is to make them places where children want to be. That is why the "back to basics" stuff about the three Rs is nonsense. I have stood in front of 25 or 30 kids in a classroom, and it means that one has to base the teaching on the average, so the bright get bored, if one is not careful and does not give them enough work, and the less able never manage to keep up.
  We should give real choice and equality in education. That is how we can ensure that each child can develop his or her talents to the fullest extent, at the speed and level best suited to that child's abilities.
  That may sound like the sort of lecture that I used to give in a college of education in the 1970s, when modern ideas were all the thing, but I still think that it holds true. The problem in the past was that, because of the structure of schools, because of the training of teachers and the way in which they taught, because of the 45-minute or one-hour periods, and because of the way in which learning techniques were put across, the aim was not easy to achieve.
  Often the attempt did not work. I accept that the aim was difficult to achieve, and that there were failures with those modern methods of learning. I say "methods of learning" rather than "methods of teaching", because it has always been my view that education is about learning rather than about teaching. We tend to forget that.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: That says it all: the hon. Gentleman is against teaching.
  Mr. Maxton: I am in favour of children learning. That seems to me a better concept than someone standing in front of a class teaching.
  I accept that there were problems in the past, but now we are on the verge of being able to achieve what we wanted. Why? The most astonishing feature of the debate so far—this is a criticism of my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench as well as of some of my other hon. Friends—is that, although an information technology revolution is taking place all around us, in the world of entertainment, in commerce and business and in our own homes, so far not one Member has mentioned the word "computer".
  520
  Information technology will genuinely enable each child to develop. I recently saw a news item about the changes taking place in education in Minnesota—an item that in some ways could be seen as leaning towards the Government, because it was said that in Minnesota every parent had the right to choose. Fine, but what I noticed was not the fact that people had all those choices, but the fact that every shot taken in a classroom showed a child sitting in front a computer, perhaps with the teacher helping and advising, or teaching a little bit—
  Mr. Jenkin: That is not education.
  Mr. Maxton: A computer linked with the Internet, and with CD-ROMs, enables people to learn in interesting new ways that have never existed before. Of course that is education. Of course it is learning. That is what it is all about. We must break down the attitude that computers have nothing to do with education and never will have.
  At the Conservative party conference, the Deputy Prime Minister said that, once the millennium has passed, the Government would use the Millennium Commission money to provide computers for schools. That means that it will be five years before we do anything serious about putting computers into schools. By then we shall be unbelievably far behind the rest of the world. We cannot wait that long. We must tackle the need for computers in schools.
  I am not talking about computer education—a room set aside with a few computers in it, where kids can come once a week to put their hands on them and play around. I am talking about a computer on every desk for every child throughout his or her school career, from which those children can learn. That must be the aim. I realise that I have spoken for rather longer than I intended, but must express my hope that that will be the aim of education policy for the next Labour Government. It must be, because only then will we be able to give children education at the speed at which they want to learn, and enable them to develop their skills in the way they want.
  Only in that way will we be able to develop the technological economy that the country requires, with people who are at ease with computers and use them without difficulty. Unless we have those policies, and unless we aim to have a computer on every child's desk by the millennium, so that every child can learn properly, we will have failed our children for generations to come.
  7.47 pm
  Sir James Hill: I praise the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for the magnificent work that she has done—against tremendous opposition from the Labour party, as we have heard.
  We have not mentioned this subject much so far, but of the schools in my constituency that have been examined by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, one had to look to its curriculum and to the quality of its teachers and another, La Sainte Union, although a well-known and highly creditable university for teaching teachers, was found by the inspectors to have a curriculum insufficient to provide the qualifications that it bestowed.
  Consequently, the vice-chancellor himself had to telephone me to say that he was awfully sorry to have to tell me about the criticism, and that things were being put in order as quickly as possible. That is what inspection is

  521
  all about. The Secretary of State does not intend to put a heavy foot on any school or university, but there has to be quality in teaching. Some teachers may be two or three generations removed from what is happening. All the work being done by the Department for Education and Employment is designed to improve the standards not only of schools in themselves but of the teachers and of the discipline within the schools.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) took 25 minutes to tell us that he was still making the same speech that he made 25 years ago. It must have been a good speech at the beginning, but it is getting a little threadworn now. The hon. Gentleman talked about discipline in schools. We have had a terrifying time in Southampton, with children dying from glue sniffing. He mentioned ecstasy; a child in Southampton died from taking that. Some of the problems in the school playground may be caused by under-18 drinking, as plenty of that goes on. Luckily, it is covered in the Crime (Sentences) Bill, which we shall soon debate in Committee.
  I am aware that I may not be as strong on education as some hon. Members who have spoken before me, simply because I went through the terrifying period when Shirley Williams demolished all schools apart from comprehensives. Southampton had some worthwhile grammar schools such as Taunton school, Itchen college and King Edward's, which had a tremendous ability to produce results and provide proper education. After the great Shirley Williams saga, only one school was left, and it has now gone completely private. It divorced itself from the LEA and was funded by a number of people. It is now the best school in Southampton. That was achieved through its own ability, as it took not a penny piece from the taxpayer to change from a grammar to a private school. The school takes many scholarship pupils and, in the past few years, has built a huge gymnasium and plenty of ancillary buildings and created wonderful rugby fields. The Government should highlight such schools to refute the nonsense that good education must be comprehensive.
  Education in Southampton has been thrown up in the air and is now beginning to come down. I hope that the old political warhorses will not come out again, determined to keep all education down to the level of comprehensives. We must think afresh on education, as the Secretary of State is trying to do. She will not get much co-operation at this stage, but the ideas are there.
  I do not like accusing the Labour party of anything—I am one of the gentler souls in the House—but I hear that Labour Members oppose objective testing and inspection and favour, dare I say, trendy and progressive education theories rather than basic facts. Education must be considered according to the city that one represents. The quality of education depends not just on a city's schools but on its universities.
  Southampton has a splendid university. It has had to go outside for research contracts and, although it is doing nicely, it would still like a little more money. It is taking over the site of the old Taunton grammar school and incorporating it into the university, so it is moving forward. The only problem has been that Southampton college of higher education started to invest some of its budget abroad. It set up three little universities consisting of just four or five rooms, one of which was in Athens,
  522
  and lost a great deal of money. That was adventurous but hardly in keeping with what colleges should do with their budgets. Naturally, the head of staff had to go, but I am sure that all that is over now and that the institution is returning to budgetary stability.
  Three higher education establishments and some 18,000 students in one city can cause problems, such as increased traffic, and many older residents in Southampton object to seeing so many students in the town. The students have a certain number of their own public houses and the licensed victuallers complain that they get cheaper drink.
  Those are elements of the growing provision of education in Southampton, which will result in a high standard of education for practically every child in the area. We have lost the Walsash school of navigation to Southampton, because most of the students there are from other nations' navies or merchant navies and we can no longer build on that.
  There is a focal point for everything, however, and if we get into a yah-boo type of debate on education, we shall ruin not only some of the bad things, as the Opposition would say, but all the progressive new work that is now coming through. A large percentage of youngsters in my area will now go to university. They have chances that we did not have 40 or 50 years ago. Consequently, we should co-operate on some subjects, regardless of our political parties' views. I bear no ill will to Labour Front Benchers who want better education for their children, even if they must take them miles and miles to get it. They are showing the way to most of their Back Benchers. It is time that we took the silliness out of education and ensured that every child has the best possible education.
  I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will not mind my saying a few words about local government in Southampton. These debates are always a golden opportunity to mention what is happening. I have been worried for a long time about asbestos in high-rise blocks of flats. I presented three petitions to Parliament, but the answer that I received from the Department of the Environment was of little use. The Department was supposed to review the condition of asbestos in high-rise blocks. The danger exists in all cities, not only in high-rise blocks but in four-storey blocks and even normal houses. Asbestos was once considered a jolly good material. When we used it, we were building for heroes, although people had to be heroes to live in some of those flats, because they were badly designed and let in the damp. They were built with inferior materials and, ultimately, the tenants became disgruntled. That aspect must be examined by local authorities.
  When three flats in Southampton were identified as having asbestos panels, the Labour council said that there was no need for the tenants to move out while the panelling was removed. The council had forgotten the health and safety rules on asbestos. The authority was fined £29,000 by Eastleigh magistrates court for not providing sufficient protective clothing and equipment to the workmen and tenants. The situation is still up for grabs and nobody knows what the local authority will do. There ought to be a national campaign to identify clusters of blue asbestos or any other type.
  One family with young children wrote to me saying that asbestos boards were sawn up in their flat. The parents were terrified that asbestos fibres had got into the

  523
  lungs of their children. I have brought a particularly sad case to the attention of the local authority. The mother coped with all the problems of bringing up her children in that evil atmosphere; when she wanted to redecorate the flat, she and her husband were offered £150. That is an insult. One can hardly redecorate a toilet for that sum these days. Councillors must be more realistic.
  I was so angry about the local authority's attempts to ignore the asbestos problem that I invited the councillors to give up their homes to the tenants affected and move into the high-rise blocks, if they thought that there was no risk. That proposal was greeted with great laughter, as always happens when one asks someone to make a great sacrifice. I felt justified because those councillors and anyone else involved in the local authority must realise the penalties for disregarding these dangerous times. Asbestos is a legacy from the times of wanting to build homes quickly and cheaply, while pulling down hundreds and thousands of terraced houses.
  Councillors must be made aware that tenants are well informed these days. They have only to turn on their radio or television to get all the vibes possible. Councils should have the leading voice, saying, "You have suffered a certain amount of privation. We cannot prove that you have contracted anything dangerous, but there must be some form of compensation." This is the modern world. In the United States of America, such tenants would get a lawyer to secure the highest possible compensation from the responsible authority. We in the UK do things differently. The Department of the Environment and local councils ought to recognise the public's fears and produce compensation; in that way, they would quell everything and avoid extreme agitation.
  I can only hope that some of the measures in the criminal justice Bill will help to deal with some of the massive problems on large council estates. I had a bit of a chuckle when I read that young tearaways who commit crimes in their neighbourhoods are to be electronically tagged; the courts would have the power to impose curfews and to tag young offenders, so that they stay at home and off the streets. I could visualise a mum and dad who might not be so enthusiastic about finding themselves on a Saturday evening in the company of a couple of tagged lads, restless after drinking their second or third can of lager. Those parents might find that they had trouble in their own home.
  There must be further examination of how to curb the bitterness in some young people that arises because they do not have the job that they desire or cannot manage on the money that they are getting from social services—[Interruption.]Who is trying to help me?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Although the themes of the debate are broad, his remarks should relate to education and local government. I am not sure how his last comments do so. Perhaps he will enlighten me.
  Sir James Hill: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to explain that all those matters revolve one on another.
  Thuggery on council estates will not stray past a playground. Youngsters stay at school until the age of 16. Boys and girls seem to be much more developed these days. Unless there are sufficient facilities in an urban
  524
  conurbation, youngsters turn to a certain amount of what I call thuggery. That could be one reason for a boy of 10 being able to terrify a whole school. That seems incredible to me, but that is the way in which things have developed over many years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was brave even to hint at some sort of corporal punishment. I believe that the public are almost unanimous in thinking that some restrictions, discipline and punishment must return—and that things must not continue to stray as they have.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: The Gracious Speech makes this commitment:
  "In Northern Ireland, my Government's priority will he to maintain progress towards peace, prosperity and reconciliation, based on a comprehensive political settlement commanding widespread support."
  That statement should be welcomed across Northern Ireland, but we fear that it is just more talk, and that no action is likely to follow that takes into account the wishes of the people who choose to live in Northern Ireland and who intend to continue living there.
  In 1993, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland. He had this to say in the consultative document that reviewed education administration, which was published at the time:
  "There are few, if any, other areas of day to day life in Northern Ireland where churchmen and laymen, both from the main traditions, meet so regularly and work together so constructively. It is important that we preserve and build upon this co-operation and seek to extend and strengthen these links and not weaken them."
  I could identify with that fine tribute from my own experience, having served on an education board as a member, vice-chairman and chairman, and chairman of the finance committee. In fact, I have met no one in Northern Ireland who does not long for peace, prosperity and reconciliation. Nor have I met anyone who disagrees with the need for a comprehensive review of all aspects of education administration, including a review of the role of the education and library boards, the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment and the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education.
  The present Minister with responsibility for education in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), in his statement of 25 June 1996 on a review of education administration in Northern Ireland, signalled the strongest attempt yet by the Government to replace the existing area board structure in Northern Ireland. Previous attempts to impose change have been successfully repulsed by strong argument, backed by political and community opposition.
  The announcement by the Minister of State and the publishing of draft legislation on board restructuring have given the clearest sign yet that our previous analyses of the situation have proved correct—that the Department of Education has always wanted a three—board structure, that the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools is a sacred cow and must be left out of any review and that the Department of Education will not be part of any review.
  So far, the review exercise has been the opposite of what the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes desired when he was Northern Ireland Education Minister.

  525
  The Department of Education has continually ignored the wishes of the Northern Ireland population. The usual arguments about changed roles and over-administration in boards are repeated and, although those arguments have been shown to be a distortion of the truth, repeated again.
  The Northern Ireland Forum Education Committee has considered the position and, in its interim report, highlighted the fact that there are no educational, social or economic reasons for the type of review of education administration that is proposed. The Northern Ireland education permanent secretary accepted, during his visit to the Northern Ireland Forum, that much more than 90 per cent. of those who responded during the consultation exercise wished any revised system to be built round the five-board structure.
  All the political parties in Northern Ireland had expressed the view that the current five-board structure should remain until a legislative assembly was established. All the political parties representing Northern Ireland in the House of Commons deplore the decision by the Minister of State to destroy the existing five-board structure. All the trade unions, including Unison representatives, whom I met this morning, support the retention of a five-board structure.
  I am sorry to have to say that there has been an arrogant disregard for the expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. All borough and district councils in the North Eastern education and library board area, including councils in my constituency, still support the continuance of the North Eastern education and library board in its present configuration. That reflects the views of district and borough councils in other education and library board areas in Northern Ireland.
  The Department has continually provided misinformation, if not false information, throughout the review exercise, in a bid to confuse. In 1992, a claim was made that Northern Ireland was over-administered. Research showed that the five Northern Ireland education and library boards were in the top half of all local education authorities in the United Kingdom by size. Since reorganisation, 80 more local education authorities have been created in England, 15 more in Wales and 20 more in Scotland, yet there is a determined attempt to reduce the five that have served Northern Ireland so well to three.
  It is important that there should be parity and consistency of treatment within the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is often compared with Yorkshire. In Yorkshire, the number of local education authorities has increased to 13 since reorganisation. Hundreds of councillors and an increased number of education officers are now involved in education administration. Yet it is proposed to reduce our five area boards in Northern Ireland to three.
  In 1995, it was announced that savings of £2 million would be achieved in a four-board structure. That announcement was based partly on inaccurate figures. In 1995, we were told that regionalisation of services would save £1 million. Working parties comprising Department of Education officials and area board officers set to work. They showed, after their analysis, that regionalisation would cost £1.2 million more.
  526
  In 1996, it is claimed that regionalising purchasing, architectural services and student awards will achieve considerable savings. The evidence produced is to the contrary. In fact, savings of only £38,000 in purchasing could be made. However, it would cost £380,000 extra to regionalise architectural services. It would cost £622,000 to regionalise student loans under a lead board in Northern Ireland.
  In 1996, we have been told that the current review proposals will enhance political representation from 40 per cent. to 48 per cent. It has taken a very long time to move towards making matters more democratic in Northern Ireland. We do not need a complete restructuring of the boards to increase the number of elected representatives who serve on them.
  However, the facts are as follows. With the new proposals, a new south eastern board would have eight fewer district councillors than the current Belfast and South Eastern education and library board, and each councillor on that new board, if it ever came into being, would be expected to represent twice as many constituents as councillors currently do.
  Since 1989, the Department of Education has been responsible for significant additional expenditure on education administration in the system by establishing the Northern Ireland Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and the Youth Council for Northern Ireland. Since 1990, those organisations have cost an additional £20 million to administer.
  Further education incorporation in Northern Ireland has also resulted in significant additional expenditure. The Department of Education has now allocated £500,000 so that those new colleges can advertise for finance officers, at more than £30,000 per year, to do the work that our education and library boards have done efficiently at minimum cost.
  Mr. Don Foster: Did not the hon. Gentleman find it incredibly ironic that when the proposals were being developed about a year ago, local papers in Northern Ireland were saying that Northern Ireland would learn from the experiences in the rest of the United Kingdom? The experiences of further education colleges on this side of the water have been disastrous, with one in eight now moving towards bankruptcy.
  Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman. We in Northern Ireland do not consider that we have anything to learn from the blunders made over here. We should much prefer to be left to manage our own affairs, because we can make them work.
  The boards in Northern Ireland have been prohibited from addressing their accommodation needs, yet the Department of Education appears to be embarking on a major capital expansion at its headquarters in Bangor, County Down. The Minister's proposals are based on seriously flawed information and advice, which some of us suspect to have been tailored by civil servants to help achieve their agenda. If the Minister refuses to listen to the hard, accurate fact that no savings can be obtained, only chaos in education can be created where there has been stability. His three-board option would be divisive and sectarian and could destroy the consensus and harmonious working relationships that have stood the test of troubled times.

  527
  The Northern Ireland Forum Education Committee has been snubbed. It received 44 submissions, heard 24 hours of oral submissions and produced a report within three weeks, but the Minister dumped the report in the bin and stubbornly published his own proposals immediately.
  In his speech following the publication of the draft order, the Minister said that he would consider alternative structures. Alternative structures much better than those that have been offered will be produced. If broad consensus is achieved in Northern Ireland, will the Minister accept the alternative proposals? Will he agree to set aside the draft order and give serious consideration to the alternatives? Will he accept that any review of education administration in Northern Ireland must be total? Will he accept that the majority of people in Northern Ireland want any revised education administration system to be built around the five existing boards? Positive responses to those questions will give confidence in Northern Ireland that the Minister is open to persuasion by those whose children are likely to be most affected by any change that he may impose.
  Has the Minister considered the benefits that may flow from the amalgamation of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland and the Department of Economic Development? After all, education and employment go hand in hand here. Why not in Northern Ireland? I genuinely want to believe that the Minister with responsibility for education in Northern Ireland wants to do what is best for education in Northern Ireland. However, he must work with, not against, the people of Northern Ireland. He should set aside the draft legislation on education administration. He should co-operate with those of us who seek to promote peace, reconciliation and prosperity and who want to create an economy with a well-trained, educated work force and an education system that continues to meet the needs of society in Northern Ireland for the present and for the future.
  A satisfactory resolution of the future pattern of education administration in Northern Ireland should be given the highest priority. The Minister and Northern Ireland Office civil servants should pay heed to the advice offered to them.
  That issue overshadows all the pressure and stress on principals and school governors—pressure to balance budgets; pressure to cope with inadequate funding; and pressure to deal with growing concern as class sizes increase, because the only way to make a significant saving in a school is to make a teacher redundant. Additional funding is needed in the Northern Ireland education budget. We have too many caravan parks of mobile classrooms. There is an urgent need for them to be replaced with permanent accommodation. There should be enough money in the budget to enable schools to provide the books and equipment to which all children should have access. Above all, there must be an urgent reappraisal of the formula for funding each pupil.
  In addition to the matters referred to in the Labour party's amendment, Her Majesty's Government have undoubtedly done immense damage to the stability and security of the education service in Northern Ireland through the stubborn decision of the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland to destroy five successful area boards that have served Northern Ireland so well. It is therefore impossible for the Ulster Unionist party to support Her Majesty's Government's education policy.
  8.26 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand that tonight's debate is on education and local government. I do not know how far hon. Members understand local government in Northern Ireland. If they heard the experiences of local councillors, I am sure that they would be shocked by their lack of powers and by the forcing of things on the people of Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Office.
  We have a crisis in education in our province such as we have never seen before. Our school system was all shaken up by a former Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who rammed down our throats in this House a book in the form of an Order in Council. We could not have read it in the three hours that we had to debate it.
  Now another Order in Council is to be rammed through the House that will result in every school in Northern Ireland being upset again. The principals, the teachers, the parents and the scholars have been upset. The whole education system has been rehashed, but not to the benefit of the pupils, their parents, their teachers or those responsible for education. It is timely that we should have the opportunity tonight to highlight what the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland is up to.
  It is strange that the Minister does not think that his Department should be looked at. He will not allow the eye of scrutiny to look into his Department. He is not prepared to have a thorough and proper reform of the education system. That reform should start in the Northern Ireland Department of Education, which must be scrutinised by those who can call it to account. Every Department in Westminster can come under scrutiny, but the Departments in Northern Ireland cannot because we do not have the machinery to undertake that task.
  The Minister, presiding over his Department, looked at the education system and decided that he would do something about it. His first proposal was for four boards and then he decided to reduce it to three. He did not think out his proposals properly—if he had, he would never have made the first proposal. He removed that proposal from the table and said that he wanted to listen to the people of Northern Ireland. They have now spoken. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) knows that nine councils in his area joined with the teachers union, with other organisations that have an interest in schooling, with parents and local authorities to reach a unanimous decision. That consensus extended throughout the Province.
  The Minister received a petition from the Western hoard signed by tens of thousands of people. What did he do with that petition? He put it in his wastepaper basket, although he had called upon us to make representations so that the views of the people could be heard.
  I have been involved in Northern Ireland politics and have sat in this House for 26 years, and I have never seen such unity before. The Social Democratic and Labour party, whose members do not sit on the forum, joined the forum deputation to the Minister to express anxiety at what was occurring. Roman Catholics, Protestants and atheists like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who said that he did not want any standards—I felt like going to him and saying, "Thou shalt not steal: give me your money. I shall be quite happy to take it"—were united in their views.

  529
  Opposition Front Benchers, who travel to Northern Ireland from time to time, knew that there was unity. The Labour spokesman for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), knew that there was unity on that issue: we opposed the destruction of the boards. However, the Minister went ahead with his plans.
  Rev. William McCrea: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government are seeking, through political discussions, a way forward in the political affairs of Northern Ireland? This issue has united opinion in the Province across the political spectrum. It is the first opportunity for the Government to show that they will listen to a united expression of opinion, yet they have closed their ears. Is it not time for the Government to listen to an opinion that is expressed by all political parties in the Province?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It is amazing, given the divide in Northern Ireland politics. The SDLP does not attend the forum, but its members who serve on the boards were prepared to go before the forum to give their opinion, to bear testimony to that opinion and to take the united opinion to the Minister. As the hon. Member for East Antrim has said, the Minister did not wait to read the report: he destroyed it completely and made a quick judgment.
  The Minister is not so quick to handle other matters. We have guns in Northern Ireland; there are arsenals of arms and weaponry in Northern Ireland. What is happening to them? The Minister has put it on the long finger; he does not break into a sweat over that issue. He does not hurry to introduce a policy that will bring in those guns. Let no one think that there is peace in Northern Ireland. Today, another leading figure was slain as a result of internecine terrorist activity among the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. While that goes on, the Minister is running fleet of foot to destroy our education system. He does not have time to run after those who are destroying our country.
  The teaching community in Northern Ireland has endured the burden and the heat of the day. It is not easy to be a teacher in Northern Ireland. Schools and parents have been subject to attack. This is an unfeeling Minister. I took deputation after deputation to him, but he would not listen. He could not answer our arguments—he did not want to. When I put points to him, he replied, "Well, you'll still have your opinion when you leave and I'll have mine". I said, "We do not want that. We have come to argue with you to persuade you to change your mind," but he would not be persuaded, as he was intent upon his course of action.
  What will happen if the people say no? What will happen if those who man the boards, the teaching community of Northern Ireland and the parents and children say no? The Unionists, Nationalists, Republicans, Ribbonmen, Hibernians, Orangemen, Arch-Purplemen, Blackmen and apprentice boys of Londonderry are absolutely united across the board. The Government should heed the words of all the politicians of Northern Ireland and pull back from this calamity. They must reconsider the matter.
  The Government are good at pulling back—perhaps when they should not have done so. This time, the Government could pull back to their credit, because I do
  530
  not see how the people of Northern Ireland will take it on the chin. The House should know the unity that has been forged on this matter. The personnel of the boards would be scattered across the Province, sending people as far as North Antrim and Omagh, in order to bring the organisation together. It is the height of madness. I trust that someone in government will tell the right hon. Gentleman to think again.
  Rev. William McCrea: Today the Prime Minister intervened to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to pull back on caning in schools. He could surely intervene in Northern Ireland and ask the Minister to pull back on the destruction of the boards.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that the Prime Minister should cane the Minister—a good sharp rap on his wrists would do him good. The situation is grievous and I cannot adequately convey to the House people's anxiety. Some of our schools are a disgrace—one would think that they were caravan parks as they consist simply of outbuildings. The time has come for the Government to rethink the matter.
  I hope that Opposition Members will take on board the fact that Northern Ireland Members are not happy about having an Order in Council thrust quickly through. The matter needs careful deliberation and examination. We do not want another "Mawhinney saga", as it was called in Northern Ireland, with a huge book of legislation being rushed through the House.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that what we are being asked to accept did not work on this side of the water—so how will it work in Northern Ireland? I make a plea to the House tonight to put pressure on the Minister to think again before he proceeds down the road of educational disaster in Northern Ireland.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I have listened with great interest to the debate about the situation in Northern Ireland and it is clear that there is a problem of democratic accountability there. There is also a problem of democratic accountability in Wales, particularly in relation to the Bill that we shall discuss tomorrow and the White Paper that was published some months ago.
  It was claimed in the Gracious Speech that the legislation would widen choice and diversity and raise standards in schools. In Wales, it will do no such thing; it will certainly not raise standards, although it may add a bit of diversity at the margins, and it will reduce choice for pupils and for families. I can confidently assert that all the themes of the White Paper, "Self-Government for Schools"—the encouragement of grant-maintained status, the extension of selection, the development of grammar schools, the weakening of the role of local education authorities and the encouragement of the private sector—are unacceptable to the vast majority of people in Wales, including the 25 to 30 per cent. who regularly vote Conservative.
  It would be interesting to know how many, if any, favourable responses there were to the Welsh Office consultation. I have seen the responses from my own constituency and I dare say that the Government would not be surprised to hear that the local county council is

  531
  unsympathetic to the White Paper and condemns its proposals. The Government would probably say that that was because the local authority had a vested interest in the status quo, but the Ceredigion Federation of Governing Bodies, which represents schools and parents, is equally condemnatory and even more direct in its language.
  The rejection in Wales of the whole enterprise of grant-maintained status since 1988 has been overwhelming. We have 17 grant-maintained schools in Wales out of a total of 2,088 schools—0.8 per cent—after eight years of blandishments and incentives and constrained local authority funding. The few parental ballots that have been conducted recently resulted in overwhelming rejection; yet the single chapter on Wales in the White Paper pursues the laughable illusion that at some stage there might be a case for establishing a schools funding council for Wales, just to administer the 17 grant-maintained schools.
  The White Paper mentions extending selection. If that were implemented in Ceredigion, for example, it would reduce choice and oblige rejected pupils to travel every day the 10 or even 16 miles to the nearest comprehensive that would take them; the transport costs would have serious implications for the local authority, which is already strapped for cash. According to the map in the White Paper, there is not a single grammar school in the public sector in Wales.
  The White Paper suggests that there should be a compulsory delegation of 95 per cent. of the local education budget to schools. I understand that the Government are now thinking again about that, but it is worth emphasising that in Wales the delegation is 95 per cent., compared with 90 per cent. in England. That reflects not Welsh preferences but Welsh Office preferences, which is an altogether different matter.
  In a survey conducted by Ceredigion county council of 77 primary schools in the area, only 5 per cent. said that they would welcome an increase in delegated funding. Indeed, the evidence is that the great majority would like to see the process at least partially reversed. The Ceredigion Federation of Governing Bodies says that head teachers who have to work full time in small schools—schools with as few as three teachers—cannot give additional time to more and more administration without the fundamental task of ministering to the academic, social, physical and emotional needs of their pupils suffering. So much for raising educational standards by giving schools more so-called freedom—a freedom that they do not want.
  My strong hunch is that attitudes would be similar throughout rural Wales—most of Wales is rural and we have a pattern of widely dispersed small rural schools—and in the greater part of urban Wales. There is a strong case for allowing greater flexibility and, in some circumstances, less delegation, in consultation between schools and local education authorities.
  On the encouragement of the private sector in schools, I believe that the doubling of funds for the assisted places scheme would be regarded as a misuse of scarce funds—that has already been discussed effectively in this debate—and that private sponsorship would be regarded as entirely inappropriate, if not repugnant.
  In a host of ways, educational and social traditions m Wales are radically different from those in England. In Wales, we have an infinitely less class-conscious,
  532
  class-oriented society. There is a strong and pervasive sense that it is morally unacceptable for educational success for the privileged few to be bought at the expense of the many. Social solidarity remains a bedrock value in Wales, despite all the traumatic changes that have taken place in various aspects of life over the past 20, 30 or even 50 years.
  The position of private schools in England and in Wales illustrates well the difference between the two countries. According to the White Paper, in the whole of Wales only six independent schools are in the assisted places scheme and about 2 per cent. of Welsh children attend private schools; in England the figure is 10 per cent.
  As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said earlier, the English elite is educated in an entirely different sector from the mass of the population. He regards that class divide as a fundamental problem that needs to be solved—a social fracture, one might say, that needs to be healed—and advocates the introduction of selection in state schools as a means of enticing private schools into the public sector. I do not agree with his approach, but I do not question the sincerity of his motives or the intractability of the problem with which he is grappling. The important point for me is that in Wales it is not a problem; by and large, the Welsh elite send their children to comprehensive schools. What they want is for standards to rise in those public sector schools, for their children and for everyone else's. The great majority of the people in Wales will regard the proposals in the White Paper with a mixture of irritation and exasperation, if not something even stronger—and they include the 25 per cent. of Welsh people who vote Tory from time to time.
  The proposals come from an English perspective and they are designed for English priorities, but I do not think that they are good for England. It is seriously inefficient to try to run two parallel public sector school systems—the local education authority system and the grant-maintained system—in the hope that one will gobble up the other. We know that that is the theory, because that is what the former Secretary of State used to tell us: we were told that gradually we would move to all schools being grant-maintained. We are now told that the most enterprising and efficient schools will become grant-maintained and that the rest will remain in the LEA sector. That is a grossly inefficient approach to running a public sector education system.
  There is a real danger that through further extending selection we shall see created a seriously divided and dysfunctional society. It is wrong that Wales, where no democratic support exists for the Government's proposals, must be dragged along the same route. Why should we? Scotland is not obliged to conform to the model. The proposed Bill will not apply to Scotland. Why should Wales be obliged to conform? Our education and social traditions are every bit as distinctive as those of Scotland, if not more so in many ways.
  It is not only a matter of being exempted from irrelevant and damaging legislation. I accept that the education system in Wales is not without its deficiencies, and some of them are serious. At the same time, much of education in Wales is excellent. Examination results over large areas of Wales show that clearly. They are excellent, that is, in British terms. That is not the same as saying that they are excellent in terms of international comparisons.

  533
  There is under-performance in significant parts of Wales. We have been guilty of complacency and, in our own way in the past, of emphasising the success of the upwardly and outwardly mobile at the expense of the less academic. We have had our own unhealthy elitism within our public sector schools, including comprehensive schools. We do not want merely to be exempted; we want to be more positive than that. That being so, how are we to raise education standards? How are we to prepare Wales for the challenge of a rapidly changing world?
  As the proposed Bill passes through the House, there will be an opportunity to outline my party's proposals. I shall take every opportunity to do so, relevant as they are to specific conditions in Wales. Partnership and collaboration are the key principles, not competition. There should be partnership between school and school. There must be partnership between school and local authority. They should agree, for example, on a sensible and practical degree of delegated responsibility.
  There should be partnership between teacher and teacher in sharing experience and good practice, not guarding them like trade secrets, which is what teachers find themselves obliged to do these days. That is what they tell me. There should be collaboration and co-operation between schools and colleges of further education instead of the damaging competition and duplication that takes place in the 16-plus sector.
  At the heart of the system that my party would advocate would be a national system for quality assurance, integrating assessment, examination, inspection and support. In other words we would combine in one organisation the functions of the Curriculum Council for Wales, the examining body for Wales, the inspectorate and the current advisory services of local authorities. Wales happens to be both large enough and small enough to make crucial provision possible at an all-Wales level.
  We must examine carefully the separation between inspection and support. Industry would not countenance such separation, with the punitive five-yearly inspections that schools have to undergo. The effect on teacher morale of the inspections is serious. That is true even in Wales, where we have a more sensitive and less aggressive regime than that in England. I understand that there are few other countries where inspection and support are separated in such a way.
  The system that I have outlined would be adequately resourced. There would not be the crazy competitiveness that the Government so fanatically pursue, leading to the sort of targets listed in the sixth paragraph of the White Paper, which might be described as the Welsh afterthought.
  How could we create such a system in Wales, a system that would work and deliver the desired results for us? The House knows my party's thinking. We think that there should be democratic structures in Wales that have the necessary powers.
  I conclude by asking the Labour party a question. I note that no shadow spokesman for Wales is on the Opposition Front Bench. I understand, of course, that we are all short of time. It says something about our system of government, however, that when discussing a White Paper and legislative proposals that will bear on Wales and
  534
  could have far-reaching effects on it, there is only one spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench to represent Wales. How would a Labour Government create the education system for Wales that I have described? How would they enable the creation of an education system of which Wales could be proud? We know that the Labour party hopes to form the next Government. Could its proposed non-legislative assembly introduce such a system? I think not.
  If that is so, will Labour allow separate legislation for Wales in this place, which Scotland now enjoys, after the general election? Will Labour base any such legislation on proposals emanating from Wales that bear on Welsh priorities? What mechanisms would a Labour Government have to enable that to happen? We need answers to these questions as a matter of urgency, given the coming debate on democratic devolution in Wales that will take place over the next year or more.
  I leave the House with a final question. What happens if, following a five-year Labour Government, the Tories return to power committed, as they might well be, to complete the process of which their White Paper is a part? We all understand that the process is about making selection the norm. It is also about strongly developing the private sector in education. What will happen if a Tory Government return to power in the early 21st century committed to completing the process? What will Wales do then, equipped with no more than Labour's non-legislative assembly? That is the question.
  Dr. Hampson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an old convention of the House as a debating chamber that Members who are called should, as a matter of respect to their colleagues, be here for the opening speeches? Some of us have been here now for five hours while others have not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It is a courtesy for all hon. Members to listen to the opening and closing speeches. The time spent in the Chamber is also relevant to whether an hon. Member is called.
  8.58 pm
  Sir Peter Fry: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is not referring to me. I was present during the first two or three hours of the debate and I have been sitting here for more than two hours since. I hope that there are others who have spoken to whom his strictures apply.
  I do not want to wander into the byways followed by some Opposition Members, but there is one point that I must make. I listened to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on television today and again this afternoon and he seemed to claim that the Government were responsible for the enormous increase in one-parent families. That is one of the most disgraceful charges that I have heard. All sections of society have been responsible for the increase in the number of one-parent families, including the parliamentary Labour party, so I do not know how any politician has the gall to make such a comment.
  I welcome the measures in the Gracious Speech, particularly those in relation to education and local government as far as they go. With regard to education, many of us are particularly pleased that discipline is to be

  535
  strengthened, with after-school detentions and temporary suspensions. However, as has been said, we must address the problem of the education of those who are suspended or excluded from school. But the Government are rightly recognising that teachers now provide the kind of support that is being proposed.
  The current moral crusade is laudable and must be supported, but we must accept that a substantial minority in our society cause many problems. For example, I was told of a five-year-old boy in my county whose language at school was disgraceful, using words which the head teacher did not even know existed. Eventually, in desperation she called him into her study and threatened that if he continued to talk in such a way she would have to scrub his mouth out—knowing full well that she would be prosecuted if she attempted that. The five-year-old thought for a moment and then said, "Well, Miss, I won't use them words at school, but please can I carry on using them at home?"
  That goes to the nub of the problem facing many of our teachers in schools today. Too many parents do not support teachers in the way that they should, particularly when teachers discipline their children. Yet too many of those same parents expect schools and teachers to perform tasks that are really the responsibility of the family.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated, not just on the greater flexibility in education that she is offering to grant-maintained schools, but on her proposals for increased discipline. I agree with what she said about corporal punishment. I am only sorry that more of her Cabinet colleagues do not share the same view. We have recently had support for a degree of corporal punishment from a most unlikely source—the Archbishop of Canterbury, no less, so perhaps he cannot always be wrong.
  My constituency has, in its main town, four secondary schools, three of which are grant-maintained and successful, but all sniped at by the leadership of the local county council. The chairman of the education committee believes that grant-maintained schools should be abolished and brought back under LEA control. It is proposed that the only secondary school in the town controlled by the LEA, the John Lee school, should be closed because it cannot attract sufficient pupils. That is the result of the local authority's administration of one secondary school in Wellingborough.
  The anticipated demand for secondary school places next year will be 720 but, as a result of the wonderful decision to close one school, only 607 places will be available. So much for socialist management and its attitude to local schools. Instead of apologising for the mess that it has made, the LEA's only response is to blame the grant-maintained schools for their success and, by implication, the parents who have chosen to send their children there. Therefore, the possibility that the one school controlled by the local education authority will be closed should be re-examined.
  It would be wrong if I suggested that Northamptonshire had no education problems. I carried out a survey of the schools in the county and discovered that, without the more generous help that we had last year, some 36 out of the 48 schools in the Wellingborough constituency would have used up all their reserves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to obtain an extra £12 million for us, but the reserves are now low and need to be
  536
  replenished for the essential expenditure that has been deferred, because in the medium and long term that expenditure has to be made.
  My plea today is for extra help for my county. We have to make that plea because our county's standard spending assessment seems to have been reduced more than that of many other counties. For example, in the current year, our SSA is £46 per primary pupil less than the county average, for secondary pupils it is £61 less and for post-16 students it is £76 less. That is unfortunate, but when we compare ourselves with the adjoining county of Bedfordshire we find that the gap is £131 for primary schools, £178 for secondary schools and £158 for post-16 education. Why has that disparity arisen? It is largely because the adjoining county benefits from the current area cost adjustment scheme. It is manifestly unfair that adjoining counties should have such large discrepancies in the money given to them.
  I was delighted, therefore, when Ministers in the Department of the Environment agreed to set up an investigation into the area cost adjustment, and the results have recently been published. If Professor Elliot's proposals were implemented, they would aid counties such as Northamptonshire, which seems to have been underfunded recently. His proposals are based on a more credible model of employee behaviour and employer response; they reflect the fact that staffing costs differ throughout the country, even between counties in the south-east; and they are based on more comprehensive and reliable data than the present system.
  Having commissioned the Elliot report, why do the Government appear to be hesitating? It is because the local authority organisations, all controlled by the Labour party, object to any change and would rather perpetuate an unfair system than move towards the fair society that they are so fond of spouting about.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration that the time has come to accept the advice of the Elliot committee and to implement its proposals. They could be implemented immediately, with some transitional relief for those counties which might lose out. At the least, we should move toward the Elliot proposals over some years. One of those alternatives is desperately needed, not just by my county but by others, such as Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, which have suffered similarly. It is time for the Government to show that they will be as courageous in implementing change in the area cost adjustment as they are in education.
  Although I am critical of the spending priorities of Northamptonshire county council, I accept that it has problems, not just with education but with social services. Of course it could manage its affairs differently, but I believe that any political administration in Northampton would need a better deal. That is why I am sorry that there has been no mention of a change in the area cost adjustment apportionment. I hope that we shall have a helpful and constructive statement from Ministers some time in the next few weeks.
  The Government have been wise in their proposals in the Queen's Speech, especially those to help rural shops and to improve school discipline, but for my constituents—and also for yours, I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Government would be wise to take the

  537
  advice of the report that they commissioned and to make the changes in the area cost adjustment that we so desperately need.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it that I am not the only Member who has not been called in today's debate. Last night the 10-minute rule applied. May I take it that Members who were on the list but were not called because they were not in the Chamber will receive a rebuke from the Chair for their discourtesy to the House yesterday? Perhaps that is why the 10-minute rule was not applied today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will do well not to try to second-guess what the Chair is doing.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Environment has graced us with his presence, albeit late in the day. The words "moral crusade" have been mentioned once or twice during the debate, and no moral crusade would be complete without a man who was once responsible for a publication called "Pulpit Monthly".
  Northern Ireland Members are not present, but I undertake to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) their comments about Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has started yapping, now that he has arrived. To keep him quiet, may I tell him that the Bill affecting rural areas, which I understand may be debated next week, is generally welcomed by the Opposition?
  Whatever the merits or shortcomings of the speeches made in tonight's debate, there is no denying that they reflect immense public concern about the state of our country—what might be called the feel-bad factor. Speeches over the past few days have revealed some of the things about which people feel bad: crime and the fear of crime; unemployment and the fear of losing a job; not being able to afford a mortgage or the rent; not having anywhere decent to live; having to suffer from air pollution; wondering whether it will be possible to get treatment in the local hospital; trying to work for a living but not being paid a living wage; not being able to live on their pension; fretting about the future of their children and grandchildren.
  Those and other practical matters are major sources of concern to people all over the country. Looming over them all is the feeling that Britain is not as decent a place as it once was, and that it is getting worse. On that, most speakers in the debates have been agreed. The differences arise as to why our country has got into such a state and what we must do to make it decent again.
  According to some of the pundits, the problems are all the fault of schools, children, teachers, and, most recently, parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made clear, the Labour party wants everyone's children to get a good start in life. We recognise the importance of good teachers, and want to encourage them. We recognise the even more crucial importance of parents and the positive or negative contribution they can make to the education of their own and other people's children.
  538
  Clearly, what goes on in schools influences society in general, but it is equally true that what goes on in society influences what happens in schools. What people do outside the schools can make it easier or harder for children to learn, for teachers to teach and for parents to bring up their children. Let there be no mistake: at present all three groups have a hard job. It is hard for children, teachers and parents—much harder than writing an editorial, mouthing off on "Newsnight" or even making a speech in the House of Commons.
  Let us consider just one of the problems faced by children, parents and teachers, a problem over which they have little control and for which, generally, they are not responsible: drugs. Drugs are being peddled to children not only in every town and city, but now in many villages. It is not the fault of children, teachers or parents that Governments the world over have failed to put enough effort into stopping international trafficking in drugs. It is not the fault of parents or teachers that financial institutions switch the drug barons' money around the world in a virtually untraceable electronic maze.
  It is not the fault of parents that, instead of combating the drugs menace, some countries' secret services—in particular, the United States Central Intelligence Agency—have trafficked in drugs themselves. The flood of drugs into our country is not the fault of teachers or parents, but they and the police must cope with the consequences. Drugs are just one of the problems that children and parents face.
  Nearly everybody tries to get their children to grow up knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and bad.
  Mr. Pawsey: Why do they grow up to vote Labour, then?
  Mr. Dobson: Nearly everyone wants his child to be well behaved, not to be greedy, not to steal—
  Mr. Pawsey: Why do they—
  Mr. Dobson: —not to interrupt—not to lie, not to be violent, to show concern for others, to control their temper and not to be rude. In other words, most parents want their children to adopt the values and standards that we like to think are our own. To achieve this, we must put more effort into bringing up and educating our children.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) took up so much time that I cannot give way.
  We cannot dump the responsibility for bringing up children on to schools, teachers and parents. They influence children, but they and the children are in turn influenced by what is happening in society as a whole.
  Mr. Robathan rose—
  Mr. Dobson: Many Conservative Members will agree that it is hard for parents and teachers to promote decent values in their children when, every day, television, radio, newspapers, comics and videos are doing just the opposite. Television is the most powerful instrument of communication in the history of humankind, but is it

  539
  being used to educate and to promote high standards? Far from it. As everyone in the House knows, some of the programmes made for children are among the worst dross ever produced.
  The apologists for television try to tell us that their output does not affect the behaviour of children, but they are trying to raise advertising revenue by emphasising that advertising Levi jeans on television increased their sale fifteenfold and advertising Pepperami sausage pushed up sales by 55 per cent. within a month. An advertisement for Tango drinks that involved clouting children around the ear led to copycat incidents the next day in a thousand schools around the country. Of course television affects the behaviour of children, and it is time people in television grew up and accepted their responsibility, because they are quick enough to criticise everybody else.
  Mr. Robathan rose—
  Mr. Dobson: The question of examples goes further and deeper than that. One good example is worth a thousand sermons. Children notice what happens in the grown-up world, and they see what is rewarded and what goes unpunished. Dad tells little Johnny not to tell lies, but he is undermined when Johnny hears that Ministers of the Crown have lied to the House of Commons and got away with it. Mum punishes little Gillian for sneaking a pound from her purse, but she switches on the television to see that a City fraudster has avoided punishment for taking millions of pounds by a plea bargain to save the taxpayer the cost of bringing him to trial for his thieving.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: Go on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor will not give way, and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) should not be tempted by those Opposition Members who are inviting him to intervene.
  Mr. Dobson: Let us look at sport. Sport can be healthy and entertaining, and can promote sporting behaviour—hence the expression, "Be a sport," which is regarded as a good thing. Sport can promote teamwork and loyalty, but, far too often, the heroes of young people are obsessed with money and their teams regularly change their strips to make money from merchandising rather than from sport. Entire sports in this country have been sold out to the highest bidder, and the Atlanta Olympic games were sacrificed on the tacky altar of their sponsors. Such bad examples are commonplace, and are just a part of the overall problem.
  For the past 17 years, we have had a Government who have preached—and, to be fair, practiced—the creed of greed. They have said, "Everybody should look after number one"; that "We should be selfish"; that "Being competitive is natural" and that "Caring for other people is for wimps."
  All that has had an effect on children. It has made it harder for teachers and parents to instil decent values into children. They have had to row against the fashionable tide. Some people denounce political correctness—often rightly—but they never denounced it in the 1980s, when the prevailing political correctness was the Tory creed, "Be greedy."
  540
  Let us not accept any Tory attempts to blame their predecessors in government—not one child at school today was at school under a Labour Government. The present generation of children is sometimes described as Thatcher's children, but that is not fair. As a result of the efforts of their parents and teachers, the vast majority of children are pretty good, pretty well behaved and pretty hard-working, and they are doing their best in a difficult and complex world. Yet the Tories continue to blame parents, teachers and schools.
  The Government have introduced a market-based model for schools in each locality. The theory is that schools should compete against one another and the most successful will prosper and expand—but where there are winners, there are bound to be losers, and, under the Tory market forces model, the least successful schools will contract and go to the wall. Then the Tories and the Tory newspapers will make a great song and dance about the shortcomings of everybody but themselves and their policies.
  Some schools get in trouble for no good reason and need to be sorted out or closed, but others simply cannot compete. Those include the schools that, as some of my hon. Friends pointed out, have to take the troublemakers successful schools get shot of so as to keep up their success rate, or the children successful schools interviewed and turned down.
  It is no use criticising schools in badly off areas for not doing as well as schools in more prosperous areas. Schools in poorer areas certainly should do better, and, for our country's sake, must do better. Many have not been sufficiently ambitious in the past. Their location and intake are not an excuse for not trying, but they are often an explanation for not doing well.
  The Department for Education and Employment publishes figures showing the proportion of children achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A to C as a measure of success. The Department also publishes figures showing the proportion of children taking free school meals as a measure of deprivation. When those figures are brought together, they reveal the vast gap between well-off areas and deprived areas.
  The national average for free school meal take-up is 18 per cent., but it is only 10 per cent. in the 10 education authorities with the best examination results. In the 10 education authorities with the worst examination results, the average take-up of free school meals is a staggering 51 per cent. —nearly three times the national average, and five times the figure for the most successful areas. On that evidence alone, it is impossible to argue that deprivation does not make it much harder for a child to succeed.
  That reveals another aspect of Government policy that militates against parents' efforts to ensure that their children do well at schools—the growing gap between rich and poor. As was spelt out in the recent Rowntree report, the gap between rich and poor is wider now than at any time in the 20th century. This Government have rewarded the rich and taken money from the poor.
  Another conclusion of the Rowntree report was that there was a widening income gap between rich areas and poor areas, so, unless something is done, we can expect the need for free school meals to continue to rise in poor areas and fall in rich areas. Equally, without special measures to compensate, we can expect the gap in educational performance between rich areas and poor areas to grow rather than diminish.

  541
  Labour is determined to diminish that gap, using the measures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside. Poverty is an educational handicap, however, so those educational measures will have to be augmented by a parallel effort to attack the multiple sources of deprivation that affect poor areas. Deprived areas do not suffer from one or two individual problems—they suffer from a combination of problems. The Queen's Speech does not even mention most of them, let alone propose solutions. Deprived areas have high levels of unemployment, and often very high levels of youth unemployment. Many of the people who have work are badly paid. As a result of both of those factors, many families have a poor diet.
  Air pollution is more commonplace in deprived areas. Crime is high in deprived areas. All these things make people and make children ill prepared to learn. In badly off, rundown areas infant mortality rates are higher and babies' birth rates are lower; people are less healthy, and they die sooner. When we talk airily about the quality of life, we sometimes lose sight of the basic fact that the biggest difference in quality of life is the stark contrast between being alive and being dead; that, if people live in a poor area, they will die sooner.
  The quality of health care, which is not in any way the responsibility of Labour local authorities, is often lower in deprived areas, so that, when people fall ill and need treatment, they are least likely to receive the quality treatment that they need. We are determined to mount a campaign to improve the nation's health. We cannot afford to go on as we are. Enough is enough.
  We cannot afford to allow illness to cause the loss of 175 million working days a year. We cannot afford to have people who are not fit for work or children who are not fit for school, because that means that those men, women and children, who should be assets to our country, become liabilities instead. We must change those liabilities into assets. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I are determined to improve the nation's health by tackling the things that make people ill. We shall do so through health authorities, health trusts, local councils and the Health and Safety Executive.
  Far too many people in our country are ill. The pain and anxiety they suffer is bad for them and their families, but the damage does not stop there.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is exclusively on education and local government.
  Mr. Dobson: Everything I am talking about is related to the functions of local government, as I shall go on to demonstrate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The damage does not stop with the people who suffer ill health. Their ill health is bad for the rest of us, as well. It is bad for us as taxpayers because we have to pay for their medical treatment, and the costs do not end there. If people are ill, they cannot work, so we have to pay for the benefits that they need, including housing benefit, which is a responsibility of local authorities. We have to find the money to make up for the tax that they do not pay, including council tax. We have to go without the
  542
  goods and services that they would produce if they were at work. Their employers in the Confederation of British Industry are deeply concerned, so they tell me, even if the Secretary of State is not, about the 175 million working days lost each year.
  As a society, we should try to help the victims of unavoidable illness. As a society, we should offer advice, help and inducements to choose a healthy life style. Most important, as a society, we must act together to combat the innumerable causes of ill health and injury which spring from the conditions in which far too many people are forced to live and work.
  Poverty is a health hazard. Unemployment makes people ill. Poor-quality food makes people weak. Air pollution chokes people. Bad working conditions are literally sickening. Low pay undermines people's health. Stress and anxiety make people ill, mentally and physically.
  That is why we are determined to do something about it. We are determined to launch a concerted programme on the causes of illness. We want everyone to be involved. Our programme will not be a burden on business or on the taxpayer. It is illness that is a burden on business and the taxpayer. We are determined to reduce that burden. We believe that environmental and economic benefits will flow from our strategy.
  First—local authorities are involved in this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—on food standards, which were not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, our proposals to set up an independent food standards agency will promote public health, improve children's health and help the food industry by bolstering consumer confidence.
  Secondly, transport was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): Will the hon. Gentleman help me? The Labour party originally said that the debate would be on education and the environment. The hon. Gentleman then decided that he had nothing to say about the environment, so he withdrew that topic and decided to talk about local government. He is now talking about food safety. Can he talk about either the environment or local government? After two and a half years, it would be nice to hear him make a speech on the environment. Most of us believe that he knows nothing about it.
  Mr. Dobson: That is a bit rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who is apparently so ignorant of the courtesies of the House that he did not bother to tell us that he did not intend to reply to the debate. He turned up literally one minute before I started to speak. On the subject of food safety, it is worth reminding ourselves that people's principal recollection of the Secretary of State is his attempt to feed a hamburger to his daughter, which was too hot, so she refused to eat it. People tend to forget the sequel to that: he ate it himself, and what is more, the effects are beginning to show.
  The third item should appeal to the Secretary of State, if he can listen patiently. Home energy efficiency, which is to do with the environment, was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. At present, the homes of many of the worst-off families and pensioners are poorly insulated. Although their fuel bills cost a fortune, they waste so much energy that they cannot keep warm. Labour's plans

  543
  for a home energy efficiency programme, which have been drawn up by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), will cut household fuel bills, help the environment by saving fuel, add warmth, improve health and create jobs.
  Fourthly, housing was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Apparently the Government think that the position on housing is okay, that nothing more needs to be done, and that their housing policies are succeeding. If the Government are satisfied with what is happening, they are far too easily satisfied. The figures show that 48,000 families had their homes repossessed last year, and that, at the beginning of this summer, half a million families were in negative equity and almost 200,000 families were in serious mortgage arrears. The Government do not propose to do anything to help.
  The shortage of housing—which, according to chartered surveyors, has driven up the price of houses—is being made worse because housing starts are down. Private housing starts are down, housing association starts are down, and council housing starts are virtually non-existent—just 651 in the whole of last year. Not one council house or flat was started in the north-west or in London last year.
  To anyone who can make the connection, it should be no surprise that thousands of people are sleeping rough. The Government have organised surveys of the number of rough sleepers in York, Cambridge, Norwich, Bath, Exeter, Gloucester, Basingstoke and Reading: it is no longer just big cities that have a homelessness problem. In the past year, 120,000 families were officially classified as homeless. Hundreds of thousands more are living in overcrowded or substandard conditions. According to the Government's own figures, more than 1.5 million homes are unfit for human habitation, yet they propose to do nothing about it. They do not even mention housing in the Queen's Speech.
  This drift is damaging the country. Not having somewhere decent to live makes people ill, makes it hard for breadwinners to hold down a job, and makes it difficult for children to do well at school. Anyone with a grain of sense knows that doing homework is well nigh impossible when a child has no decent home to go to. This drift not only harms people who have nowhere decent to live, but puts building firms out of business and building workers out of jobs. It loses orders for building supply companies, and deprives professionals of job opportunities.
  It is time that the Government made a start on building homes for people in need. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said in his speech at the Labour party conference and repeated when he opened the debate on the Queen's Speech, we are committed to encouraging councils to invest the takings from the sale of council houses in new and rehabilitated homes. That will provide not just new homes and jobs for people in the building industry but orders and jobs for firms that make door hinges in Dudley, electrical fittings in Basildon, carpets in Brighouse and Halifax, lavatory pans in Stoke-on-Trent and glass in St. Helens—jobs all over the country.
  Those are just three specific examples of what we intend to do to improve the country's health and make it a better, safer, cleaner, healthier and more prosperous place to live. That is why we shall win the coming general election.
  9.35 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): My father was headmaster of a primary school within sight of Armley gaol in Leeds; my mother took teacher training as a mature student and also taught in one of the most difficult areas of Leeds; my aunt was head teacher in a rural school; and my uncle was a school inspector specialising in truancy and delinquency. I am responsible for the Government's regeneration programmes, and I will not take lessons from the Opposition on how to help those most in need in this society.
  One always listens to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), entertaining the hope that he will stray inadvertently into common sense. We are invariably disappointed. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this was supposed to be a debate on the environment. At least Labour knew that we had a new policy on that. It was then to be a debate on local government, and now we know that Labour has no policy on that. Out of 30 minutes, the hon. Gentleman gave us just 30 seconds—it may not have been quite so long—on the Government's proposal for rural areas, which shows the measure of the Labour party's concern for the fate of those who live in the countryside.
  We heard the most extraordinary diatribe against the media and television from a Front—Bench spokesman of a party whose leader galloped off to a coral reef in Australia to commune with the Murdoch empire to try to get it on his side. That is a curious formulation of the Labour party's views on the media, given its desperate anxiety and its circumnavigation of Fleet street and docklands to try to persuade editors that it can be touched after all.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was supposed to give a winding-up speech. He was wound up outside the Chamber like a tin soldier. He charged in and flailed frantically around without landing a single punch. I do not know who wrote his speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is bidding for the leadership in anticipation of the next election defeat for his party, but it was an extraordinary performance. The only comment he made on local government was the old canard, "Let us release capital receipts from local government." This is the do-it-all-with-mirrors school of thought on finance. The Labour party has suddenly found the piggy-bank of £5 billion.
  The hon. Gentleman must realise that, if he is to release £5 billion of capital receipts, the effect will be identical to increasing credit approvals. Indeed, it will be worse, because they are not in the right place. If that is what the Labour party wants to do, it would be far more sensible to increase credit approvals. That, however, would increase public expenditure, because the Labour party says that it would not redefine the public sector borrowing requirement. Would the Labour party liberate all future capital receipts as well? [Interruption.] All Governments say that they will contain public expenditure. The Labour party's Treasury team hastens to impress us at every opportunity by saying that, whatever its housing spokesman may say, we should not believe a word of it because it will keep the purse strings, but it is not prepared to change the public sector borrowing requirement.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) and for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) mentioned our proposals to help village shops and rural

  545
  communities. That need is crucial. We talk constantly about regeneration in terms of inner cities, and their problems are real and important enough. However, regeneration is also an issue in rural communities. Our country takes a particular pride in such communities. Our countryside is unique and we want to preserve it, but it must be a countryside in which people live and from which they can earn their livelihood—not one preserved purely as a museum.
  The key to many villages is the village shop, on which many elderly people depend. Our proposals to give mandatory rate relief will assist a large number of people who are themselves disadvantaged and in some cases marooned. We will also allow local authorities to give discretionary relief to a wider range of shops, so that they can give a great deal more assistance to their communities. That is a subject of great amusement to the Opposition parties, but many people in Britain prize our rural communities and wish to assist them.
  There has been a lot of talk about subsidiarity and devolution. Our proposals for parish councils put them into action. [Laughter.] I am delighted with the merriment that that statement attracts from Labour Members. I shall point out to my constituents, who live in a large rural area in which a village of 300 souls might be thought quite large, the sheer entertainment value that Labour contemplates when it considers the problems of rural areas.
  We will allow parish councils to raise funds to help community transport and promote crime prevention. Councils will be required to consult parish councils more. We will open the way to the creation of new councils, including some in rural areas, where people want that to happen. Our measures are of great importance to rural areas and we will carry them through.
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Curry: I shall not give way. I am emulating the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who took only one intervention from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall wait for a more substantial intervention.
  Our package of measures recognises the problems of preserving a living countryside which people want to admire and visit, and in which they want to work. Those measures are devolution in practice. They follow our creation of national park authorities, which give a specific role to local people who live within the parks and know their problems.
  There has been much talk of social cohesion and exclusion. Last week, I attended a Council of Ministers meeting in Dublin to examine those issues. It was interesting to note how many of our European partners, in pursuing their national policies, agreed that one had to approach social cohesion and exclusion from the viewpoint of the problems of the community—and that the time when national prescriptions could tell people what they wanted had passed. That is why it is so important that the integrated programmes that this Government have developed should work effectively—bringing the community effective choices and responsibilities in the cities.
  One cannot solve a city's problems by focusing on education, training or housing alone. One must get a grip on the integrated difficulties. That means difficult choices,
  546
  because one must choose a small community. The regeneration budget is crucial, because it embraces local partnerships, local initiatives and local delivery. Education and training are overwhelmingly two of the great priorities of all the partnerships that are addressing social issues. They are the most common elements in the programmes. That was so in the two earlier rounds and will be so in the third round, which will be decided shortly.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) knows that that is true. He tried to be frightfully fierce today—a sort of Hemingway of the Back Benches, but it did not really suit him. He came to see me a little while ago to ask whether I could assist with the transfer of a housing estate in his constituency, because that was the way to achieve regeneration there. We were able to help. The transfer was agreed by a massive majority of the tenants. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his concerns for his constituency. We were able to work together to deliver something of benefit and effective regeneration. He is much better when he concentrates on those problems than when he tries to read diatribes from the back of the Chamber.
  There will also be opportunities for local government in capital challenge; we shall announce those shortly. That is a chance for local government to create an integrated programme and for different parts of a council to talk to one another, which does not always happen. Once again, we are getting high-quality, well-integrated bids, and we find that education is a strong runner. Local government is being given new opportunities to choose its own priorities, and rightly it often chooses education as one of those priorities. It is local government making the choice, reflecting local people's views.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): What advice would my right hon. Friend give the Liberal-Labour coalition that runs Kent, which has had the most generous settlement ever given to Kent county council, and which consistently complains that it has not enough money to run services to the necessary standard?
  Mr. Curry: I would advise it to study some of the most efficient authorities—those much more efficient than itself, which put less premium on simply employing more people—and find out what can be done if people set about the task of being an effective enabling authority. That is happening throughout the country, and it is a new road for local government.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned education funding and other issues. He gave us the Liberal litany of financial permissiveness: the ending of controls on local government expenditure, the abolition of competitive tendering, the local income tax and the education surtax. He did not mention—but, as he chided my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) for not mentioning something that he believed he should have mentioned, I shall do the same—the site valuation principle for the business rate, which means that if a large tower were built in the City of London, and Fred's diner was next door, occupants of the two would pay the same business rates.
  The hon. Gentleman should consider where the opportunities lie for local government to assist education. They lie in local government addressing itself sensibly

  547
  to the opportunities of a private finance initiative. I have announced changes to that initiative that tackle the two issues about which local government was most worried. First, where councils sign a contract, they will no longer have to make credit provision up front for those sums. That was a major problem for local government. Secondly, those revenue payments that are made will no longer be caught by capping rules, and the Government will provide them through the standard spending assessment mechanism. Those were the two issues raised most consistently; we have addressed them.
  Mr. Don Foster: I thank the Minister for the changes that he made, which were desperately needed; unfortunately, as he will acknowledge, there is no monitoring in the Department for Education and Employment of the use of the private finance initiative, and the Government's own financial adviser cannot begin to say how much money will come in through the initiative for education, so we do not know what it will do.
  Mr. Curry: We have made an allocation for next year and the following year on the volume of capital schemes that will be financed under the private finance initiative. Allocations have been made of £50 million for next year and £200 million for the following year. We believe that those allocations will be adequate to meet demand. 'We, local authorities and the Department for Education and Employment are working extremely closely on that. There is an organisation, run by local authorities, called the 4Ps, which is promoting that through local government.
  I shall be grateful if the hon. Member for Bath 'will proselytise and argue the case for the private finance initiative. All Governments are trying to find ways in which private finance can assist the public good, because we all live in the global economy.
  Mr. Stevenson: I want to help the Minister to drag out his speech until 10 o'clock; he seems to be running out of notes. Would he care to comment on the fact that, since the Government imposed business rates in my constituency, business rates have increased by nearly 40 per cent.?
  Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the business rates reflect the assumed rental characteristics of an area and are subject to evaluation every five years. Where there have been changes, people in some parts of the United Kingdom have had their business rate cut and others have had their business rate increased. The system has to keep pace with the changing circumstances in the economy.
  As the hon. Gentleman represents a part of the world that has benefited substantially from the Government's regeneration programmes, he would do well to realise the possibilities for local government in the combination of regeneration—
  Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister tell the House when the commitment made by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about placing the SCAA's values forum report in the Vote Office will be fulfilled? She gave that commitment to the House this afternoon under the procedures of the House and my hon. Friends are finding it difficult to locate the report even at this time of the evening.
  Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend made it clear that she was quoting from newspaper reports and said that she
  548
  would take steps to make that document available at the earliest opportunity. I have no doubt that she has fulfilled her promise, as she always does.
  Mr. Blunkett: A commitment was given and, as the Secretary of State is not here, may we presume that she is photocopying—[Interruption.] She is here—I apologise to the Secretary of State. I did not see her behind the—
  Mr. Dobson: Arras.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, the arras.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Curry has the Floor and may give way to whomever he likes. [Interruption.] Order. I must point out to the hon. Member for Brent. South (Mr. Boateng) that this is the Chamber of the House of Commons and he should respect that fact. I call Mr. Curry.
  Mr. Curry: On reflection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have decided to give way to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mrs. Shephard: The documents will be available for hon. Members first thing in the morning.
  Mr. Curry: In one of the few moments when he mentioned local government, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke about housing policies. He quoted, I assume, from the document that deals with the extension of the rough sleepers initiative outside London. I hope that he is not suggesting that that is an undesirable thing to do. We made it clear that the policy has been extremely successful in central London. We then made it clear that, where there was a significant problem outside London, we would seek to apply the same mechanisms to address it.
  To find out the extent of the problems, we paid a consultancy, Shelter; so nobody can say that the Government have sought to control the figures. Shelter has now reported and I shall shortly announce the conclusions in order to extend the initiative. The policy is widely acknowledged to be unique, successful and to rest on a collaboration between Government and the voluntary sector that many other people would like to emulate. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to politicise that policy and that relationship, he is making a serious mistake. I trust that he does not want to do so.
  Mr. Dobson: If homelessness and rough sleeping have become so extensive that the Government need to conduct surveys in places such as York, Cambridge, Norwich, Bath, Exeter, Gloucester, Basingstoke and Reading—those places constitute about a third of the total—the problems are indeed extensive. I am condemning the Government not for carrying out the surveys but for implementing the policies that made them necessary.
  Mr. Curry: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should wait for the results of the survey before he decides how substantial his fears will be. He may be somewhat surprised by the findings.

  549
  The hon. Gentleman referred to social housing, but he did not mention that co-operation with the private sector has brought £10 billion in private sector money to the delivery of social housing since 1988. He mentioned the worst estates—I have already referred to the hon. Member for City of Durham in that context. Our programme of transferring some of the worst estates into the private sector, with the consent of the tenants, provides new opportunities and hope to people in some of the most difficult circumstances. We have transferred large numbers of properties into the private sector, where private sector money can be mobilised for renovations and improvements. Without exception, the tenants benefit from and enjoy their improved circumstances.
  In the housing Bill, we have made it possible to create housing companies so that local government, together with other agencies, can develop a new means of delivering housing.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What happens to those areas where there is no private sector investment? The Government have cut investment and people are living in housing of an appalling standard.
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady perhaps does not realise that the estates being transferred are in areas such as Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Greenwich, Durham and Sheffield. They are some of the worst estates in the country and they do not have any value. We are able to transfer them to the private sector because we are able to mobilise private capital. Local authorities are increasingly realising that that is the sensible way forward in housing policy. The Conservative Government have created those opportunities.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is locked into his obsession with council housing and with local authorities wanting to build more housing and wanting the patronage that goes with it. That is the old policy and it does not work. It is much better to move housing into the private sector, with the consent of the tenants, where it can benefit from full private sector investment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough raised a particular concern regarding local government finance. Hon. Members will know that, every year, we review the figures for the local government settlement. We try to ensure that we use up-to-date figures that most accurately reflect local authorities' spending needs. There have been a number of serious reviews this year, which we are discussing with local authorities. As I said last year, if we are satisfied that the surveys are providing better-quality, fully worked out information, we shall want to apply it. If we believe that the information is incomplete and needs further work, we shall adopt that course. I note my hon. Friend's concerns, which he has expressed consistently, about the situation in Northamptonshire and the funding of that local authority.
  We have sought to bring to local government many new opportunities, a number of which are linked directly to education and the needs of people in the worst communities. We have developed regeneration programmes which have brought training, jobs, learning recovery, housing and town centre development. We have introduced programmes that have enabled local people to
  550
  decide their own needs rather than having impositions from the top. We have delivered a great deal more opportunity to local government, so that it can develop new means of financing and new partnerships. Those partnerships are crucial for our future.
  We have also brought to the rural areas a series of considered measures that will affect the people on whom we depend as the guardians of one of this country's most precious assets: the countryside. Our education measures show, yet again, that the Conservatives are masters of the political agenda. The measures that we propose for local government and the countryside show, once again, that creative thinking comes from Conservative Members.
  The tired old nostrums and prejudices and all the old baggage of Labour were rolled into the non—stop rant of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. That shows the inability and the unwilling, debilitating egalitarianism at the soul of the Labour party. We will have nothing to do with it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 297.

  Division No. 1]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clelland, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Alton, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ashton, Joseph

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cox, Tom

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dafis, Cynog

  Beggs, Roy

  Davidson, Ian

  Beith, A J

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Benn, Tony

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Dewar, Donald

  Blunkett, David

  Dixon, Don

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dowd, Jim

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Byers, Stephen

  Eastham, Ken

  Caborn, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Callaghan, Jim

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Derek

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Chidgey, David

  Foulkes, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fraser, John

  Church, Ms Judith

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Clapham, Michael

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Galloway, George

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Garrett, John

  551

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mandelson, Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marek, Dr John

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Graham, Thomas

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hain, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hardy, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Milburn, Alan

  Harvey, Nick

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Heppell, John

  Molyneaux, Sir James

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hoey, Miss Kate

  Morley, Elliot

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Paul

  Hoyle, Doug

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hutton, John

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, Adam

  Orme, Stanley

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Parry, Robert

  Jamieson, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C&S)

  Randall, Stuart

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reid, Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rendel, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lewis, Terry

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Rogers, Allan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooker, Jeff

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rooney, Terry

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAllion, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Salmond, Alex

  McCrea, Rev William

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Robert

  McKelvey, William

  Shore, Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  McLeish, Henry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  MacShane, Denis

  Snape, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Spearing, Nigel

  552

  Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

  Wallace, James

  Steel, Sir David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Stevenson, George

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stott, Roger

  Watson, Mike

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Straw, Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilson, Brian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Winnick, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wray, Jimmy

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Turner, Dennis

  Tyler, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Walker, Sir Harold

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Alexander, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Congdon, David

  Amess, David

  Conway, Derek

  Ancram, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Sir John

  Ashby, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Couchman, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cran, James

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Curry, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Day, Stephen

  Bates, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dicks, Terry

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dover, Den

  Biffen, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dunn, Bob

  Booth, Hartley

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boswell, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Elletson, Harold

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bowis, John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Peter

  Faber, David

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Forman, Nigel

  Butcher, John

  Forth, Eric

  Butler, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  French, Douglas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Cash, William

  Gallie, Phil

  Channon, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Churchill, Mr

  Garnier, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Gill, Christopher

  553

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Knox, Sir David

  Gorst, Sir John

  Kynoch, George

  Grant Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Lamont, Norman

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Lang, Ian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Gummer, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Hague, William

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Lidington, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Lilley, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Luff, Peter

  Harris, David

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  MacGregor, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  MacKay, Andrew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Maclean, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Heath, Sir Edward

  Madel, Sir David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Hendry, Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Marland, Paul

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Marlow, Tony

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Horam, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hordem, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Howard, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Mellor, David

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Mills, Iain

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hurd, Douglas

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Jack, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Needham, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Jessel, Toby

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Newton, Tony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Jopling, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  King, Tom

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ottaway, Richard

  554

  Page, Richard

  Stephen, Michael

  Pace, James

  Stern, Michael

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Streeter, Gary

  Patten, John

  Sumberg, David

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pawsey, James

  Sykes, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Portillo, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Renton, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Robatnan, Andrew

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trend, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Trotter, Neville

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Waldegrave, William

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Watts, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wilshire, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Sir George

  Sproat, Iain

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Sir John

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Steen, Anthony

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Race Course Betting Cartels
  motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I wish to raise a matter of great concern to some of my constituents, which I believe is also of great concern and interest to the wider public. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will know from the files given to him by his staff, about my conversations with his predecessor, that I have been raising the issue for the better part of three years. I first raised it on behalf of a constituent, but the more I have looked into it, the more I have realised that a problem is developing.
  The issue is the gradual creation of a betting cartel that will be—as all cartels are—to the detriment of the public and, eventually, the race course owners themselves, although they may not be aware of the matter now. Before I get into the meat of my speech, I shall take my hon. Friend through a couple of points of history, which are important because they relate to the way in which the issue has developed. He is no doubt aware of the events that led to the creation of the Ferguson agreement, which was set up to control the new on-course betting facilities and those who run on-course betting. For a short time, the agreement seemed to settle some of the problems caused by the arrival of off—course betting shops on course.
  In the early 1970s, the first cracks appeared in the agreement, with race course owners realising eventually—some, I suspect, realised earlier—that they could receive some substantial revenue from the introduction of betting offices on race courses. So in 1972, as my hon. Friend knows, the National Association of Bookmakers formed a company entitled the National Association of Racecourse Betting Offices Ltd. —NARBOL—and it was agreed, to resolve the problems, that the Horserace Totalisator Board, the Horserace Betting Levy Board—the HLB—and the Racecourse Association would receive 1 per cent. of the achieved distribution between them. As a result of those discussions and of the NARBOL agreement, the Ferguson scheme was saved, albeit in a paste-and-patch-up form.
  During the latter part of the 1970s, after the HTB had been permitted to enter the bookmaking arena, the Tote also became interested in operating on-course betting shop facilities. As a result, meetings took place between the RCA, the HLB, the HTB and NARBOL, together with the NAB, which led to what became known as the Cross arbitration. I know that my hon. Friend knows those facts, but I wish to put them on record because they set the scene for my main areas of concern. The effect was to permit the HTB to operate a betting office in the members' area on a race course while NARBOL continued to operate facilities in Tattersalls, which is the ring in which the race course bookmakers operate.
  I shall come forward to the present. The livelihood of the ring bookmakers is today under serious threat. As we know, the Finance Act 1987 changed the way in which betting was done by making betting on course tax free. It was clearly aimed at enhancing attendance at race courses by getting rid of that tax. Yet today the public are rightly concerned and confused, because on-course betting shops charge people placing bets between 5 and 6 per cent.
  556
  extra, often referring to that as a tax. I understand that there is also some concern about betting shops at football grounds that charge a similar levy.
  The Minister will know that I began strongly objecting some time ago to the use of the word "tax", which misled the public into thinking that it was a Government levy, which it is not. Many people who place bets are occasional visitors to courses. They understand that bets in the high street carry the tax, but they are often unsure about whether it also applies to race courses. To be sure, some betting shops have decided to refer to a surcharge because of concern about the word "tax"—but not all of them. I notice, too, that the words "deduction" and "levy" are also occasionally used.
  I have often told the Government that this practice should have been stopped years ago, but even getting rid of the word "tax" will change very little. People will still be left with the idea that there is some sort of link with the Government, so they will accept the charge without question. At no stage are they told what the surcharge is for or whether there is an alternative betting venue at a particular race course.
  The truth, of course, is that the 6 per cent. is part of a deal done with the race courses when the NARBOL agreement finally terminated in 1992, leaving the Racecourse Association free to enter into agreements with the high street betting companies for the provision of on-course betting facilities. Betting shop facilities at all Racecourse Association courses are now in the hands of the Horserace Totalisator Board, Ladbroke and Coral, and the agreements have meant that betting shops pay as much as 10 per cent. of their gross turnover to courses for the facilities. Most important, part of that money is found by charging the general public a 6 per cent. surcharge which, as I said, has been disguised as a tax.
  My hon. Friend the Minister may say: so what? The ring still exists, as does the Tote, so the public have a choice. I, however, question the amount of choice that the public really enjoy, now and in the next few years. The position of away bookmakers in the ring has been changed to their detriment; they will be the first to be squeezed out of the market. That is a sort of cold premonition of what is likely to follow for the rest of the ring.
  In any properly functioning market, the public must understand what they are paying for and why. Secondly, they must be able to take their business elsewhere if they so choose: there must be an alternative. Most people who attend race courses irregularly have an extremely limited understanding of how the system operates, and once they enter these shops, they are usually uncertain as to the difference between an on-course betting shop and the bookies in the ring. The difference comes down to how much they pay, and the surcharge has merely added to the confusion. The position and prominence of the ring itself on the race course also matter a great deal.
  I for one have never yet discovered where all the money goes. A heavy veil seems to have been drawn across the whole subject. We are told endlessly that the money is used to improve racing, but no one has ever told me how or where. The ring operates in all weathers, more often than not in the open. It is therefore—arguably—less user-friendly, particularly for the occasional visitor. Little effort has been made to change all that; I expect that that has a great deal to do with the fact that race courses

  557
  receive from the ring only five times the entry fee, as specified originally in section 13(2) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.
  Even if a person placing a bet knows about the ring, he may be discouraged from using it during inclement weather. Moreover, the relationship between race course and ring is changing in some areas. As race courses realise that they can obtain a higher additional fee from the on-course bookmakers, they may feel tempted to marginalise the ring. There have been cases at a number of race courses where the ring has been moved further and further from the winning post, particularly after renovations and modernisations to the main stand areas. I understand that, in one case, the ring was moved out to the car park. There might be some interest in betting on the number of Jaguars in the car park, but I am not certain that it helps the free market to have the ring so far away from the stand.
  Some may again say: so what? They may go further and say that that is a matter for the race courses and the ring to sort out, and not Ministers. I would say that because the reference to five times the entry fee was contained in the 1963 Act, we have a serious interest in what happens. No one has come forward publicly—nor, I doubt, to see my hon. Friend the Minister—to say that we need a proper debate about the way in which the ring works, the facilities available to it and the money that it passes to the race course owners. Furthermore, if it was simply an argument about the ring, the race course owners and the finance, I suspect that it would have been brought to my hon. Friend's attention some time ago. I do not believe that that is the case. What worries me is that so much of the matter is now being resolved by stealth.
  It has been inherent in all the legislation since 1928 that bookmakers and the HTB should be on an equal basis, offering a perfect choice to members of the public as to the method of betting that they may choose. That situation no longer arises when it comes down to the multiples—including the HTB—being allowed to offer far better and more comfortable facilities to the public than can the bookmaker in the ring. To a large extent, the majority of race course betting offices are now situated within covered accommodation and—in certain circumstances—quite luxurious accommodation, including bar facilities and so on.
  When the ring is moved or its position made less accessible, it clearly makes the individual members of the ring question the viability of their profession. As we have seen, many of them have begun to drift away from the business. That is immensely harmful for racing because, as my hon. Friend knows, they set the price. I can see them questioning whether they can fulfil such a role in future because there may be so few of them. It may not be worth people's while to try to visit them if it takes so long to get there. If so, we shall see the shrinkage of the free market, as I predicted.
  The ring is being squeezed and will over a period be made less and less relevant to those who go racing, and to those such as myself who take an interest and believe that the historic relationships will be changed. The role of the on-course bookmaker in the stand will grow more dominant, and will undermine the Chancellor's decision
  558
  in 1987. At this rate, if nothing is done, on-course bookmakers could eventually be setting the starting price, and thus change the nature of betting for the worse.
  As soon as one raises the matter, one is told that one must "move with the times", "not sit back on historical perspectives" and "look forward". I have even heard business men say that there is a global perspective. Betting shops say that they are in the business of creating a vast global marketplace and that such matters just stand in their way. I must warn my hon. Friend to be wary of business men who come to him talking about global marketplaces. It is my understanding that that is always the beginning of an argument that runs along the lines of, "Wouldn't the world be a tidier place if, in every single business area, there were only one provider? That would make life so much simpler for the poor buyer, and the person in the high street would not have to make that ghastly thing called choice." That is essentially what will happen as companies seek to close down the system.
  I do not doubt that there are vast sums to be made through video, Teletext links and away betting at different race courses in different countries. But we should act primarily in the interests of the person placing a bet here in the UK, as that has created the historical strength of the free marketplace. We should be careful if we intend to change that. Perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend the Minister—although I am sure that he needs no reminder from me—of the words of Adam Smith, who said that the
  "interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always in the interests of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interests of the public: but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow citizens."
  I am sure that he was not necessarily thinking of on-course betting, but the use of the word "tax" had a certain resonance during my investigations.
  In short, having been in business, I know that it is the desire of every business to become a monopoly or cartel or to create such a position. I hope that my hon. Friend will decide to consider the matter in that context, not merely because of the use of the word "tax", but because of the much wider problem of the changes that seem quietly to be taking place and which are underhand. He should ask himself whether they are in the interests of the racegoer, and if he has the slightest doubt, it is in our interest and that of racegoers for him to act. It started with the misrepresentation of the word "tax"; it will end with control of betting on course and off course in a small number of hands, with my constituents and those of my hon. Friend picking up the bill. That would be not only a tragedy, but a total injustice.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on raising a particularly interesting matter for discussion. I am also grateful to him for his reference to Adam Smith. It does no harm for us to be reminded from time to time of his views and my hon. Friend used the opportunity of this debate to do so.
  My hon. Friend has taken up the case of a constituent who makes his living acting as a bookmaker on race courses. In July 1994, he met my right hon. Friend the

  559
  Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who was then discharging the responsibilities that I now have in the Home Office. Concern has been expressed that self-employed, on-course bookmakers are being forced out by unfair competition from betting shops on race courses run by major off-course bookmakers.
  Before I comment on the issues that my hon. Friend raised, I must say a few words about the on-course betting market. The way in which betting and racing is organised has evolved over many years. It has stood the test of time and enjoys a reputation for integrity and orderly conduct. Racing depends largely on its attraction to the public as a betting medium. The bookmakers standing in the ring are part of the atmosphere of race courses in this country. Racegoers are able to watch the changing odds and shop for the best prices—I hope that that will always be the case.
  The on-course betting market is complex and it is not easily understood by people outside the industry. On-course bookmakers play an important role in setting the starting price to which my hon. Friend referred, not only on the race course, but in the 8,500 to 9,000 off-course betting shops in the country. The starting price is the price or odds prevailing on course at the time that the race begins. It is compiled on the scene from the prices offered by the ring bookmakers at the race course. The starting price is the basis on which most bets placed off course in betting shops are settled. That means that it is important to have a strong on-course market. A race meeting that attracts only a few bookmakers and only a small amount of money in the ring could lead to the manipulation of prices.
  My hon. Friend said that the on-course bookmaker is threatened by unfair competition. Indeed, he went somewhat further. The horse race bookmakers have an arduous profession, which requires stamina, exhaustive knowledge of the market and the courage to back their judgment in hard cash. The market cannot stand still—it has not done so in other markets and it is not doing so in the race course betting market. Those who run race courses are under pressure to give value for money, to improve their facilities and to keep prices and facilities attractive to the race-going public at a time when income from the horse race betting levy is not keeping pace with the needs of racing. I am glad to be able to say that recent years have seen many improvements on race courses.
  We cannot consider the on-course betting market without reference to the position of the Tote, which is an established presence on race courses.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: As my hon. Friend has touched on the improvements to race courses, in which I know that the levy board has had some involvement, will he condemn any idea that, as a result of those improvements, the ring should be moved substantially further away from the finishing post, thus further marginalising on-course bookmakers from the process of on-course betting?
  Mr. Kirkhope: The precise details of locations are matters not for me but for the race course authorities and others. I hope later to refer more particularly to the negotiations and discussions into which I entered with those parties. I have already said that I do not want to see the role of the on-course bookmakers in the ring diminished, because it is an important role.
  560
  We cannot consider the on-course betting market without reference to the position of the Tote. The Tote is an established presence on race courses. It is obviously right that it should be. It was set up to provide pool betting on horse racing. In many other countries, pool betting is the only means of betting available to the racegoer. In this country, it has to compete against the privately owned fixed-odds betting industry. The Tote's profits go to racing and its payments to race courses are increasing. It also provides a form of betting which is perhaps more attractive to the small or first-time punter.
  Unlike for other betting outlets, the siting of the Tote's pool betting kiosks is not subject to approval by the levy board. That is said to have led to a proliferation of Tote outlets, which is deemed unfair by the on-course bookmaker, who can stand only in an area which has been approved by the levy board. This situation was looked at some years ago by Lord Cross in what has become known as the Cross arbitration. He advised that the levy board should exercise its powers with regard to on-course betting in such a way that it would hold the balance fairly between the different classes of bookmakers while at the same time achieving a strong starting price and taking account of the interests of racing. Those are matters for the levy board. We are aware of the views of on-course bookmakers on this issue, but do not see any reason to challenge the Cross judgment.
  The on-course bookmakers also consider that race course betting shops run by the major bookmakers are taking away custom from the ring. In recent years, extra facilities and betting options have been provided by those shops. On-course betting shops used to be run by the National Association of Bookmakers, but in the past few years, those have been the subject of open tendering. I understand that the increased competition for the provision of those facilities has considerably improved the range of services for the racegoer as well as improving the financial benefits to race courses.
  From the point of view of the independent on-course bookmaker, no doubt the development of well-appointed, well-run betting shops is seen as a threat, particularly by away bookmakers who bet only on other meetings which are comprehensively covered by the on-course shops.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: We know that much of the improved facilities are tied up with the up to 10 per cent. levy charged by the race courses. Does my hon. Friend agree that simply to pass that 6 per cent. straight to the person placing the bet, without any explanation, and even misleading him or her about tax, is wrong?
  Mr. Kirkhope: I cannot acknowledge that. I am just about to come to the percentage deduction. Perhaps we can develop that further.
  Members of the public may prefer to place their bets in shops rather than braving the elements outside. The ring can also—my hon. Friend has referred to this—be rather intimidating for the first-time racegoer.
  No betting tax is paid on course by the betting shops or the ring bookmakers. As the betting shops impose a 6 per cent. charge for their services, the ring bookmaker has the edge over the betting shops in that sense. Regular punters, particularly those who gamble large sums, may well prefer to place their bets with the standing bookmaker.

  561
  There is no betting duty on course, but the betting shops as a matter of practice—my hon. Friend referred to this—make a deduction from the customer, generally at a rate of 6 per cent. That is part of the terms on which they do business in receiving bets and is a commercial arrangement between the bookmaker and the punter.
  Some have alleged that the 6 per cent. deduction by the betting shops is unfair—and using the term "tax" to describe that deduction is certainly misleading. That is not a new practice. It was customary when the NAB ran on-course betting shops. However, last year the levy board actively encouraged the operators of on-course shops to avoid the term, and I commend that action.
  Practices in the ring have not changed for many years, and the onset of competition makes it even more important that the on-course bookmakers take advantage of new technology and practices to make the ring a more customer-friendly place. The NAB's market research has shown that the public want a better standard of service. Areas to be addressed, if on-course bookmakers are to compete with other outlets, include minimum stakes, size of bets, the availability of each-way betting and the provision of information.
  The current climate also makes it even more important that agreement be reached between the race courses and the on-course bookmakers on the administration of the ring. We are aware that the Racecourse Association, representing the 59 race courses, and the National Association of Bookmakers, representing the race course bookmakers, have for several years been discussing improvements to commercial arrangements between the race courses and the bookmakers. Those are not specifically matters for the Government, but it is clearly in the interests of everyone concerned that agreement be reached without much further delay, and that the agreement should take account of the needs of both parties.
  My hon. Friend called on the Government to take action to protect the viability of the present starting price system. The preservation of the system is in the public interest, in that it is seen by punters to be a fair and open means of arriving at horse-racing odds. We agree that the present system has much to commend it. We also wish to see the independent bookmakers continue to flourish on race courses, but I am not convinced that there is a need for Government intervention at present.
  The bookmakers should first look to improving the service that they give to the public, to make themselves more competitive. It is not for the Government to become involved in discussions on the day-to-day management of
  562
  race courses. Essentially, those must be commercial matters for the racing and betting industries to decide. I know that the British Horseracing Board and the levy board have said that they would be happy to assist in any way that they can.
  The Government's role is limited to the setting of the statutory limit on the fees imposed on bookmakers by the race courses. Under section 18 of the 1963 Act, the race course management may not charge the bookmaker more than five times the highest charge made to members of the public to enter that part of the race course. I am talking about the charge made by the race courses to allow bookmakers on to the course. Commercial agreements between the race course and the betting shop operator for the use of the building provided is, of course, a separate matter. In some cases, such agreements will take the form of a lease.
  I am aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in its report on the levy in 1991, recommended that the Home Office should consider introducing legislation to repeal the statutory regime governing bookmakers' fees, and that courses should be able to put up individual pitches for sale by auction. It observed that on-course bookmakers paid a "relatively trivial amount". The Government's response was that we would give further consideration to such matters when the outcome of the discussions between the Racecourse Association and the NAB was known.
  The Government have played their part in supporting the on-course bookmaker by removing, some years ago, the 4 per cent. tax on on-course betting. The ring bookmakers have been given an advantage over the betting shops on course, which charge their customers 6 per cent., and the off-course betting shops, where 6.75 per cent. duty is payable on turnover.
  As I have said, in that sense the on-course bookmakers have the edge. Far from a cartel operating on race courses to keep up prices, the more the betting shops charge, the more the ring bookmakers have the advantage. We are seeing an improvement in the services to the racegoing public, which may mean increased competition, but not necessarily unfair competition.
  Having heard my hon. Friend this evening, I wish to assure him that I shall re-examine the matters to which he has referred, and see whether further action is required to maintain the diversity of betting services available to punters at race courses. If any further action is needed, I shall not hesitate to take it, consistent with any powers that I may have.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o ' clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Risks
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the research he has evaluated to show that, among the elderly, fear of crime by the elderly is greater than the reality of crime. [145]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest—1996—British crime survey, which is conducted by the Home Office, shows that the risks of crime for the elderly are considerably lower than for younger age groups.

  The elderly tend to rate their chances of victimisation in line with younger age groups, and they are as worried about falling victim to specific crimes. They also exhibit greater anxiety about being out alone after dark.

  Fear of crime is about not just the chances of victimisation but the perceived consequences. Greater anxiety on the part of the elderly about their safety on the streets may be because they see the physical, emotional and financial consequences of victimisation as greater than do the young.

  Mr. Solely
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has evaluated to show the relative risk to(a) young people and (b) senior citizens from (i) violent street crime and (ii) crimes committed by people gaining entry to their homes.[146]

  Mr. Maclean
  According to the latest—1996—British crime survey, which is conducted by the Home Office, a young person aged 16 to 29 is 18 times more likely to be a victim of violence in a street location than a person aged 60 or over.

  The relative risk to young. Households—head aged 16 to 29—of burglary, which covers offences in which there is actual or attempted trespass with the intention of theft, assault or criminal damage, is 2.6 times that for households whose head is aged 60 or over.

  Police Training
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the length of time devoted to dedicated police training for a new constable. [142]

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the police probationer foundation training programme, recruits to the police service in England and Wales, other than the Metropolitan police, spend a total of 15 weeks undergoing formal training at police training centres. In addition, they undergo a further 15 weeks training in their forces which is divided between formal classroom training, operational experience and development under the supervision of experienced tutor constables. During 58
  the remainder of their probation period, constables may be required to attend a minimum of 30 days' further training at their force training school.

  Recruits to the Metropolitan police service spend an initial 18 weeks at the Metropolitan police training school at Hendon, followed by 10 weeks on division undergoing street duty training under the supervision of an experienced officer. During the remainder of the two years' probation, they are required to attend training courses at area training units for a further 28 days.

  Police Constables
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average annual cost of employing a police constable in England. [93]

  Mr. Maclean
  Data on the average annual cost of employing a police constable are not collected centrally. However, the cost of employing a probationer constable in 1996–97 is estimated to be £19,738 outside London and £22,320 in London.

  Drug Abuse Resistance Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into the desirability of extending the DARE programme to all United Kingdom police forces. [765]

  Mr. Maclean
  No. It is a matter for individual chief officers to decide how to assist schools in drugs prevention work, taking local needs and circumstances into account. Drug abuse resistance education is one of a number of initiatives undertaken by police forces in this field.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure the maximum recovery of funds from convicted drug dealers. [245]

  Mr. MacLean
  As recommended by the Home Affairs Committee last year, the working group on confiscation legislation which brings together Government Departments and enforcement agencies has been given the task of examining recovery rates from confiscation orders made against drug traffickers and other criminals, and to make recommendations for improvement. It is expected to report by March 1997.

  PCL Group
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to recover fees from the PCL group after the decision to terminate the contract for transferring pre-1981 criminal records to the national computer's Phoenix database. [861]

  Mr. Maclean
  The contract between the Home Office and PCL was ended by mutual consent. Since then, no sums have been due from PCL.
  59

  Suspects (Interrogation)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will identify the research referred to in his speech to the Conservative party conference which indicates that the number of suspects refusing to answer questions has nearly halved; and if he will place a copy of the research in the Library. [904]

  Mr. Maclean
  The research to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred is emerging findings from a wider study by the Home Office research and statistics directorate which looked at the implementation of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Data collected from a sample of cases from eight police stations around the country found that during interview suspects responded to questions from the police as follows:

  Per cent.

  1993–94

  1995–96

  All questions answered

  75

  84

  Some questions answered

  align="right">14

  10

  No questions answered

  11

  6

  A report of this study has not yet been published but is currently being prepared with a view to publication next spring, when a copy will be placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Witnesses (Payments)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he proposes to take to prevent payments to witnesses being made in judicial proceedings [1428]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Government have today published a consultation paper, "Payments to Witnesses," which invites comments on the proposal that payments to witnesses by the media, as well as offers of payment and requests for payment, should be prohibited. The Government consider that such payments can constitute a real risk to the administration of justice and that their prevalence justifies serious consideration of what action should be taken. We do not believe that the law in this area is clear or that the matter can be left to media self-regulation alone.

  The paper seeks views, by 31 December 1996, on the proposal that payments, offers of payment and requests for payment should be prohibited, and on specific questions relating to:

  whether the prohibition should take the form of a contempt of court or a criminal offence;

  whether a risk of prejudice to the proceedings need be proved;

  whether an intention to interfere with the course of justice need be proved;

  at what stage the prohibition should begin;

  whether the prohibition should cease at the end of the trial;

  whether there should be any defences.

  60

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Quasi-legislative Material
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce new Crown copyright licensing arrangements for the electronic reproduction of quasi-legislative material. [1496]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to announce that from 1 November a new generic licence called QLM/3 will be available on a non-exclusive basis to cover the commercial reproduction in electronic and microform formats of Crown copyright quasi-legislative material—material which forms or explains the framework within which legislative provisions are administered and the regulatory practices followed by public servants within that framework. I am placing copies of the licence in the Libraries of the House today.

  These new arrangements will make it significantly easier for publishers to gain rights to reproduce quasi-legislative Crown material in their electronic publications. Holders of the licence, which is renewable after seven years, will be able to reproduce material without seeking prior permission from the Crown and at a standardised royalty rate.

  The Government are the largest producers of information in the country and this licence offers great benefits to the electronic publishing industry—in particular, the legal publishing sector. It will help to create a climate conducive to the growth of commercial electronic information services, both on open and closed networks. This accords both with the Government's aims of increasing the competitiveness of the UK information industry and with its open government objectives of encouraging the widest possible dissemination of official material.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what exceptions there are to the normal arrangements relating to the pay of special advisers. [1497]

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. Special advisers are normally paid on the salary spine ranging from £20,631 to £71,517. Mr. Norman Blackwell, the head of the Prime Minister's policy unit, is an exception. When he was appointed, he was given the rank of second permanent secretary, according to established precedent.

  Furthermore, Dr. Alan Kemp, special adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister, although paid at the top of the special adviser's spine also receives a payment of 15.9 per cent. of salary in lieu of superannuation.

  These salary arrangements were announced at the time the appointments were made.

TREASURY

  Agency Co-operation
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on co-operation between the Inland Revenue, the Contributions Agency and Customs and Excise since 5 February. [97]
  61
  Mr. Jack
  Progress on closer working between the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency has far exceeded expectations. The wide-ranging programme of practical measures is now delivering real benefits to business. There are currently over 30 projects in hand. Recent measures include:on 7 October 1996 a national employers' telephone helpline opened. It gives general advice, at local call rates, on pay-as-you-earn and national insurance issues, along with advice on VAT registration;
  joint information and advice pages are available on the Internet (www.open.gov.uk/dssca/jw/jw.htm);
  a single notification form and leaflet was introduced in April 1996, which allows new businesses to notify all three Departments that they have started up in business.

  Landfill
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the environmental bodies which have made representations regarding enrolment as appropriate bodies to receive donations from landfill operators; [109]

  (2) how many landfill operators in each Customs and Excise region had registered their liability as landfill operators on 1 September; [111]

  (3) if he will list the landfill operators in the South Yorkshire region who had registered their liability for landfill tax on 1 September; [110]

  (4) if appointments to the regulatory body set up to oversee the operation of the landfill tax will be made by open competition; [108]

  (5) if he will list the members of the regulatory body set up to oversee the operation of the landfill tax already appointed. [112]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Lady to the letter I sent her on 25 October in reply to questions she tabled at the end of the 1995–96 Session. I have placed a copy of my letter in the Members' Library.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average per capita sum of inheritance tax collected in each of the regions of England. [92]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that information at regional level is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is provisionally estimated that in 1995–96 the average inheritance tax liability for taxpaying death estates in the United Kingdom was £73,000.

  Inland Revenue (Audits)
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many joint audit visits for large employers and single audit visits pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions have been conducted since 6 April. [96]

  Mr. Jack
  Between 6 April and 30 September 1996 the Inland Revenue has conducted 31 joint visits to large employers and 18,083 single visits to check compliance with the regulations relating to PAYE and NICs.
  62

  Shipping (Tax Incentives)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce improved tax incentives for United Kingdom ship owners to invest in new tonnage; and if he will make a statement. [68]

  Mr. Jack
  We have introduced valuable tax measures to promote investment in new tonnage in the form of roll-over relief for capital allowances balancing charges on the sale and purchase of ships. This was extended to groups of companies in last year's Budget and has been warmly welcomed by the UK shipping industry.

  The Government are of course, always willing to consider representations from the shipping industry about any particular difficulties it faces.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of tax revenue which has been lost as a result of the introduction of tax relief for profit-related pay in the years 1990 to 1996. [862]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimates of the cost of income tax relief for profit-related pay schemes in 1995–96 and 1996–97 are published in table 1.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1996", a copy of which is in the Library. Estimates for other years can be found in earlier editions.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the estimate contained in his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) of 16 October 1995,Official Report, column 7, relating to the savings which will accrue as the result of the contract awarded to EDS Ltd. to provide information technology services for the Inland Revenue. [975]

  Mr. Jack
  At the time of signature of the contract with EDS for the provision of IT services—May 1994—the Inland Revenue estimated that the Department would save £225 million, compared with continuing in-house costs, over the 10 years of the contract. This was based on transfer of work to EDS in two phases in July 1994 and January 1996.

  The latest estimate shows that total savings to the Department are still expected to be of a very similar order—in the range £220 million to £225 million—though precise figures of savings will always still depend on the future level of the Department's information technology requirements.

  Ministerial Visit (China)
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the purpose of the Economic Secretary's recent visit to China. [1181]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The principal purpose of the visit was to sign the memorandum of understanding on the exchange of information and mutual assistance in securities and futures matters between the Treasury, the Securities and Investments Board and the China Securities Regulatory Commission. I also took the opportunity to call on the state organisations which are at the forefront in China's economic reform. I was accompanied by Sir
  63
  Andrew Large, chairman of the SIB, co-signatory to the MOU, Ian Salter, the deputy chairman of the London stock exchange and a delegation of senior executives from the financial services sector.

  The memorandum of understanding is a landmark agreement between the United Kingdom and Chinese authorities and is the result of two years' intensive negotiation by the Treasury, the SIB and the London stock exchange. It is of immense importance to our financial services industry in opening the gates to allow it to participate in and contribute to the rapid development of China's financial services sector. In particular, it will allow Chinese companies to list on the London stock exchange. The Chinese authorities have formally recognised London's status as the international financial centre. We are the first European country to receive official Chinese recognition and the first European stock exchange to be selected for listing. The MOU signing ceremony received considerable Chinese press and media coverage.

  We were welcomed extremely warmly by all our Chinese hosts and I have no doubt that this historic agreement will strengthen the increasingly close wider relations between our Government and China. My task in the financial services area was considerably eased by the successful recent visits by the Deputy Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister for Trade and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The memorandum of understanding also has provisions for technical co-operation. My Chinese hosts impressed on me how much they can learn from London, both from a regulatory perspective and from our privatisation experience. The signing of the memorandum will therefore involve us closely in China's future economic development as the development of China's capital markets will play a key role in its economic reforms. The Chinese stressed their specialist training and educational needs and we have considerable expertise in this area.

  In addition to my hosts at the CSRC, I also called on Vice-Minister Wang Chunzheng of the State Planning Commission, Assistant Minister Gao Qiang of the Ministry of Finance, Mr. Zhou Zhengqing, the Deputy Secretary General of the State Council, Deputy Governor Chen Yuan of the People's Bank of China and Vice-Minister Wu Jie of the State Commission for Restructuring Economic Systems. I took the opportunity at these meetings to emphasise London's international importance as a financial centre and the range and depth of our expertise to assist with China's economic reforms. I also took the opportunity to lobby on behalf of British banks—more branches and Reminbi (RMB) banking—and insurance companies seeking licences. On the banking front, it now seems certain that a British bank will be able to participate in local Reminbi banking which is a major step forward. The Chinese repeated their assurances that British companies would receive insurance licences in the near future.

  This was a very successful delegation which I believe marks a significant step forward in our relations with China, both on financial services and more widely. We now need to maintain and build on these opportunities.
  64
  Copies of the memorandum of understanding are available in the Libraries of the House.

  School Fee Payment Plans
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the tax position of investors in school fee payment plans with education trusts whose charitable status has recently been under review. [1185]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue has decided that, because of advice it gave in the past about the tax treatment of investors in these plans, it will not collect tax on payments made under plans in existence on 20 June 1996. This is subject to the proviso that plans are not changed to increase the benefits which would be payable or replaced by new plans, for example, to provide benefits for a different child.

  In principle, investors will be liable to tax on a proportion of any profits made from the school fee payment schemes. However, the educational trusts aim to eliminate any tax charge by ensuring that any profits are donated to charity. If a tax charge were to arise, tax legislation gives investors the right to recover any tax payable from the scheme.

  This means that the position of people who have invested in these schemes in the past will be safeguarded and they should not be faced with unexpected tax liabilities. I welcome the Revenue's decision and am satisfied with the protection it provides for existing investors.

  UK Tax Havens
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the loss to the Revenue as a result of the residence of(a) United Kingdom citizens and (b) companies in (i) Jersey, (ii) Guernsey and (iii) the Isle of Man. [157]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: The information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further deregulation proposals he has in respect of the Health and Safety Executive. [655]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In May 1994, the Health and Safety Commission published a report entitled "Review of Health and Safety Regulation". The review was the most cmprehensive examination of health and safety legislation for 20 years. The Government welcomed and accepted in full its recommendations to modernise and simplify health and safety law and to make other changes designed to reduce administrative burdens on business without lowering necessary standards of protection.

  The HSC is now over halfway through its programme of work to implement the recommendations of the report. Details of the activity to be carried out in the present year are set out in the HSC plan of work 1996–97 published last May.
  65

  Water Leaks
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Executive and the water companies to assess the need for risk assessment on the likelihood of water leaks from company pipes destabilising ground and producing accidents; and if he will make a statement. [443]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. Works concerned with the repair of leaking pipes are covered by current health and safety legislation which protects the company employees and members of the public. The likelihood of a leaking pipe destabilising the surrounding ground depends on a number of factors, including topography, ground conditions and the force of the leak. The main occurrences are as a result of bursts in mains pipes which are readily visible and are quickly repaired with the necessary safety precautions. All companies have introduced programmes to reduce leakage from their pipes which will also reduce the likelihood of any long-term damage to surrounding ground.

  Village Pubs (Rate Relief)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will include village pubs as businesses eligible for rate relief. [894]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Village pubs will be eligible for discretionary rate relief under the measures introduced in the Local Government and Rating Bill.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the policies described in "United Kingdom Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste". [1182]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government's policies on exports and imports of waste are set out in "United Kingdom Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste", which was published in 16 May 1996 following a period of public consultation in 1995 which included consultation with Community member states and the European Commission. The plan came into operation on 1 June and reflects the Government's long-standing policy of self sufficiency in waste disposal and the well-established principle of proximity—that waste should be disposed of in, or as close as possible to, the country of origin.

  Since the plan was published, the Government of the Republic of Ireland, through their Department of the Environment, have made a formal request to the Government to allow the continuing export of a limited quantity of specified clinical waste until the end of 1997. This request follows the closure of all but one of the Republic's clinical waste incinerators in recent years as a result of the more demanding emission standards imposed by European legislation. The Government are minded to agree to the request from the Government of the Republic on grounds of public health and safety and in line with the proximity principle. This exemption would be in order to allow the Republic time to bring its own facilities for the environmentally sound disposal of these wastes on stream.
  66
  It has also become apparent that the plan requires clarification on one minor aspect. The plan bans most imports of waste for disposal, but exceptions are made under limited circumstances for mainly chemical wastes moving for high temperature incineration. Since publication of the plan, there have been differences in interpretation of the definition of high temperature incineration. The Government propose therefore to clarify the definition to ensure that only those wastes destined for high temperature incineration in general purpose chemical waste incinerators are permitted in the limited circumstances allowed under the plan.

  My Department has therefore today published, for consultation, details of these proposed changes. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Pensions
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to consult local government pension interests in England and Wales as part of the proposals for change initiative on new regulations governing the local government pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [1183]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In July, I announced that regulations would be prepared to give effect to the proposals for change initiative for the local government pension scheme. Today, draft regulations are being circulated for consultation with local government pension interests in England and Wales. The closing date for comments is 10 January 1997.

  The scheme's provisions have been radically recast to provide new, easy-to-read regulations in a more accessible and user-friendly format. These are designed to improve the ease with which local authorities interpreted the scheme's legal provisions and to provide scheme members with a clear set of scheme rules. Many out-of-date regulations have been removed. New opportunities are included for employers to provide optional benefits for scheme members on a share cost basis. In addition, a number of other key improvements and changes are proposed, including an equalisation of future employees' contribution rates.

  Existing scheme members' pension entitlements will remain statutorily protected. Eligible members would be able to benefit from any proposed changes to the scheme's provisions.

  Further consultations will begin shortly covering new provisions for the investment management of local authority pension funds, revised regulations for dispute resolution within the LGPS and measures to ensure a smooth transition from the existing to the new scheme.

  Several regional seminars have been arranged to explain and discuss the proposals with local government and other interested parties as an integral part of the statutory consultation exercise. I know that all LGPS interests will wish to participate fully and ensure that the new scheme regulations will provide a long-term, secure, statutory basis for the LGPS.

  Subject to the outcome of these consultations, it is intended to make and lay the new scheme regulations early in 1997, with them coming into effect on 1 April 1998.
  67

  Housing
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take where a local planning authority proposes to adopt policies on affordable housing in its development plan which are inconsistent with Government guidance. [1184]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the position concerning the provision of affordable housing through the planning system. The Department's policy guidance on affordable housing is set out in PPG3 revised in March 1992 and circular 13/96, published on 8 August 1996.

  PPG1—planning policy guidance 1 March 1992—sets out the position, in paragraph 29, with regard to the need for development plans to avoid conflicts with national or regional policy guidance which are not justified by local circumstances. Guidance on intervention by the Department in the preparation of development plans is set out in paragraphs 4.16 to 4.17 of PPG12—February 1992—and in paragraphs 71 to 76 of the code of practice on development plans—September 1995.

  Where a local planning authority has not yet adopted its local plan or unitary development plan, it will have to have regard to circular 13/96 in preparing its plan—sections 12(6), 31(6) and 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. However, where development plans are very close to adoption—for example, where an inquiry into proposed modifications has already been held and no further inquiry is envisaged—it may be appropriate, in order not to delay the plans, for local planning authority to adopt its plan and subsequently to prepare proposals for alterations to the plan having regard to the policy guidance in circular 13/96.

  Local planning authorities should prepare such proposals for alterations expeditiously and agree timetables for alteration with the Government office for the region. In cases where local planning authorities fail to take such action promptly, the Secretary of State may well consider it appropriate to direct them to prepare alterations to their adopted development plans within a specified period—sections 21(1A)(a), 32(2)(a) and 39(1)(a) of the 1990 Act. In relation to affordable housing policies in development plans this approach will constitute a modification of the statement in the last sentence of paragraph 29 of PPG1 which reads;
  "if no such intervention is made, local authorities may take it that the Secretaries of State are content with the plan at the time of adoption and will attach commensurate weight to it in decisions they make on appeals on called-in applications".

  Where plans which include policies which conflict with the guidance in circular 13/96 had been adopted prior to the publication of the circular, the need to have regard to the circular should be taken into account when the plan is reviewed. All local planning authorities will have to take into account the policy guidance in the new circular in determining applications for planning permission—paragraphs 20 and 21 of PPG1.

  Urban Waste Water Treatment
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of advice from the National Rivers Authority on estuary boundaries under the EC urban waste water treatment directive; and if he will make a statement. [1186]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Earlier this year, my Department asked the National Rivers Authority—now the Environment Agency—to make recommendations for reconsidering the criteria for determining estuary boundaries for the purposes of the EC urban waste water treatment directive, specifically looking at the Severn, the Humber, and Swansea bay.

  Having considered the agency's recommendations, my Secretary of State, together with the Secretary of State for Wales, has decided on the following:
  to draw the seaward limit of the Severn estuary at a line from Lavenock point through the Holms to Howe Rock on Brean Down;
  to return the seaward limit of the Parrett Estuary to the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act 1960 boundary, being a line drawn from Howe Rock on Brean Down to Hinckley Point; (the Parrett estuary boundary was considered during the setting of the Severn Estuary boundary in 1994 and the agency considered it appropriate to reconsider it during this exercise).
  similarly, to return the seaward limits of the Humber and of Swansea Bay to the 1960 Act boundaries, being:

  (a) for the Humber, a line drawn from Spurn Head to Donna Nook at TF434029971;

  (b) for Swansea Bay, a line drawn from Mumbles Head to Sker Point.

  These decisions will mean that all sewage discharges of a size greater than 2,000 population equivalent into these newly defined estuarine waters will be required to have secondary treatment.

  The outer boundaries for all other estuaries in England and Wales are to remain the same as those used by the Environment Agency for other purposes. These are also the boundaries established by the Department for UWWTD purposes in 1994.

  Global Temperatures
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates have been made by his Department for 10-year projections in global temperatures in each of the last five years. [497]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: The 1995 second scientific assessment from the intergovernmental panel on climate change suggests that the underlying rise in global average temperature will be about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C over the next decade. The actual temperature changes will be strongly affected by natural variability. The comparable estimate in the first IPCC scientific assessment in 1990 was 0.3 deg C per decade; the 1995 estimate is lower because it has taken into account the cooling effect of aerosols produced by man-made sulphur dioxide emissions.
  69

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Works of Art (Export)
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the 1995–96 report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art will be published. [1187]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The reviewing committee's annual report, 1995–96, has been published today, and copies have been laid before Parliament.

  BBC
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received about the BBC's observation of clause 4.4(e) of its agreement with her Department; and if she will make a statement. [499]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: Representations have been received from the Broadcasting Campaign for Scotland. My officials are discussing with the BBC the provision of the information required under clause 4.4(e) of the agreement to ensure that it is made available in the BBC's annual reports or elsewhere as appropriate. Meanwhile, the hon. Member will be aware that the BBC Scotland annual review 1995–96, published on 25 October, includes further information about BBC production in Scotland.

  Football Trust
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the income of the Football Trust in each week since 1 November 1994(a) in total, (b) from pool betting duty and (c) from spot the ball. [500]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: Football Trust weekly income from 1 November 1994 is set out in the table.

  Week Ending

  Total income £

  Pool betting duty £

  Spot the ball £

  November

  4

  733,750

  473,752

  259,998

  11

  724,750

  468,851

  225,899

  18

  758,972

  479,946

  279,026

  25

  730,158

  473,315

  256,843

  December

  2

  703,908

  455,816

  248,092

  9

  694,337

  450,908

  243,429

  16

  675,709

  448,161

  227,548

  23

  696,142

  460,085

  236,057

  30

  1,460,364

  924,477

  535,887

  1995 January

  6

  119,323

  116,368

  2,955

  13

  161,749

  160,420

  1,329

  20

  583,560

  393,654

  189,906

  27

  610,005

  404,662

  205,343

  February

  3

  614,825

  408,250

  206,575

  10

  605,460

  408,357

  197,103

  17

  606,123

  401,609

  204,514

  24

  599,293

  398,305

  200,988

  70

  Week Ending

  Total income £

  Pool betting duty £

  Spot the ball £

  March

  3

  594,043

  398,545

  195,498

  10

  584,063

  389,026

  195,087

  17

  579,733

  386,974

  192,759

  24

  586,984

  386,892

  200,092

  31

  578,654

  381,238

  197,416

  April

  7

  565,827

  369,835

  195,992

  14

  565,397

  372,364

  193,033

  21

  567,903

  375,494

  192,409

  28

  551,028

  363,933

  187,095

  May

  5

  475,885

  349,427

  126,458

  12

  491,057

  354,366

  136,691

  19

  483,546

  354,411

  126,135

  26

  462,926

  336,321

  126,605

  June

  2

  466,731

  335,725

  131,006

  9

  459,213

  328,176

  131,037

  16

  428,790

  311,703

  117,087

  23

  443,163

  321,627

  121,536

  30

  434,357

  313,315

  121,042

  July

  7

  435,190

  312,106

  123,084

  14

  427,861

  309,524

  118,337

  21

  411,226

  297,011

  114,215

  28

  420,019

  304,625

  115,394

  August

  4

  414,367

  299,673

  114,694

  11

  399,916

  289,773

  110,143

  18

  382,969

  279,530

  103,439

  25

  397,699

  289,334

  108,365

  September

  1

  409,326

  299,532

  109,794

  8

  404,044

  297,407

  106,637

  15

  400,544

  295,237

  105,307

  22

  410,667

  302,533

  108,134

  29

  415,098

  306,839

  108,259

  October

  6

  407,116

  300,100

  107,016

  13

  405,738

  297,780

  107,958

  20

  407,511

  298,040

  109,471

  27

  411,044

  301,645

  109,399

  November

  3

  405,125

  295,681

  109,444

  10

  405,849

  298,747

  107,102

  17

  404,842

  294,120

  110,722

  24

  402,318

  293,416

  108,902

  December

  1

  398,331

  289,939

  108,392

  8

  398,049

  289,338

  108,711

  15

  402,164

  293,782

  108,382

  22

  391,445

  283,498

  107,947

  29

  411,405

  300,072

  111,333

  1996 January

  5

  560,091

  401,400

  158,691

  12

  159,265

  130,543

  28,722

  19

  339,522

  250,948

  88,574

  26

  372,567

  270,677

  101,890

  71

  Week Ending

  Total income £

  Pool betting duty £

  Spot the ball £

  February

  2

  369,470

  268,169

  101,301

  9

  376,828

  277,341

  99,487

  16

  367,609

  266,200

  101,409

  23

  368,823

  269,949

  98,874

  March

  1

  366,173

  263,694

  102,479

  8

  367,728

  268,100

  99,628

  15

  358,472

  258,182

  100,290

  22

  358,185

  258,903

  99,282

  29

  367,834

  269,316

  98,518

  April

  5

  349,126

  250,775

  98,351

  12

  355,102

  259,469

  95,633

  19

  382,098

  289,125

  92,973

  26

  335,174

  244,342

  90,832

  May

  3

  348,454

  254,269

  94,185

  10

  341,152

  246,880

  94,272

  17

  349,514

  251,802

  97,712

  24

  375,797

  282,632

  93,165

  31

  368,854

  274,978

  93,876

  June

  7

  368,568

  271,416

  97,152

  14

  354,238

  269,069

  85,165

  21

  361,547

  272,636

  88,911

  28

  353,878

  267,070

  86,808

  July

  5

  356,322

  268,660

  87,662

  12

  350,073

  265,169

  84,904

  19

  344,740

  267,155

  87,585

  26

  344,716

  259,799

  84,917

  August

  2

  339,789

  254,140

  85,649

  9

  341,366

  258,223

  83,143

  16

  323,049

  243,116

  79,933

  23

  324,388

  245,296

  79,092

  30

  344,649

  260,941

  83,708

  September

  6

  347,177

  264,018

  83,159

  13

  343,176

  261,185

  81,991

  20

  360,015

  274,070

  85,945

  27

  346,171

  262,811

  83,360

  October

  4

  354,351

  265,856

  88,495

  11

  352,619

  266,024

  86,595

  18

  354,470

  267,669

  86,801

  25

  355,011

  267,643

  87,368

  Source:

  The Football Trust.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Council (Dublin)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals were put by Her Majesty's Government to the special Heads of Government European Council meeting in Dublin on 5 October; what was the response by the other Governments; and if he will place in the Library copies of all papers discussed at the Council. [231]
  72
  The Prime Minister
  The Dublin European Council on 5 October was informal. There were no papers for discussion or Council conclusions. I set out British priorities for the intergovernmental conference and my belief that the IGC must focus on essential reform to help prepare for further enlargement and to tackle other significant challenges which Europe will face over the next few years.

  Internet
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to open a web site for 10 Downing street. [897]

  The Prime Minister
  My Office will shortly be opening a Downing street World Wide Web site.

  BSE and CJD
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an independent judicial inquiry into bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [842]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government receive independent expert scientific advice on BSE and CJD from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. Issues to do with BSE and CJD have recently been examined in detail by the Agriculture and Health Select Committees. I see no need for a judicial inquiry on this issue.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 October. [997]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 October. [978]

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

SCOTLAND

  Dance and Drama Students
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make financial assistance available to dance and drama students living in Scotland, on a similar basis to the support currently available to students living in England; and if he will make a statement. [976]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The position of Scottish domiciled students attending dance and drama courses is being kept under review as the proposals currently being discussed between the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council of England develop. The Arts Council of England scheme does not come into force until September 1997.
  73

WALES

  Tourism Industry
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations underlie his policy on a minimum wage in respect of the tourism industry. [88]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The determination of pay levels in the tourism industry is not a matter for the Government: it is for the industry to decide what is fair and reasonable and can be afforded. It is our objective to see the greatest growth of the tourism industry and tourism employment, not to see workers priced out of jobs by minimum wages that cannot be afforded.

  Conwy Council (Finances)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask the district auditor to investigate the finances of Conwy council. [215]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The district auditor has already been appointed to Conwy council and will be looking at the finances of the authority as part of the normal audit process.

DEFENCE

  Spending Cuts (Jobs)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the effect on the number of jobs in the defence industry of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [351]

  Mr. Portillo
  A reduction in UK defence expenditure to the current NATO European average would involve cuts of more than £4.5 billion per year. This would have a devastating effect on the capability of our armed forces and on jobs in the defence industry.

  Army Bands
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British Army bands. [362]

  Mr. Soames
  Army bands make a superb contribution to sustaining the morale of service personnel. In addition to providing musical support for state, Army and other service functions, non-service functions, public relations and recruiting, they provide ready-trained in transit medical attendants in time of war.

  Dartmoor National Park
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his Department's environmental policy in relation to the Dartmoor national park. [363]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is committed to the protection of the natural environment for all its estate, including national parks, by avoiding harm or nuisance while maintaining the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. We conduct our activities in accordance with the Government's overall environment policy.
  74

  Cadet Forces
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of membership of three services cadet forces on the future job prospects of young people. [364]

  Mr. Soames
  Membership of the cadet forces brings immense benefits to the education and development of the young people of this country. I believe that when cadets finish their education and seek jobs, the qualities that they have gained in the cadet forces will be highly valued by their employers.

  RAF St. Athan
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the future prospects for RAF St. Athan. [365]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  RAF St. Athan will continue to provide vital engineering support to the front line.

  Army Strength
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the strength of the Army in 1990; and what will be the strength of the Army under current plans by the end of the decade. [366]

  Mr. Soames
  The total regular strength of the Army in 1990 was 152,800. The manpower planning target for 2000 is presently 115,000. Both figures include trainees, but exclude Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service) personnel.

  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size of the shortfall in the strength of the Army as at 1 October. [376]

  Mr. Soames
  Figures for October are not yet available. The shortfall in the strength of the Army at 1 September 1996 was 5,350.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the total trained strength of the British Army in April 1997. [1061]

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated total trained strength of the British Army at 1 April 1997 is 101,000. This figure includes British and Gurkha trained personnel but excludes trained Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service) troops.

  Junior Leaders
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consultations he has had over the issue of junior leaders. [367]

  Mr. Soames
  The Army is considering the possibility of reintroducing some form of junior entry scheme for 16-year-olds, but we must balance the likely benefits against the costs before arriving at the decision.

  Army Recruitment
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the target for Army recruitment for the current year. [368]
  75
  Mr. Soames
  The Army's recruitment targets for 1996–97 are:

  Officers: 820

  Soldiers: 15,100.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to announce the contract for the defence fixed telecommunications system. [369]

  Mr. Soames
  We currently intend to announce the preferred contractor for the defence fixed telecommunications system in the next few weeks. We expect that the contract will be let in March 1997 subject to the outcome of negotiations with the preferred contractor.

  Trident Programme
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the Trident programme. [370]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Trident programme is proceeding to time and within budget. HMS Vanguard and HMS Victorious are operational. The third submarine of the class, Vigilant, is being commissioned early next month and will enter service in 1998. The fourth vessel, Vengeance, is under construction at VSEL, Barrow in Furness, and will enter service around the turn of the century.

  Small Arms Ammunition
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence procurement policy in respect of small arms ammunition. [371]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The procurement of small arms ammunition is designed to meet the armed forces' requirements in a cost-effective manner. In seeking best value for money, competition remains the cornerstone of our policy.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on defence in(a) 1986 and (b) 1990; and what is the estimated amount for the current year. [372]

  Mr. Soames
  Defence spending was £18.4 billion in 1986–87 and £21.7 billion in 1990–91. The planned spending for the current financial year is £21.4 billion.

  Recruitment (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the United Kingdom armed forces is currently recruited from ethnic minorities. [374]

  Mr. Soames
  Approximately 1 per cent. of armed forces personnel are from ethnic minorities.

  Army Training Regiment
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the present and future role of the Army training regiment. [377]
  76
  Mr. Soames
  No changes are planned in respect of the role or location of the Army training regiment at Lichfield, or any of the other four ATRs, Bassingbourn, Pirbright, Winchester and Glencorse.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons a military aircraft passed very low over Doncaster at 7.46 pm on 11 September. [446]

  Mr. Soames
  Since Doncaster is listed for avoidance by low flying military aircraft, the RAF police have been tasked to make inquiries into the alleged overflight. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member when these inquiries are complete.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of purchase of the US designed scatterable mine system due to enter service in 1999; and what on-going maintenance and testing costs will be associated with this system. [395]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The procurement cost of the vehicle launched scatterable anti-tank mine system due to enter service in 1999 is some £90 million. The costs of maintenance and support for its planned 20-year life is estimated at £55 million.

  Procurement
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on guidelines for partnership in Ministry of Defence procurement. [199]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Following discussions between my Department and the Confederation of British Industry, a joint guidance note has been published on "Partnering between MOD and its Suppliers". A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size of the reduction in the armed forces between 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1999 under his Department's current plans; and if he will make a statement. [503]

  Mr. Soames
  The total service strength of the regular armed forces at 1 April 1990 was 314,700. The estimated strength at 1 April 1999 under current plans is 213,500, representing a reduction of 32 per cent. Both figures include Gurkha strengths. The former excludes, however, the then Ulster Defence Regiment and the latter excludes the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service) force. The figures include an element for personnel undergoing training.

  Argentinian Beef
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what purchases of Argentinian beef have been made by the British Army to feed Her Majesty's forces in the last year. [788]
  77
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The procurement of food for the armed forces is contracted to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. My Department does not specify the source of origin from which NAAFI should obtain beef—or any other meat—but expects it to seek the best market price for the product. The majority of our requirements are for frozen beef which is not readily available from the British market and I understand that on cost grounds the majority of beef joints have been sourced from South America, predominantly Brazil and Uruguay. NAAFI indicates that in the last year approximately 12 tonnes of frozen beef was sourced from Argentina; this represents less than 1 per cent. of the annual frozen meat requirements for the armed forces. Additionally, a range of beef products including sirloin, foreribs, minced and diced beef are normally procured in the UK along with other meat and poultry produce.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards removing the radioactive material form the nuclear submarines currently docked at the Rosyth naval base; and if he will make a statement. [858]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Of the seven decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines stored afloat at Rosyth, four have completed their defuel, de-equip and lay-up preparation—DDLP—process, one is nearing completion, and two have yet to commence. The DDLP process includes the removal of the spent fuel.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to store decommissioned nuclear submarines in the Holy loch on the Clyde; and if he will make a statement. [859]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have no plans to store decommissioned nuclear submarines in the Holy loch.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for the out of service nuclear submarines currently docked at the Rosyth naval base; and if he will make a statement; [860]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the sites in the United Kingdom which are appropriate for the storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines; and if he will make a statement. [857]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government consider that it is appropriate for decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines to be stored safely afloat at the location where they are decommissioned, pending disposal. Decommissioned nuclear submarines are currently stored at Rosyth and Devonport.

  Peacekeeping
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British forces' contribution to peacekeeping operations worldwide. [979]

  Mr. Soames
  Our continuing contributions to peacekeeping operations around the world represent a substantial commitment, fully consistent with our position as a permanent Security Council member. Over 9,000 ground troops are serving with the NATO implementation force in Bosnia, supported by about 500 air and maritime 78
  personnel offshore and in Italy. Over 400 personnel are engaged in operations under UN command, and some 400 more in support of Security Council resolutions over Iraq.

  Tanks
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the advantages of the leasing of tanks; and if he will make a statement. [1060]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No consideration has been given to the leasing of tanks under the private finance initiative. However, it is our policy that, subject to considerations of operational effectiveness and value for money, there are no "no go" areas for PFI in the MOD. PFI projects can reach close to the front line and impact directly on operational capability.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools Budget
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the current total for the national schools budget; [4]

  (2) what proportion of the national schools budget is currently transmitted to schools; [7]

  (3) what is the average amount currently deducted from the national schools budget by local education authorities; [6]

  (4) what action she will take to reduce the amount of local education authority holdback. [5]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total amount of the general schools budget as recorded in the local management of schools budget statements produced by the local education authorities in England for 1996–97 is £15,383.6 million, exclusive of capital expenditure and capital financing costs. The proportion of this figure delegated to schools through the aggregated schools budget is 79 per cent. The 21 per cent. retained centrally by LEAs amounts to £3,226.4 million, an average of £27.1 million per LEA.

  The Government's plans for requiring a further reduction in "LEA holdback" are set out in chapter 2 of the White Paper "Self-Government for Schools", Cm 3315.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people formerly in receipt of incapacity benefit who have signed on as unemployed during the year April 1995 to April 1996 have(a) been referred to placing, assessment and counselling teams, (b) taken up a place on a job club, (c) taken up a job interview guarantee, (d) taken up a place on a job plan workshop and (e) received assistance from the access to work scheme. [412]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  79
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 29 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people formerly in receipt of Incapacity Benefit who have signed on as unemployed during the year April 1995 to April 1996, and how many have subsequently been referred to various employment programmes. This falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  I have set out as much of the information you requested as we have available in the attached tables. It is not, however, possible to provide the figures you request for referrals to Placing, Assessment and Counselling Teams (PACTS), as prior to the current financial year these were not counted. Instead I have provided figures for the number of assessments undertaken for people with disabilities.
  It may be helpful if I explain that the purpose of assessment is to help jobseekers identify a realistic work goal, and steps to achieve their goal. Assessment can consist of interviewing and counselling, occupational inventories, work samples and psychological tests, using whatever methods are appropriate to clients' needs. Assessment is delivered by Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs), Occupational Psychologists and other internal and external specialists.
  In addition, the figures for the number of people who have started on Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) in the current financial year, are included in "Numbers of Starting in Other Programmes". Access to Work starts are included in "Numbers starting on specialists programmes" in both financial year.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Summary of activity with ex-IB clients April 1995 to March 1996

  Ex-incapacity benefit claims

  National cumulative

  Number of ex-IB making a claim for period ending 29 March

  40,257

  Number starting on:

  Jobplan

  350

  Jobclub

  497

  JIG

  358

  PWDs1 assessments

  9,380

  PWDs1 Numbers starting on specialist

  programmes2

  455

  1 People with disabilities.

  2 Includes Supported Employment, Rehabilitation starts, Access to Work, Job Introduction.

  Summary of activity with ex-IB clients month ending—April 1996

  Ex-incapacity benefit clients

  National cumulative

  Number of ex-IB making a claim for period ending 26 April 1996

  4,059

  Number starting on:

  Jobplan

  44

  Jobclub

  107

  Other programmes1

  67

  PWDs2—referrals

  1,316

  PWDs2—assessments

  1,149

  PWDs2—starting on specialist programmes3

  100

  1 Other programmes—BSS, Restart, Workwise, Jobsearch Plus, Job Search Seminar, Job Review Workshop, Job Interview Guarantee.

  2 People with disabilities.

  3 Includes Supported Employment, Rehabilitation starts, Access to Work, Job Introduction.

  80

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her latest estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the number receiving assistance through the access to work scheme; and of these how many are (i) unemployed; (ii) employees and (iii) self-employed. [414]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 29 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the estimated cost and numbers receiving assistance through Access to Work, and the numbers who are unemployed, employed and self-employed. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  For the period April to September 1996, £6.5m has been spent and a further £6m is already committed to be spent. During this period we helped 1,452 new beneficiaries of whom 666 were unemployed, 701 were employed and 85 were self employed. About 4,200 others continue to receive help agreed before April.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of the cost of removing the employer and self-employed contributions payable under the access to work scheme. [415]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 29 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the estimated cost of removing the cost sharing element of Access to Work. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It is too early to say what expenditure on Access to Work will be this year and consequently what would be the effect of returning to a situation in which the Employment Service paid all approved costs.
  However, the demand for Access to Work in 1995–96 was such that, in spite of restrictions from December 1995 on the help given to employed and self-employed people, expenditure exceeded the budget by some £6 million. Growth on this scale indicated that expenditure in 1996–97 would have exceeded the budget available leading to restrictions again having to be imposed on applications. Employed and self-employed people have been eligible for help since 1 June, and the introduction of cost sharing means that this year's allocation of £19 million will ensure that help continues to be available to those who most need it.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobfinder's Grant
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of the cost of extending and jobfinder's grant to people receiving severe disablement allowance, incapacity benefit and income support at the time of their application. [413]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  81
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 29 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the cost of extending Jobfinder's Grant to people receiving Severe Disablement Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Income Support. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Based on client information supplied by the Benefits Agency, and assuming a similar take up to that of our current target group, the maximum additional cost would be £14.3 million.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  School Equipment Survey
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons she has not published the results of the survey conducted by an Office for Standards in Education inspector into the link between the provision of books and equipment in schools and effective teaching; and if she will make a statement. [144]

  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.

  Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total payment by the Further Education Funding Council to the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute in 1995–96; which courses were supported by the Further Education Funding Council; and what is the current estimate of likely grant by the Further Education Funding Council in 1996–97. [85]

  Mr. Paice
  In 1995–96 the Further Education Funding Council paid Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute recurrent funding of £125,992. The institute's recurrent funding for 1996–97 has yet to be finalised, but is likely to be around the same level as in 1995–96. Details of the courses for which the institute is funded are a matter for the FEFC. I am therefore asking the council's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the provision in the national curriculum which enables the teaching of(a) citizenship, (b) social skills and (c) parenting; and if she will make a statement. [399]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There is scope for schools to cover citizenship, social skills and parenting under section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Citizenship can also be covered in religious education, and within national curriculum subjects such as history and English; and social skills and parenthood can be covered in sex education, provision for which is enshrined in sections 352 and 403 to 405 of the Education Act 1993.

  Pupils (Expenditure)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupil in each of
  82
  the local education authorities in England in the most recent year for which figures are available, at constant prices. [964]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table sets out for each local education authority in England the net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA-maintained(a) pre-primary/primary schools and (b) secondary schools.

  Net institutional expenditure 1994–95 (at 1995–96 per pupil prices)

  Pre-primary and primary £

  Secondary £

  Corporation of London

  3,723

  0

  Camden

  2,107

  2,857

  Greenwich

  2,077

  2,839

  Hackney

  2,303

  3,214

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,542

  3,396

  Islington

  2,105

  2,722

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,455

  3,408

  Lambeth

  2,635

  3,874

  Lewisham

  2,148

  2,742

  Southwark

  1,944

  2,746

  Tower Hamlets

  2,450

  3,272

  Wandsworth

  2,323

  3,127

  Westminster

  2,499

  2,894

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,937

  2,410

  Barnet

  1,805

  2,473

  Bexley

  1,573

  2,286

  Brent

  1,760

  2,082

  Bromley

  1,673

  2,285

  Croydon

  1,767

  2,217

  Ealing

  2,016

  2,516

  Enfield

  1,804

  2,416

  Haringey

  2,356

  3,058

  Harrow

  2,092

  2,661

  Havering

  1,756

  2,632

  Hillingdon

  1,820

  2,688

  Hounslow

  1,977

  2,644

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,772

  2,579

  Merton

  1,978

  2,728

  Newham

  1,752

  2,686

  Redbridge

  1,719

  2,615

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,930

  2,431

  Sutton

  1,905

  2,575

  Waltham Forest

  1,835

  2,453

  Birmingham

  1,763

  2,413

  Coventry

  1,746

  2,477

  Dudley

  1,614

  2,259

  Sandwell

  1,706

  2,298

  Solihull

  1,643

  2,279

  Walsall

  1,704

  2,370

  Wolverhampton

  1,688

  2,397

  Knowsley

  1,613

  2,281

  Liverpool

  1,673

  2,666

  St. Helens

  1,558

  2,301

  Sefton

  1,523

  2,281

  Wirral

  1,605

  2,350

  Bolton

  1,685

  2,316

  Bury

  1,528

  2,081

  Manchester

  1,596

  2,494

  Oldham

  1,660

  2,349

  Rochdale

  1,590

  2,279

  Salford

  1,543

  2,203

  Stockport

  1,604

  2,204

  Tameside

  1,482

  2,095

  Trafford

  1,513

  2,375

  Wigan

  1,509

  2,182

  Barnsley

  1,587

  2,153

  Doncaster

  1,478

  2,074

  Rotherham

  1,761

  2,274

  83

  Net institutional expenditure 1994–95 (at 1995–96 per pupil prices)

  Pre-primary and primary £

  Secondary £

  Sheffield

  1,651

  2,161

  Bradford

  1,722

  2,090

  Calderdale

  1,691

  2,155

  Kirklees

  1,646

  2,311

  Leeds

  1,685

  2,276

  Wakefield

  1,629

  2,095

  Gateshead

  1,678

  2,311

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,700

  2,370

  North Tyneside

  1,675

  2,197

  South Tyneside

  1,662

  2,112

  Sunderland

  1,615

  2,193

  Isles of Scilly

  2,530

  4,592

  Avon

  1,652

  2,392

  Bedfordshire

  1,715

  2,284

  Berkshire

  1,669

  2,292

  Buckinghamshire

  1,676

  2,311

  Cambridgeshire

  1,578

  2,213

  Cheshire

  1,566

  2,229

  Cleveland

  1,541

  2,225

  Cornwall

  1,654

  2,256

  Cumbria

  1,578

  2,083

  Derbyshire

  1,634

  2,345

  Devon

  1,592

  2,256

  Dorset

  1,547

  2,111

  Durham

  1,799

  2,174

  East Sussex

  1,733

  2,416

  Essex

  1,776

  2,377

  Gloucestershire

  1,305

  1,984

  Hampshire

  1,685

  2,230

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,682

  2,113

  Hertfordshire

  1,759

  2,319

  Humberside

  1,692

  2,360

  Isle of Wight

  1,646

  2,079

  Kent

  1,593

  2,331

  Lancashire

  1,701

  2,402

  Leicestershire

  1,651

  2,329

  Lincolnshire

  1,626

  2,441

  Norfolk

  1,639

  2,399

  North Yorkshire

  1,615

  2,233

  Northamptonshire

  1,657

  2,320

  Northumberland

  1,565

  1,991

  Nottinghamshire

  1,733

  2,454

  Oxfordshire

  1,720

  2,340

  Shropshire

  1,644

  2,472

  Somerset

  1,701

  2,164

  Staffordshire

  1,603

  2,155

  Suffolk

  1,731

  2,235

  Surrey

  1,786

  2,288

  Warwickshire

  1,705

  2,405

  West Sussex

  1,709

  2,294

  Wiltshire

  1,585

  2,176

  England

  1,702

  2,325

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per pupil in Staffordshire(a) in primary schools and (b) in secondary schools in each of the past 25 years, at constant prices. [966]

  Mr. Squire
  The following table shows net institutional expenditure in Staffordshire local education authority schools on(a) pre-primary and primary pupils combined, and on (b) secondary pupils from 1974–75 to 1994–95,
  84
  the latest year for which figures are available. Equivalent figures prior to 1974–75 are not readily available centrally.

  Staffordshire county council: unit costs (1995–96 prices)

  Pre-primary/primary £

  Secondary £

  1974–75

  1,223

  1,985

  1975–76

  1,230

  2,050

  1976–77

  1,249

  1,991

  1977–78

  1,193

  1,868

  1978–79

  1,206

  1,861

  1979–80

  1,221

  1,821

  1980–81

  1,211

  1,676

  1981–82

  1,281

  1,748

  1982–83

  1,307

  1,746

  1983–84

  1,352

  1,802

  1984–85

  1,316

  1,803

  1985–86

  1,308

  1,861

  1986–87

  1,373

  2,015

  1987–88

  1,448

  2,159

  1988–89

  1,473

  2,273

  1989–90

  1,483

  2,296

  1990–91

  1,496

  2,225

  1991–92

  1,561

  2,285

  1992–93

  1,570

  2,242

  1993–94

  1,599

  2,166

  1994–95

  1,603

  2,155

  Teachers' Salaries
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the total schools budget was spent on teachers' salaries in each of the local education authorities in England in the most recent year for which figures are available. [968]

  Mr. Forth
  The following table sets out for each LEA in England the expenditure on teaching staff in LEA-maintained pre-primary/primary schools and secondary schools as a percentage of the net institutional expenditure in those schools for 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Teaching staff cost as a percentage of net institutional expenditure 1994–95

  LEA

  A Teaching staff £000

  B Net institutional expenditure £000

  C A as a percentage of B Percentage

  Corporation of London

  393

  761

  52

  Camden

  29,917

  45,558

  66

  Greenwich

  53,005

  80,022

  66

  Hackney

  41,934

  61,450

  68

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  23,059

  39,150

  59

  Islington

  38,116

  52,089

  73

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15,183

  23,007

  66

  Lambeth

  32,828

  53,789

  61

  Lewisham

  42,569

  70,570

  60

  Southwark

  36,489

  56,949

  64

  Tower Hamlets

  59,528

  88,642

  67

  Wandsworth

  26,992

  44,548

  61

  Westminster

  28,869

  43,775

  66

  Barking and Dagenham

  36,039

  53,302

  68

  Barnet

  42,769

  62,711

  68

  Bexley

  38,929

  54,468

  71

  Brent

  29,345

  41,212

  71

  Bromley

  33,921

  47,754

  71

  85

  Teaching staff cost as a percentage of net institutional expenditure 1994–95

  LEA

  A Teaching i staff, £000

  B Net institutional expenditure £000

  C A as a percentage of B Percentage

  Croydon

  43,465

  64,026

  68

  Ealing

  44,293

  64,574

  69

  Enfield

  50,372

  70,250

  72

  Haringey

  48,504

  73,236

  66

  Harrow

  38,516

  59,215

  65

  Havering

  41,685

  62,394

  67

  Hillingdon

  22,931

  34,801

  66

  Hounslow

  45,911

  68,433

  67

  Kingston upon Thames

  20,298

  29,873

  68

  Merton

  32,443

  46,150

  70

  Newham

  54,294

  80,446

  67

  Redbridge

  47,835

  69,003

  69

  Richmond upon Thames

  26,801

  37,968

  71

  Sutton

  22,582

  34,667

  65

  Waltham Forest

  41,086

  57,824

  71

  Birmingham

  198,844

  299,100

  66

  Coventry

  64,666

  96,065

  67

  Dudley

  51,962

  74,189

  70

  Sand well

  61,672

  89,880

  69

  Solihull

  43,536

  61,279

  71

  Walsall

  52,699

  74,372

  71

  Wolverhampton

  51,229

  72,576

  71

  Knowsley

  32,247

  47,919

  67

  Liverpool

  97,870

  152,282

  64

  St. Helens

  37,573

  52,318

  72

  Sefton

  57,912

  82,687

  70

  Wirral

  67,920

  92,474

  73

  Bolton

  54,024

  76,381

  71

  Bury

  33,456

  46,422

  72

  Manchester

  84,064

  125,365

  67

  Oldham

  54,550

  77,015

  71

  Rochdale

  39,411

  56,766

  69

  Salford

  43,716

  60,604

  72

  Stockport

  52,705

  75,189

  70

  Tameside

  38,424

  55,637

  69

  Trafford

  35,487

  50,174

  71

  Wigan

  63,890

  84,938

  75

  Barnsley

  39,215

  58,590

  67

  Doncaster

  59,991

  85,219

  70

  Rotherham

  56,690

  82,386

  69

  Sheffield

  85,920

  120,770

  71

  Bradford

  105,450

  147,243

  72

  Calderdale

  32,136

  45,139

  71

  Kirklees

  79,714

  112,252

  71

  Leeds

  143,744

  203,594

  71

  Wakefield

  61,905

  88,147

  70

  Gateshead

  39,741

  55,454

  72

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  51,410

  76,706

  67

  North Tyneside

  39,621

  56,391

  70

  South Tyneside

  31,667

  45,120

  70

  Sunderland

  64,497

  88,081

  73

  Isles of Scilly

  599

  951

  63

  Avon

  174,342

  254,603

  68

  Bedfordshire

  103,541

  150,184

  69

  Berkshire

  130,566

  184,166

  71

  Buckinghamshire

  107,443

  158,336

  68

  Cambridgeshire

  97,683

  143,907

  68

  Cheshire

  185,568

  269,048

  69

  Cleveland

  122,215

  171,315

  71

  Cornwall

  88,972

  127,950

  70

  Cumbria

  78,726

  104,588

  75

  Derbyshire

  158,169

  223,232

  71

  Devon

  175,942

  246,307

  71

  Dorset

  95,134

  132,396

  72

  86

  Teaching staff cost as a percentage of net institutional expenditure 1994–95

  LEA

  A Teaching staff £000

  B Net institutional expenditure £000

  C as a percentage of B Percentage

  Durham

  119,452

  178,267

  67

  East Sussex

  116,325

  168,822

  69

  Essex

  167,327

  255,501

  65

  Gloucestershire

  60,327

  73,307

  82

  Hampshire

  245,280

  357,815

  69

  Hereford and Worcester

  125,440

  172,534

  73

  Hertfordshire

  172,389

  247,053

  70

  Humberside

  178,187

  267,171

  67

  Isle of Wight

  24,097

  33,036

  73

  Kent

  210,551

  307,126

  69

  Lancashire

  284,712

  401,335

  71

  Leicestershire

  186,023

  257,849

  72

  Lincolnshire

  81,304

  118,453

  69

  Norfolk

  125,026

  170,808

  73

  North Yorkshire

  138,451

  189,737

  73

  Northamptonshire

  106,705

  158,309

  67

  Northumberland

  62,743

  87,257

  72

  Nottinghamshire

  201,726

  298,237

  68

  Oxfordshire

  104,125

  151,317

  69

  Shropshire

  76,006

  102,278

  71

  Somerset

  82,380

  119,087

  69

  Staffordshire

  191,671

  285,103

  67

  Suffolk

  132,302

  179,721

  74

  Surrey

  134,714

  195,405

  69

  Warwickshire

  88,426

  125,563

  70

  West Sussex

  126,221

  180,190

  70

  Wiltshire

  81,587

  116,953

  70

  Total

  8,543,883

  12,311,558

  69

  Education Expenditure (Staffordshire)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent in total on education in Staffordshire in each of the past 25 years, at constant prices. [965]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows expenditure by Staffordshire local education authority figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Staffordshire county council: gross education expenditure

  (1995–96 prices) £ million

  1970–71

  275.35

  1971–72

  291.34

  1972–73

  309.92

  1973–74

  333.83

  1974–75

  470.28

  1975–76

  483.36

  1976–77

  489.46

  1977–78

  470.36

  1978–79

  480.65

  1979–80

  470.35

  1980–81

  478.59

  1981–82

  486.32

  1982–83

  475.39

  1983–84

  480.80

  1984–85

  468.42

  1985–86

  459.04

  1986–87

  479.57

  1987–88

  492.50

  87

  Staffordshire county council: gross education expenditure

  (1995–96 prices) £ million

  1988–89

  502.03

  1989–90

  476.73

  1990–91

  485.20

  1991–92

  490.03

  1992–93

  534.49

  1993–94

  422.37

  1994–95

  419.82

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent in total on school education in Staffordshire in each of the past 25 years, at constant prices. [967]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows expenditure on pre-primary/primary and secondary education by Staffordshire local education authority from 1970–71 to 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Staffordshire county council: expenditure on school education

  (1995–96 prices) £ million

  1970–71

  162.87

  1971–72

  172.68

  1972–73

  183.43

  1973–74

  199.27

  1974–75

  295.87

  1975–76

  302.13

  1976–77

  305.25

  1977–78

  290.23

  1978–79

  293.44

  1979–80

  288.70

  1980–81

  300.29

  1981–82

  304.77

  1982–83

  297.55

  1983–84

  300.07

  1984–85

  288.90

  1985–86

  286.02

  1986–87

  294.82

  1987–88

  304.27

  1988–89

  306.12

  1989–90

  314.16

  1990–91

  317.58

  1991–92

  308.52

  1992–93

  369.04

  1993–94

  303.01

  1994–95

  309.66

  Higher Education Institutions
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those higher education institutions which do not have cash reserves to cover 30 days of total expenditure. [790]

  Mr. Forth
  No. The information requested is commercially sensitive and, if published, could damage the financial health of individual universities and colleges.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, by higher education institution, reductions in(a) academic and (b) non-academic staff in 1996. [791]
  88
  Mr. Forth
  The higher education statistics agency collects data on academic and non-academic staff in higher education institutions. Information for 1995–96 is not yet available.

  Schools (Religious Sects)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those independent schools run by religious sects that have applied for grant-maintained status. [792]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following is a list of all the independent schools whose proposals to join the grant-maintained sector are currently under consideration:

  Loreto RC grammar school, Altrincham, Cheshire;

  St. Ambrose RC secondary school, Trafford;

  Torah Temimah Jewish primary school, Brent;

  Mount St. Mary's RC independent convent school, Exeter;

  Virgo Fidelis RC convent school, Croydon;

  Menorah Foundation Jewish primary school, Barnet;

  John Loughborough school, Haringey (Seventh Day Adventist).

  Student Governors
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those further education colleges that have no student governor. [793]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not held by the Department. It is for individual college corporations to determine whether to appoint a student governor.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking(a) directly and (b) through international agencies, to help relieve the position in the Sudan; and if he will make a statement on Government contacts with different factions in that country. [131]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UK has given over £100 million of humanitarian assistance to Sudan and Sudanese refugees since 1991. This aid is disbursed through non-governmental organisations and the UN's Operation Lifeline Sudan. Officials in London, Khartoum and Nairobi are in regular touch with the parties to the civil war and other Sudanese groups.

  Montserrat
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Montserrat in respect of the recent volcanic eruptions; and if he will make a statement on the Montserrat Government's advice to local inhabitants. [665]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Montserrat experienced its latest volcanic eruption on 17 and 18 September 1996 affecting most southern parts of the island, which has been evacuated since April 1996 for all but essential business. There were no injuries. Scientists have warned that there
  89
  could be further explosions; however, they continue to believe that the north of Montserrat is safe from volcanic activity. We remain committed to helping the people of Montserrat, and to giving the highest priority to the safety of the islanders. The Governor, British administrators, and scientific experts continue to work closely with the Government of Montserrat on a comprehensive warning system, on the regular reviewing of areas deemed to be unsafe, and on associated contingency planning.

  The Government of Montserrat have advised local inhabitants to remain alert for scientific reports which are issued twice daily and for announcements from the civilian authorities.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to require the Benefits Agency to revise the Benefits Agency code of practice regarding the structure of interviews and the range and type of questions to be put to unemployed people during interviews connected with the jobseeker's allowance. [472]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 29 October 1996:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding the structure of interviews and the range and type of questions to be put to unemployed people under Jobseeker's Allowance has been passed to me for reply, as these are issues which are the responsibility of the Employment Service.
  In response to the first part of your question, about the Benefits Agency Code of Practice (BA COP). I understand that BA have no plans to include specific guidance on interviewing unemployed people within it.
  However, it may be helpful if I explain that as part of the work undertaken for the introduction of JSA, we in the Employment Service (ES) have produced a full set of procedural guidance for all our people, as they will be responsible for most of the interviewing connected with the Jobseeker's Allowance. This includes guidance on all aspects of the interviewing policy which is to be adopted. I have arranged for copies of these particular volumes to be sent to you at the House.
  I hope this is helpful.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the proposal by the EU Commission to reduce the payment rate for animals under the slaughter scheme which was agreed to by the beef management Committee. [193]
  90
  Mr. Baldry
  Copies of the Commission regulation, EC No. 1974/96 of 15 October 1996, which will reduce the rate of payment from 1 ecu to 0.9 ecu per kg liveweight on eligible animals slaughtered under the over-30 month scheme, have been placed in the Library.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the level of use of organophosphates in a(a) sheep dips and (b) fanning in general in each year since 1970. [1018]

  Mrs Browning
  The Ministry does not hold this information for sheep dips. Figures for the use of organophosphate agricultural pesticides in Great Britain are available from 1975 but, up to 1993, only as the average of several years. The figures are:

  1975 to 1979: 618 tonnes annually

  1980 to 1983: 622 tonnes annually

  1984 to 1989: 617 tonnes annually

  1990 to 1993: 512 tonnes annually

  1994: 703 tonnes

  1995: 241 tonnes.

  Fishing Catches
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of fish have been landed in each of the last three years in Brixham; what is the estimated value of the catch; and if he will make a statement; [1070]

  Mr. Baldry
  The quantity and value of recorded landings by UK registered and licensed vessels into Brixham for the last three years are:

  Year

  Quantity (thousand tonnes liveweight)

  Value (£ million)

  1993

  9.0

  13.8

  1994

  9.2

  14.8

  1995

  10.3

  17.7

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) beam trawlers and (b) other fishing vessels have been decommissioned in each of the last three years (i) nationally and (ii) in Brixham, south Devon; and how many fishing vessels he expects to be decommissioned in 1997. [1069]

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 436 vessels were decommissioned under the 1993, 1994 and 1995 decommissioning schemes. Eighteen of these were beam trawlers. Fourteen vessels with Brixham as their administrative port have been decommissioned, none of which was a beam trawler. Definitive results for the 1996 scheme are not yet available as applicants have until 30 November to decommission their vessels. Decommissioning is an entirely voluntary scheme and I am unable to estimate the number of vessels which might be decommissioned under the 1997 scheme.
  91

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) sheep and (b) pigs were rejected as unfit to travel prior to export in each of July, August and September; and if he will make a statement. [798]

  Mrs. Browning
  Animals rejected as unfit for transport prior to export:

  July

  August

  September

  Sheep

  379

  574

  607

  Pigs

  62

  27

  42

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of live lambs and sheep have been exported since 5 July to each of the following destinations as declared under the terms of the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994,(a) Loker in Belgium, (b) Zuilichem in the Netherlands, (c) Elst in the Netherlands, (d) Morkhoven in Belgium and (e) Pervijze in Belgium; and how many animals in total have been exported to each of the above destinations since 5 July. [797]

  Mrs. Browning
  Information gathered by the Ministry's staff monitoring exports at Dover during July, August and September shows:

  Animals

  Consignments

  Loker

  56,286

  110

  Zuilichem

  74,172

  111

  Elst

  5,158

  8

  Morkhoven

  21,874

  38

  Pervijze

  5,782

  7

  Fishing Methods
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to have available for publication the results of the experiment his Department is conducting into trialing old fishing methods using the restored fishing smack Excelsior; and if he will make a statement. [177]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Excelsior trials have been postponed because she is undergoing a refit.

  Plaice Quota
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from his officials about the fishing industry at Lowestoft about how long the 1996 plaice quota will last; and what steps he is taking to swap quotas elsewhere for plaice quota for Lowestoft until the end of 1996. [178]

  Mr. Baldry
  Quota allocations for North sea plaice and other stocks are issued annually to individual groups within the fleet, including fish producers' organisations, which are responsible for managing these allocations on behalf of their members. The rate of quota uptake will vary between different groups,92
  reflecting factors such as the availability of fish and commercial decisions by the groups and their members. As at 24 October 1996, the Lowestoft Fish Producers' Organisation had taken 87.5 per cent. of its North sea plaice allocation for 1996, compared with 80.1 per cent. for the UK as a whole. It is open to the Lowestoft PO to seek to swap quota with other groups in order to obtain additional plaice, should the PO judge this to be necessary.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on why 360 tonnes of North sea plaice received from Norway in September were swapped with the Netherlands for other species; what consultations were undertaken with the fishing industry; and how the swap was administered under the 1996 quota management rules. [179]

  Mr. Baldry
  Earlier this year, the Commission secured an extra 1,250 tonnes of North sea plaice from Norway in exchange for 10,000 tonnes of EU blue whiting from areas Vb, VI and VII. The UK share of the extra plaice was some 360 tonnes. After careful consideration, and having regard to the 1996 quota management rules, it was decided to use the additional plaice to acquire a range of other stocks from the Netherlands. Specific consultation with the fishing industry was not necessary. The stocks obtained have been distributed proportionately to industry except for North area sole which is being allocated to the under-10m fleet in order to ensure that the fishery remains open into the autumn, having been closed for the first three months of 1996.

HEALTH

  Health Authority Chairmen (Credit Cards)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chairmen of NHS health authorities have been provided with regional corporate credit cards since 1993. [444]

  Mr. Malone
  Three chairmen of the former regional health authorities are known to have been issued with corporate credit cards by their authorities.

  NHS Dentists' Pay
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what location the administration of NHS dentists' pay is handled. [448]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service dentists' fees in England are administered and paid by the Dental Practice Board, Eastbourne.

  Northern and Yorkshire Region
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arbitration on contracts between purchasers and providers has taken place in the Northern and Yorkshire health region since 1 April; which authorities and trusts were involved; when the arbitration guidance was issued and to which financial year it referred. [458]
  93
  Mr. Malone
  One formal contract arbitration has taken place in Northern and Yorkshire region since 1 April 1996, between Leeds health authority and United Leeds Teaching Hospitals national health service trust.

  For 1996–97, NHS executive Northern and Yorkshire sent guidance on contract arbitration to all health authorities and trusts in the Northern and Yorkshire region on 16 February 1996.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend the conditions for free prescriptions to include haemophiliacs whose spouses are in employment; and if he will make a statement. [140]

  Mr. Malone
  There are no plans to extend the groups entitled to free prescriptions to include any other group on the basis of either medical condition or income.

  NHS Hospitality
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what authority members of NHS health authorities may provide themselves with free meals when attending meetings. [429]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service bodies are required to develop their own guidelines on the use of hospitality budgets, to ensure that such spending is not excessive and justifiable to the public and auditors.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek to persuade the Royal College of Psychiatrists to act on the recommendation of the inquiry into the care and aftercare of Miss Sharon Campbell, Cm 440, 1988, and publish a document on good practice for discharge and aftercare procedures, after seeking a consensus with bodies representing nursing, social work, general practitioners, psychology and occupational therapy. [1030]

  Mr. Burns
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), gave on 11 June 1996,Official Report, columns 109–10.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of their total budget is spent on mental health by each health authority. [263]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Arachnoiditis
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the NHS is undertaking into the causes of arachnoiditis. [795]

  Mr. Horam
  No such research has been commissioned centrally.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Arachnoiditis Trust about the difficulties that sufferers from arachnoiditis experience in seeking information about their condition from health authorities. [794]
  94
  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Social Workers
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many approved social workers have been registered for each of the last seven years. [260]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not held centrally. The Department collected partial information for September 1993, which indicated there were then around 4,750 approved social workers in England. Data for England and Wales for 1994 and 1995 are given in the 1995 edition of the "Social Services Workforce Analysis" published by the Local Government Management Board on the basis of surveys it conducted. Copies of this document will be placed in the Library.

  Supervised Discharges
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are on(a) supervised discharge and (b) supervision registers. [261]

  Mr. Burns
  Centrally held statistical returns on supervised discharge are incomplete and publication at this stage would be misleading. The number of people on supervision registers is about 3,500.

  NHS Funding
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage capitation target according to the weighted capitation allocation formula of each health authority. [262]

  Mr. Horam
  A table showing final 1996–97 health authority distance from targets in percentage terms has been placed in the Library.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications for his policy on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease of the latest medical findings of Professor John Collinge. [841]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no implications for our policy on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in Professor Collinge's latest findings.

  Professor Collinge has provided the first experimental evidence to support the view that there may be a link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—nvCJD. All the measures we have taken since 1989 to protect public health have been taken on the assumption that exposure to BSE could cause disease in humans and these latest findings do not change that.

  Challenge Fund
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities which received challenge fund money, giving the amount. [264]

  Mr. Burns
  The table shows all health authorities which have been awarded funds.
  95

  Health authorities who have been awarded funds from the challenge fund

  £ thousand

  Avon

  Out of Hours Crisis Service

  350

  Inner City Day Resource Service

  120

  Barnet

  Dual Registered Home

  224

  Birmingham

  Afro Caribbean CMHT project

  305

  Assertive Outreach team

  105

  Brent and Harrow

  Crisis Intervention Service (Brent)

  114

  Crisis Intervention Service (Harrow)

  114

  Harefield Lodge Rehabilitation Service

  75

  Camden and Islington

  Crisis Support Service

  167

  Psychiatric Liaison Service

  99

  East London and Newham

  Community services package

  692

  City

  Enhancing Forensic Services

  177

  East Sussex

  Rapid Response Service

  162

  Home Support Service

  67

  Isle of Wight

  Crisis Intervention Service (+ 24 hour beds)

  305

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  High Support Housing

  705

  Low Secure Move-on

  331

  Haven Care

  382

  Leeds

  24-hour support accommodation

  136

  Assertive outreach team

  158

  Community Rehabilitation Unit

  160

  Leicestershire

  Respecified 24 hour unit

  20

  Supported accommodation

  25

  Structured activity scheme

  50

  Community integration scheme

  45

  Information officer

  10

  Liverpool

  Home Support scheme

  166

  CMHT extended service

  179

  Extended Day Hospital

  130

  Manchester

  North Manchester community services

  150

  Central Manchester intensive community service

  180

  South Manchester community services

  250

  Asian services

  25

  Cancelled Operations
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library figures by health authority of the number of operations cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to hospital and the number of those patients not readmitted within a month for the first quarter of 1995–96. [265]
  96
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in(a) each district health authority and (b) each region on the day of or day after admission to hospital; and how many of those patients were not readmitted within a month, for the first quarter of 1996. [981]

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled on the day of admission or after admission to hospital by each health authority in each of the first two quarters of 1996 and in each quarter of 1995 and 1994. [1127]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest information has been placed in the Library.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts have made payments to Ian Greer Associates; and what was the value of these payments. [1121]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

TRANSPORT

  Helicopter and Aircraft Noise
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the redress in law available to people who are disturbed by low-flying helicopters in the early hours of the morning when the helicopters were operating under permission issued by the Civil Aviation Authority for filming purposes. [3]

  Mr. Bowis
  Under section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, no action may lie in respect of trespass or nuisance because of overflight, provided that the conditions referred to in section 76(1) have been duly complied with. Subsection (2) sets out the circumstances under which damages in respect of material loss or damage may be recoverable. Legislation similar to section 76 has been in force since the early days of aviation, and comparable laws exist in other countries.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make changes to section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. [1]

  Mr. Bowis
  No.

  Vehicle Registration Office (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for people in north Staffordshire of the closure of the Stoke-on-Trent vehicle registration office; and if he will reconsider his decision. [43]

  Mr. Bowis
  The decision to close Stoke-on-Trent vehicle registration office was taken following a detailed review of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's need for local offices. It was concluded that future needs could be met by a network of 41 offices giving customers an accessible local service within about 30 miles. This reduction will enable the agency to make significant efficiency savings on running costs.
  97
  It also takes account of a reduction in work load which will accrue from a project which enable dealers to register and licence new cars without having to visit a vehicle registration office so frequently.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average daily number of takeoffs and landings at Heathrow airport in the first nine months of 1996; what was the average daily number of night flights in the same period; and what were the corresponding figures for the first nine months of 1995. [87]

  Mr Bowis
  I understand from National Air Traffic Services that the average daily number of takeoffs and landings at Heathrow airport in the first nine months of 1996 was 1,210 (605 arrivals and departures each) compared with 1,198 (599 arrivals and departures each) in 1995. The average daily number of night flights (2300 to 0700 hours local time) in the time period was .51 (43 arrivals and eight departures) in 1996, compared with 54 (45 arrivals and nine departures) in 1995. Of these, 15 (14 arrivals and one departure) were in the night quota period (2300 to 0600), compared with 16 (15 arrivals arid one departure) in 1995.

  Shipping Register
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of ships on the British register for each of the last 10 years. [24]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of United Kingdom registered trading vessels of 500 gross tons and over for the last 10 years are listed in table 3.5 of "Merchant Fleet Statistics 1995". The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom registered trading vessels 500 gross tons or over 31 December 1986 to 31 December 1995

  Tonnage in thousand

  Number

  Gross tonnage

  Deadweight tonnage

  1986

  482

  7,024

  10,349

  1987

  410

  4,877

  6,234

  1988

  375

  4,532

  5,619

  1989

  361

  4,236

  5,193

  1990

  337

  3,697

  4,213

  1991

  321

  3,433

  3,812

  1992

  291

  3,329

  3,749

  1993

  273

  3,327

  3,722

  1994

  282

  3,637

  3,889

  1995

  271

  3,729

  3,981

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has undertaken to increase the number of ships on the British register; and if he will make a statement. [23]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government have adopted a range of targeted measures to improve the attractiveness of the Red Ensign. These have included: simplification of registration and other technical procedures; provision of substantial assistance for seafarer training; liberalisation of outdated officer nationality requirements; and the introduction of roll-over tax relief for replacing aging tonnage.
  98

  Highways Agency Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many senior staff in the Highways Agency have taken early retirement in each of the last five years. [58]

  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 29 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking how many senior staff in the Highways Agency have taken early retirement in each of the last five years.
  The numbers are as follows:

  1992: Nil

  1993: Nil

  1994: 2

  1995: 7

  1996: 2.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the original budget for the Jubilee line extension; and what is his Department's latest estimate of the cost. [201]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1993, the budget for the construction of the Jubilee line extension, together with the upgrading of the existing Jubilee line, was approximately £2.1 billion at outturn prices.

  I understand that London Transport now estimates that the final outturn cost will be approximately £2.6 billion.

  These figures include the impact of inflation.

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State [or Transport what action he is taking to reduce the waiting times for driving tests. [18]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Driving Standards Agency has recruited some 170 contract examiners and delayed the planned retirement of existing examiners. The agency has targeted those centres where demand is greatest and has made more tests available on Saturday and weekday evenings.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the current incidence of impersonation in respect of driving test. [17]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since 1 January 1996, some 150 cases of possible candidate impersonation at the practical driving test have been reported to the police, although none of these cases has yet resulted in conviction. There have been no reported cases of suspected impersonations at the driving theory test.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take further action to enforce legislation that ensures that candidates undertaking driving tests are allowed to do so only after producing a signed driving licence. [16]
  99
  Mr. Bowis
  Driving test candidates are required to present their signed driving licence at the beginning of their theory or practical driving test. When the licence is unsigned, the candidate must sign it before the test starts. From 1 March 1997, candidates will be required to produce photographic identification with their licence at both theory and practical tests.

  Motorways (Slow Vehicles)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at what speed vehicles are classified as slow moving on motorways; and if he will make a statement. [835]

  Mr. Watts
  As there is no minimum speed limit on motorways, there is no specified speed at which vehicles are classified as slow moving. However, vehicles must be able to attain a speed of 25 mph when unladen and not drawing a trailer before being permitted to use motorways. Motorists may be prosecuted if they drive in an inconsiderate, careless or dangerous manner.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he has issued to the police for cautioning drivers on motorways for travelling too slowly. [834]

  Mr. Watts
  None. Individual chief officers of police are responsible for the policing of motorways in their respective areas.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for transport what is his policy regarding the release of information relating to matters affecting rail safety which are of public concern. [115]

  Mr. Watts
  The Department of Transport, the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate's policy is to make information on railway safety available, in line with the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Comprehensive information on railway safety is published in Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's annual report on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway passengers riding in(a) mark I carriages and (b) carriages of later design and manufacture were killed in train accidents as defined by Her Majesty's chief inspector of railways in 1986 and in each year since then. [762]

  Mr. Watts
  The number of passengers killed, in mark I rolling stock and carriages of later design, in train accidents since 1986 is set out in the following table:

  Mark I

  Later design

  1986

  8

  —

  1987

  3

  —

  1988

  34

  —

  1989

  6

  —

  1990

  0

  —

  1991

  4

  —

  1992

  0

  —

  100

  Mark I

  Later design

  1993

  0

  —

  1994

  3

  —

  1995

  0

  1

  Total

  58

  1

  Working Hours
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will lift the exemptions relating to transport workers to allow them to comply with EC regulations limiting the working week to 48 hours; and if he will make a statement. [21]

  Mr. Watts
  Article 1(3) of the working time directive states that the directive shall apply to all sectors of activity"with the exception of air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea and the activities of doctors in training."

  The European Commission is considering bringing forward proposals for working time controls in the sectors excluded from the directive. However, the Government are challenging the directive in the European Court of Justice on the ground that it is not a genuine health and safety measure and should not, therefore, have been adopted under article 118A of the treaty, and remain opposed to any extension of its provisions to the excluded sectors.

  Traffic Growth
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the latest available figures for the average daily traffic flow and the annual rate of traffic growth for(a) motorways, (b) urban non-motorway trunk roads, (c) rural non-motorway trunk roads, (d) urban principal roads, (e) rural principal roads, (f) urban classified roads, (g) rural classified roads, (h) urban unclassified roads and (i) rural unclassified roads. [241]

  Mr. Watts
  The estimated average daily motor vehicle flow, measured in thousand vehicles per day, for Great Britain in 1995 is:

  Motorway: 60.9

  Trunk built-up: 19.2

  Trunk non-built-up: 15.5

  Principal built-up: 15.0

  Principal non-built-up: 7.2

  Minor: 1.4.

  The estimated annual rate of traffic growth in 1995 for Great Britain by road class is:

  Motorway: 6.3 per cent.

  Trunk built-up: 9.5 per cent.

  Trunk non-built-up: 2.5 per cent.

  Principal built-up: -0.2 per cent.

  Principal non-built-up: 1.9 per cent.

  Minor: 1.6 per cent.

  Source:
  National Traffic Census.

  The figures provided have been derived from the national traffic census, the results of which are published in the transport statistics report "Road Traffic Statistics Great Britain: 1996 Edition".
  101
  For the purposes of the national traffic census, the terms built-up/non-built-up are used for the urban/rural distinction. Built-up roads are defined as those with a speed limit of 40 mph or less.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount spent on(a) lawyers, (b) accountants, (c) consultants and (d) other professionals in consultation relating to privatisation of National Air Traffic Services in the last three months. [12]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Transport spent about £4,000, plus VAT, on legal fees in connection with this issue, with no expenditure under the other sub-headings. In addition, the Civil Aviation Authority spent approximately £125,000, plus VAT, on other consultants.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of a two-centre air-traffic control strategy. [59]

  Mr. Bowis
  In air traffic control matters, the Government are advised by the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the competent national body. The strategy of concentrating en route air traffic control services on two main centres was drawn up by National Air Traffic Services, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the CAA, early in the 1990s and the Government have supported the policy since then. The CAA is now reviewing the assumptions underlying the two-centre strategy in the light of technological and other developments and we await its recommendations.

  Traffic Congestion Maps
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now update the maps of current congestion, and projection of future congestion which were placed in the Library in February and include detailed forecasts of congestion for trunk roads in London, and key links on the motorway network in and around the capital. [1072]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner),Official Report, columns 1100–101.

  Trust Ports (Privatisation)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount spent by his Department on(a) accountants, (b) consultants,(c) lawyers and (d) other professionals in relation to the privatisation of the trust ports. [69]

  Mr. Bowis
  Spending for the six trust ports already privatised under the Ports Act 1991 and the spending to date on the prospective privatisation of the ports of Tyne and Ipswich, are as follows:

  £

  (a) accountants

  1,101,768

  (b) consultants

  nothing in addition to sums shown for a, c and d

  (c) lawyers

  8,817

  (d) other professionals

  38,295

  102

  Electric Power-assisted Bicycles
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he made of the impact of departmental proposals for relaxing the definitions of vehicles to exclude electric power-assisted bicycles on the figures for(a) fatalities and (b) injuries from road accidents; and what account he took of studies conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory (i) on his behalf and (ii) for any other agency or body. [1013]

  Mr. Bowis
  Road accidents involving electric power-assisted bicycles are currently collected in the road accident data reporting system, but are not separately identifiable from bicycles in general. Accidents involving electric power-assisted bicycles will continue to be collected even if there is a change of vehicle definition. The Department has received the Transport Research Laboratory report which is being considered by a working group of Government Department and manufacturing representatives. After consideration by the working group, any restrictions proposed will be taken into account.

  Strategic Rail Network
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent his Department will be involved in future decisions about the development of the strategic rail network, with special reference to the use of the Tonbridge-Redhill-Clapham route for freight between London and the channel tunnel and the upgrading of the west coast main line to accommodate piggyback traffic. [1049]

  Mr. Watts
  Once Railfreight Distribution—the channel tunnel freight business—is in the private sector, the privatisation of BR's freight operations will have been completed and it will be for Railtrack, in consultation with the freight train operating companies, to weigh up the opportunities for further investment in the network. The Government will continue to consider applications for freight grants on their merits, including any related to piggyback traffic. Decisions on future investment in the network south of London to accommodate channel tunnel freight trains will be a matter for Railtrack and the new owners of RFD.

  M66
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the delay in starting work on the final contract for construction of the M66 motorway resulting from the engineering difficulties encountered with building the A62 bridge. [969]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  M65-M6 Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the M65-M6 link is due to be completed; and what estimate he has made of traffic flows at Colne on completion of the link. [892]

  Mr. Watts
  The Blackburn southern bypass is expected to be complete in November 1997. It is expected that traffic on the M65 will rise by just over 10 per cent. when
  103
  the road is complete. It is possible that this increase will extend to the east of Blackburn, but no specific estimates for traffic flows at Colne have been made.

  Buses
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what current proposals from the European Commission purport to change the standards that apply to buses. [200]

  Mr. Bowis
  There are no current European Commission proposals affecting the standards that apply to UK buses, but we expect a Commission proposal for a type approval directive shortly.

  Transport policy and programme submissions 1997–98 Local authority bid for local transport capital expenditure

  Authority

  (a) Maj h1

  (b) maj n2

  (c) sm rds3

  (d) sm bdg4

  (e) maj t5

  (f) mw pk6

  (g) mw npk7

  (h) mw lss8

  (i) total9

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  1,038

  0

  0

  975

  0

  2,013

  Barking

  0

  0

  226

  167

  0

  0

  565

  500

  1,458

  Barnet

  0

  0

  500

  420

  0

  0

  1,254

  1,365

  3,539

  Bexley

  4,386

  0

  3,100

  675

  0

  0

  3,002

  800

  11,963

  Brent

  0

  0

  1,123

  1,852

  0

  500

  6,545

  2,750

  12,770

  Bromley

  400

  15

  680

  310

  0

  13,807

  937

  250

  16,399

  Camden

  0

  0

  2,090

  3,540

  0

  0

  2,739

  1,128

  9,497

  Croydon

  0

  0

  1,622

  325

  0

  400

  2,923

  1,293

  6,563

  Ealing

  50

  0

  183

  200

  0

  1,220

  1,560

  600

  3,813

  Enfield

  694

  0

  2,876

  2,675

  0

  0

  809

  1,059

  8,113

  Greenwich

  8,171

  0

  627

  717

  0

  0

  1,625

  803

  11,943

  Hackney

  0

  0

  497

  1,631

  0

  0

  632

  809

  3,596

  Hammersmith

  0

  0

  955

  1,195

  0

  1,791

  1,400

  700

  6,041

  Haringey

  1,360

  0

  597

  1,405

  0

  0

  2,526

  425

  6,313

  Harrow

  4,697

  0

  570

  1,150

  0

  0

  1,402

  350

  8,169

  Havering

  0

  0

  148

  1,492

  0

  0

  2,138

  438

  4,216

  Hillingdon

  893

  0

  394

  1,720

  0

  0

  784

  412

  4,173

  Hounslow

  990

  0

  1,595

  1,805

  0

  450

  2,435

  723

  7,998

  Islington

  0

  0

  1,671

  733

  0

  0

  5,638

  943

  8,985

  Kensington

  1,140

  0

  301

  746

  0

  0

  1,904

  640

  4,731

  Kingston

  11,733

  0

  1,000

  5,736

  0

  0

  1,414

  384

  20,267

  Lambeth

  400

  0

  1,829

  814

  0

  0

  3,725

  390

  7,158

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  885

  802

  0

  0

  3,118

  750

  5,555

  Merton

  44

  0

  200

  180

  0

  0

  3,358

  1,080

  4,862

  Newham

  860

  1,559

  837

  4,714

  0

  0

  1,717

  810

  10,497

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  954

  150

  0

  0

  1,882

  545

  3,531

  Richmond

  0

  0

  805

  285

  0

  2,265

  977

  288

  4,620

  Southwark

  269

  0

  1,500

  1,405

  0

  0

  1,759

  500

  5,433

  Sutton

  400

  0

  215

  1,400

  0

  0

  2,819

  1,010

  5,844

  Tower Hamlets

  995

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  2,576

  564

  4,152

  Waltham FOrest

  842

  0

  400

  1,221

  0

  450

  1,375

  650

  4,938

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  400

  975

  0

  0

  4,834

  1,145

  7,354

  Westminster

  1,000

  2,047

  282

  5,986

  0

  0

  2,854

  813

  12,982

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  900

  560

  0

  0

  3,200

  420

  5,080

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,857

  0

  1,176

  1,636

  1,270

  2,057

  0

  202

  8,198

  Bristol

  3,412

  0

  550

  2,307

  250

  3,158

  0

  485

  10,162

  North Somerset

  1,258

  0

  760

  474

  0

  1,543

  0

  358

  4,393

  South Gloucestershire

  9,510

  0

  730

  548

  250

  2,678

  0

  345

  14,061

  Hartlepool

  3,308

  0

  470

  45

  0

  453

  0

  90

  4,366

  Middlesbrough

  0

  0

  337

  1,050

  0

  2,110

  0

  670

  4,167

  Redcar and Cleveland

  3,047

  0

  1,312

  680

  0

  1,815

  0

  315

  7,169

  Stockton

  7,549

  0

  794

  702

  0

  796

  0

  200

  10,041

  East Riding

  1,243

  0

  2,301

  692

  0

  200

  896

  258

  5,590

  Hull

  3,090

  430

  300

  1,000

  0

  2,590

  0

  400

  7,810

  North East Lincoln

  6,020

  0

  1,500

  250

  0

  0

  1,396

  309

  9,448

  North Lincoln

  0

  0

  1,050

  848

  0

  0

  660

  146

  2,704

  York

  977

  0

  510

  344

  0

  1,025

  0

  200

  3,056

  Luton

  1,762

  0

  588

  460

  2,300

  1,465

  0

  1,000

  7,575

  Milton Keynes

  238

  0

  500

  424

  0

  0

  1,407

  300

  2,869

  Derby

  0

  0

  286

  411

  0

  1,345

  150

  324

  2,516

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  75

  297

  0

  1,290

  307

  312

  2,281

  Poole

  0

  0

  300

  135

  0

  1,590

  300

  95

  2,420

  Darlington

  0

  2,280

  200

  270

  0

  537

  120

  180

  3,587

  Brighton and Hove

  1,810

  0

  1,180

  695

  0

  1,570

  280

  597

  6,132

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  1,390

  1,647

  0

  1,173

  102

  427

  4,739

  104

  Local Transport Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each eligible local authority in England the bids made for local transport capital expenditure approval under the categories(a) major highway schemes eligible for transport supplementary grant, (b) major highway scheme not TSG eligible, (c) structural maintenance on carriageways, (d) structural maintenance on bridges, (e) major public transport projects, (f) minor works: packages, (g) minor works: non packages, (h) minor works: local safety schemes and (i) total bids. [242]

  Mr. Watts
  The bids for 1997–98 are given in the table.
  105

  Transport policy and programme submissions 1997–98 Local authority bid for local transport capital expenditure

  Authority

  (a) Maj h1

  (b) maj n2

  (c) sm rds3

  (d) sm bdg4

  (e) maj t5

  (f) mw pk6

  (g) mw npk7

  (h) mw lss8

  (i) total9

  South Hampton

  2,506

  1,100

  1,750

  1,296

  0

  2,555

  0

  250

  9,457

  Leicester City

  0

  0

  450

  1,733

  0

  0

  0

  755

  2,938

  Rutland

  184

  0

  202

  142

  0

  0

  177

  74

  779

  Stoke on Trent

  1,200

  0

  2,100

  1,000

  0

  2,350

  0

  500

  7,150

  Thamesdown

  0

  0

  516

  612

  0

  1,627

  703

  397

  3,855

  Bolton

  0

  0

  1,215

  3,299

  0

  1,380

  0

  527

  6,421

  Bury

  0

  0

  1,050

  1,450

  0

  2,133

  30

  378

  5,041

  Manchester

  6,415

  0

  2,041

  3,461

  0

  9,563

  1,897

  1,450

  24,827

  Oldham

  2,000

  0

  1,478

  2,505

  0

  1,794

  0

  814

  8,591

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  726

  1,078

  0

  1,220

  0

  281

  3,305

  Salford

  9,045

  0

  1,526

  1,399

  0

  2,055

  0

  873

  14,898

  Stockport

  2,436

  0

  1,906

  3,143

  0

  1,631

  0

  814

  9,930

  Tameside

  2,130

  0

  1,305

  1,065

  0

  1,679

  0

  350

  6,529

  Trafford

  10,747

  0

  914

  1,671

  0

  1,110

  2,000

  414

  16,856

  Wigan

  700

  0

  1,260

  823

  0

  2,778

  0

  230

  5,691

  Knowsley

  3,200

  0

  4,150

  398

  0

  2,990

  0

  400

  11,138

  Liverpool

  1,900

  0

  2,083

  1,947

  0

  4,900

  0

  1,259

  12,089

  St. Helens

  1,623

  0

  350

  1,353

  0

  2,019

  0

  200

  5,545

  Sefton

  2,500

  0

  542

  1,235

  0

  3,064

  0

  470

  7,811

  Wirral

  270

  0

  594

  935

  0

  2,545

  0

  600

  4,944

  Barnsley

  17,411

  0

  2,025

  1,637

  0

  2,156

  808

  400

  24,437

  Doncaster

  9,313

  0

  1,304

  999

  450

  2,990

  0

  640

  15,696

  Rotherham

  850

  0

  1,370

  1,489

  0

  970

  1,597

  185

  6,461

  Sheffield

  5,972

  0

  3,925

  5,188

  150

  4,685

  6,270

  510

  26,700

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  955

  1,132

  0

  1,320

  0

  400

  3,807

  Newcastle

  8,957

  0

  2,503

  3,103

  0

  2,304

  0

  300

  17,167

  North Tyneside

  1,070

  0

  1,500

  692

  0

  1,926

  2,520

  300

  8,008

  South Tyneside

  100

  0

  353

  1,279

  0

  1,091

  0

  398

  3,221

  Sunderland

  850

  0

  2,485

  900

  100

  1,860

  43

  777

  7,015

  Birmingham

  8,420

  1,748

  3,948

  3,980

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18,096

  Coventry

  5,241

  0

  520

  500

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6,261

  Dudley

  20,200

  0

  1,718

  1,970

  0

  0

  0

  0

  23,888

  Sandwell

  1,703

  0

  2,104

  4,117

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7,924

  Solihull

  400

  0

  300

  155

  0

  0

  0

  0

  855

  Walsall

  2,558

  0

  3,060

  3,780

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9,938

  Wolverhampton

  6,228

  0

  4,508

  3,729

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14,465

  Bradford

  2,940

  0

  2,500

  9,513

  0

  3,883

  0

  1,000

  19,836

  Calderdale

  100

  0

  3,655

  1,713

  796

  1,437

  150

  350

  8,201

  Kirklees

  1,800

  0

  3,898

  1,400

  50

  1,986

  0

  1,005

  10,139

  Leeds

  21,009

  0

  3,000

  4,732

  0

  5,353

  8,313

  1,375

  43,782

  Wakefield

  4,278

  8

  2,026

  1,800

  0

  1,741

  2,610

  615

  13,078

  West Midland Joint

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  36,051

  0

  4,629

  40,680

  Bedfordshire

  3,400

  0

  1,537

  3,248

  10

  3,151

  1,635

  1,245

  14,226

  Berkshire

  5,591

  0

  2,105

  2,201

  0

  3,008

  4,154

  1,984

  19,043

  Buckinghamshire

  12,937

  0

  1,600

  1,985

  0

  590

  3,115

  931

  21,158

  Cambridgeshire

  3,650

  0

  3,990

  5,315

  0

  4,020

  2,385

  3,200

  22,560

  Cheshire

  19,349

  1,735

  8,990

  7,657

  0

  793

  2,900

  1,190

  42,614

  Cornwall

  6,326

  0

  3,219

  4,120

  0

  788

  3,107

  1,143

  18,703

  Cumbria

  2,320

  0

  2,500

  2,500

  0

  1,105

  2,170

  500

  11,095

  Derbyshire

  210

  0

  1,903

  2,081

  5,903

  315

  3,551

  1,706

  15,669

  Devon

  3,011

  1,249

  6,055

  6,260

  0

  4,744

  5,993

  1,717

  29,029

  Dorset

  5,110

  0

  670

  2,133

  0

  180

  3,463

  29

  11,585

  Durham

  2,869

  2,524

  1,930

  4,140

  0

  1,559

  2,691

  930

  16,643

  East Sussex

  10,632

  0

  3,015

  3,283

  0

  1,040

  3,199

  596

  21,765

  Essex

  5,749

  182

  5,500

  5,794

  0

  6,546

  7,736

  4,074

  35,581

  Gloucestershire

  -667

  0

  3,317

  2,924

  0

  2,866

  1,892

  1,071

  11,403

  Hampshire

  12,490

  1,110

  8,669

  2,375

  0

  3,499

  2,590

  2,000

  32,733

  Herefordshire/Worcestershire

  13,628

  0

  4,050

  2,432

  0

  1,813

  2,703

  589

  25,215

  Hertfordshire

  5,763

  0

  5,000

  4,750

  0

  2,932

  6,675

  2,500

  27,620

  Kent

  89,250

  1,000

  10,000

  5,945

  0

  2,087

  4,392

  1,956

  114,630

  Lancashire

  5,641

  300

  3,600

  3,606

  1,187

  4,602

  4,146

  2,732

  25,814

  Leicestershire

  6,115

  0

  2,160

  743

  3,243

  5,920

  1,597

  1,124

  20,902

  Lincolnshire

  5,844

  0

  3,150

  3,573

  0

  1,300

  4,396

  750

  19,013

  Norfolk

  3,688

  22

  11,026

  7,166

  0

  6,639

  3,787

  2,472

  34,800

  Northamptonshire

  1,318

  31

  4,200

  2,140

  0

  1,135

  1,350

  1,500

  11,674

  Northumberland

  3,800

  0

  5,000

  5,000

  0

  0

  2,335

  1,000

  17,135

  North Yorkshire

  7,118

  0

  9,713

  6,600

  0

  842

  3,167

  1,884

  29,324

  Nottinghamshire

  3,553

  166

  3,749

  4,429

  4,353

  3,989

  2,579

  1,550

  24,368

  Oxfordshire

  1,426

  0

  2,185

  1,701

  0

  2,842

  2,315

  2,801

  13,270

  Shropshire

  6,281

  0

  3,859

  2,208

  0

  2,702

  2,145

  551

  17,746

  Somerset

  4,676

  870

  2,750

  4,371

  0

  30

  3,160

  992

  16,849

  Staffordshire

  17,914

  0

  6,970

  5,000

  0

  2,547

  5,144

  800

  38,375

  Suffolk

  1,395

  800

  5,000

  5,000

  0

  5,600

  6,611

  1,380

  25,786

  Surrey

  8,210

  0

  10,319

  7,555

  0

  2,636

  5,090

  9,469

  43,279

  Warwickshire

  579

  0

  3,190

  4,566

  0

  1,631

  2,090

  1,601

  13,657

  West Sussex

  1,844

  2,138

  2,121

  757

  0

  868

  3,986

  1,179

  12,893

  106 107

  Transport policy and programme submissions 1997–98 Local authority bid for local transport capital expenditure

  Authority

  (a) Maj h1

  (b) maj n2

  (c) sm rds3

  (d) sm bdg4

  (e) maj t5

  (f) mw pk6

  (g) mw npk7

  (h) mw lss8

  (i) total9

  Wiltshire

  1,638

  0

  2,962

  3,240

  0

  3,314

  1,572

  1,008

  13,734

  Greater Manchester PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16,467

  13,730

  0

  0

  30,197

  Mersey PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6,225

  17,903

  5,289

  0

  29,417

  South Yorkshire PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,15

  0

  1,150

  Tyne and Wear PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,207

  1,965

  740

  0

  4,912

  West Midlands PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  48,581

  0

  0

  0

  48,581

  West Yorkshire PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5,000

  2,170

  330

  0

  7,500

  Totals

  533,289

  21,314

  276,090

  284,007

  98,792

  288,825

  237,440

  116,624

  1,856,381

  1 maj h = Bid for major highway schemes eligible for TSG.

  2 maj n = Bid for major highway schemes not eligible for TSG.

  3 sm rds = Bid for structural maintenance on carriageways.

  4 sm bdg = Bid for assessment, strengthening and other structural maintenance on bridges.

  5 maj t = Bid for major public transport projects.

  6 mw pk = Bid for minor works: packages (highways and public transport).

  7 mw npk = Bid for minor works: non-package (highways and public transport).

  8 mw lss = Bid for minor works: local safety schemes.

  9 total = Total bids.

  New En Route Centre, Swanwick
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what compensation will be payable to the Civil Aviation Authority by the NERC contractors as a result of the delays to the project to build the new en route centre at Swanwick; and if he will make a statement; [171]

  (2) what is his assessment of the level of risk associated with the remedial measures proposed by the contractors on the new en route centre at Swanwick; and what are his contingency plans should the project fail. [169]

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when and at what level of functionality the Civil Aviation Authority will determine what penalties are to be levied on the NERC contractor. [250]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: I refer the hon. Members to my hon. Friend's reply of 24 June 1996, Official Report, column 29, to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  108
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list hon. Members, senior officials and journalists who have visited the NERC in the last 18 months; and who invited them. [251]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: I have asked the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the costs of upgrading and keeping in service the London air traffic control centre, including its military cell, until the new en route centre at Swanwick becomes operational; and if these costs will be borne by the NERC contractors. [168]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 18 October 1996]: The NERC contractors are liable only for additional costs required to complete the Swanwick centre. The total cost to National Air Traffic Services of the delay in opening this centre will be in the order of £15 million; this includes the costs of upgrading the London air traffic control centre, but does not include the cost of the military cell as this is not due to move to NERC in the first phase.
  109

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Tribunals
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give for each industrial tribunal region for each of the last three years the number of successful claims for(a) unfair dismissal and (b) redundancies from those employed under the single regeneration budget programme; and if he will give details of the awards made. [34]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Number of successful claims for (i) unfair dismissal; and (ii) redundancy payment 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  Region

  Unfair dismissal

  Redundancy payment

  Bedford

  300

  118

  Birmingham

  228

  120

  Bristol

  251

  195

  Cardiff

  216

  212

  Leeds

  420

  186

  London North

  509

  214

  London South

  411

  181

  Manchester

  695

  244

  Newcastle

  228

  113

  Nottingham

  200

  124

  Southampton

  345

  156

  Breakdown of financial awards for unfair dismissal 1993–1994

  Award in pounds

  Basic

  Per cent.

  Basic and compensatory

  Per cent.

  Compensatory

  Per cent.

  1–99

  83

  4.44

  18

  0.87

  26

  1.06

  100–149

  90

  4.81

  27

  1.01

  47

  1.92

  150–199

  91

  4.87

  39

  1.45

  60

  2.46

  200–299

  173

  9.26

  88

  3.32

  108

  4.42

  300–399

  185

  10.43

  85

  3.17

  82

  3.36

  400–499

  189

  10.11

  86

  3.17

  75

  3.07

  500–749

  292

  15.61

  176

  6.56

  172

  7.04

  750–999

  184

  9.84

  148

  3.32

  122

  4.99

  1,000–1,499

  181

  9.67

  217

  8.84

  219

  8.96

  1,500–1,999

  118

  6.31

  165

  6.15

  187

  6.84

  2,000–2,499

  72

  3.85

  179

  8.88

  145

  5.94

  2,500–2,999

  62

  2.78

  155

  5.78

  149

  6.1

  3,000–3,999

  78

  4.17

  242

  9.03

  195

  7.98

  4,000–4,999

  44

  2.35

  188

  7.01

  147

  6.02

  5,000–5,999

  18

  0.96

  138

  5.15

  138

  5.65

  6,000–6,999

  10

  0.63

  131

  4.88

  105

  4.3

  7,000–7,999

  0

  0

  98

  3.66

  63

  3.4

  8,000–8,999

  0

  0

  81

  3.02

  80

  3.27

  9,000 and over

  0

  0

  400

  14.73

  323

  13.22

  Total

  1,870

  100

  2,681

  100

  2,443

  100

  1994–1995

  Award in pounds

  Basic

  Per cent.

  Basic and compensatory

  Per cent.

  Compensatory

  Per cent.

  1–99

  72

  4.65

  8

  0.38

  17

  0.9

  100–149

  57

  3.68

  18

  0.85

  35

  1.85

  150–199

  59

  3.81

  20

  0.94

  30

  1.59

  200–299

  117

  7.56

  68

  3.2

  83

  4.4

  300–399

  108

  6.98

  52

  2.45

  62

  3.29

  40–499

  131

  8.47

  54

  2.54

  61

  3.23

  500–749

  263

  17

  146

  6.87

  148

  7.84

  110

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  Region

  Unfair dismissal

  Redundancy payment

  Bedford

  365

  163

  Birmingham

  346

  180

  Bristol

  243

  164

  Cardiff

  194

  249

  Leeds

  428

  171

  London North

  509

  190

  London South

  499

  207

  Manchester

  729

  352

  Newcastle

  249

  183

  Nottingham

  271

  166

  Southampton

  376

  218

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  Region

  Unfair dismissal

  Redundancy payment

  Bedford

  504

  302

  Birmingham

  529

  230

  Bristol

  381

  267

  Cardiff

  276

  253

  London North

  469

  243

  London South

  703

  238

  Manchester

  814

  376

  Newcastle

  379

  201

  Nottingham

  430

  217

  Southampton

  455

  217

  111

  1994–1995

  Award in pounds

  Basic

  Per cent.

  Basic and compensatory

  Per cent.

  Compensatory

  Per cent.

  750–999

  161

  10.41

  119

  5.6

  107

  5.67

  1,000–1,499

  204

  13.19

  210

  9.89

  168

  8.9

  1,500–1,999

  117

  7.56

  153

  7.2

  134

  7.1

  2,000–2,499

  55

  3.56

  131

  6.17

  121

  6.41

  2,500–2,999

  51

  3.3

  129

  6.07

  84

  4.45

  3,000–3,999

  58

  3.75

  182

  8.57

  165

  8.74

  4,000–4,999

  30

  1.94

  159

  7.49

  128

  6.78

  5,000–5,999

  24

  1.55

  111

  5.23

  96

  5.09

  6,000–6,999

  9

  0.58

  93

  4.38

  69

  3.66

  7,000–7,999

  3

  0.19

  68

  3.2

  61

  3.23

  8,000–8,999

  3

  0.19

  62

  2.92

  42

  2.23

  9,000 and over

  25

  1.61

  341

  16.05

  276

  14.64

  Total

  1,547

  100

  2,124

  100

  1,887

  100

  1995–1996

  Award in pounds

  Basic

  Per cent.

  Basic and compensatory

  Per cent.

  Compensatory

  Per cent.

  1–99

  61

  4.47

  12

  0.66

  21

  1.39

  100–149

  62

  4.54

  20

  1.14

  22

  1.45

  150–199

  56

  4.1

  28

  1.59

  36

  2.37

  200–299

  130

  9.52

  57

  3.24

  70

  4.62

  300–399

  108

  7.91

  45

  2.56

  39

  2.57

  400–499

  100

  7.32

  35

  1.99

  54

  3.56

  500–749

  202

  14.79

  120

  6.82

  116

  7.65

  750–999

  154

  11.27

  108

  6.14

  97

  6.4

  1,000–1,499

  172

  12.59

  205

  11.65

  159

  10.49

  1,500–1,999

  105

  7.69

  147

  8.35

  126

  8.31

  2,000–2,499

  57

  4.17

  130

  7.39

  108

  7.12

  2,500–2,999

  32

  2.34

  84

  4.77

  65

  4.29

  3,000–3,999

  53

  3.88

  161

  9.15

  126

  8.31

  4,000–4,999

  46

  3.37

  104

  5.91

  78

  5.15

  5,000–5,999

  23

  1.68

  104

  5.91

  75

  4.95

  6,000–6,999

  4

  0.29

  72

  4.09

  52

  3.43

  7,000–7,999

  1

  0.07

  50

  2.84

  44

  2.9

  8,000–8,999

  0

  0

  44

  2.5

  38

  2.51

  9,000 and over

  0

  0

  234

  13.3

  190

  12.53

  Total

  1,366

  100

  1,760

  100

  1,516

  100

  Domestic Accidents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to require local authorities to liaise with other authorities and the voluntary sector to reduce accidents in the home; and if he will make a statement. [36]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans to require local authorities to liaise with other authorities and the voluntary sector. However, my Department makes a wide range of free home safety literature available to local authorities, and now also encourages them to carry forward home safety initiatives via a newsletter outlining the Department's home safety. My Department also provides a grant in aid to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which is used to support four regional home safety officers who work closely with accident prevention staff in local authorities.

  Fireworks
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the deregulation of fireworks; and if he will make a statement. [80]
  112
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department receives many representations each firework season on many issues associated with fireworks including the availability of fireworks to the general public, the great variety and power of fireworks now available, the inappropriate use of fireworks and sales to the under-16s. For these reasons, I announced on 28 March 1996 that a review of the statutory and voluntary controls of fireworks would be undertaken. A discussion document was issued on 31 July and comments invited by 11 October. These are now being analysed.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance he has introduced in respect of fireworks and firework safety; and if he will make a statement. [31]

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department has provided 5 million safety advice leaflets aimed at those buying fireworks, distributed to the point of sale with the help of the fireworks industry, backed up by 5,000 posters at sites throughout the country. In addition, we have circulated thousands of leaflets to help display organisers and make shopkeepers aware of the law on selling fireworks. Finally, television publicity has been produced and a video on firework safety made available to primary schools on request.
  113
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions relate to the sale of category 4 display fireworks; and if he will make a statement. [30]

  Mr. Taylor
  British standard 7114:1988 makes it clear that category 4 fireworks are not suitable for use by the general public and should carry a warning to that effect. The General Product Safety Regulations 1994, for which BS 7114 is a relevant standard for assessing the safety of fireworks, make it an offence to supply products, such as category 4 fireworks, to persons in whose hands they are likely to be unsafe.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cubic metres of Brazilian mahogany have been imported into the United Kingdom since the listing of the product in appendix III of the convention on international trade in endangered species. [828]

  Mr. Nelson
  Brazilian mahogany—Swietenia macrophylla—was listed in appendix III of CITES on 16 November 1995. Between then and 25 October 1996, CITES imports permits received and verified by HM Customs and Excise indicate that 10,141 cu m have been imported into the UK.

  Wirral Business Link
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the nature of the financial irregularities in respect of the sacking of the managing director of Wirral business link. [1059]

  Mr. Page
  Business links are independent organisations not owned by Government. The decision in relation to the dismissal of the chief executive of Wirral business link is a matter for its board of directors. I have, though, asked the board of directors to keep me closely informed of developments.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sacking of the managing director of Wirral business link; and what were the reasons for this action. [1058]

  Mr. Page
  Business links are independent organisations not owned by Government. The personnel arrangements in Wirral Business Link are a matter for the board of directors.

  Coal Production
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total production of coal in the United Kingdom from(a) deep mines (b) opencast mining for each quarter since the first quarter of 1992; and what forecasts relating to production his Department has evaluated. [877]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is given as follows:

  "UK coal production: deep-mined

  Thousand tones

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Quarter 1

  18,404

  15,515

  8,870

  8,397

  9,006

  Quarter 2

  16,484

  11,852

  7,734

  8,637

  8,721

  114

  UK coal production: deep-mined

  Thousand tonnes

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  15 129

  11,527

  7,290

  8,674

  —

  Quarter 4

  15,783

  11,563

  7,960

  9,442

  —

  Total

  65,800

  50,457

  31,854

  35,150

  —

  UK coal production: opencast

  Thousand tonnes

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Quarter 1

  4,819

  4,475

  3,693

  3,938

  4,319

  Quarter 2

  4,743

  4,053

  4,114

  4,173

  4,021

  Quarter 3

  4,242

  4,073

  4,329

  4,070

  —

  Quarter 4

  4,384

  4,406

  4,669

  4,188

  —

  Total

  18,187

  17,006

  16,804

  16,369

  —

  Source:

  Energy Trends.

  The Department of Trade and Industry does not make forecasts of coal production. However, Energy Paper 65, "Energy Projections for the UK" which was published by my Department in March 1995, suggested that by the year 2000 solid fuel demand would be around half its 1990 level. Although the report did not split this demand between imports and domestic production, most of the demand is expected to be met by domestic production.

  Cosmetics Testing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations have been received by the Minister for Consumer Affairs relating to the recent campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals against cosmetics testing on animals; and if he will make a statement. [796]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  So far, I have received 2,100 representations to which my officials are responding.

  I have written to the RSPCA informing it that the Government are fully committed to the cessation of animal testing, and fully support the use of non-animal alternatives, wherever possible.

  Fishermen (Redundancy)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many fishermen have been made redundant in each of the last three years(a) nationally and (b) in Brixharn, south Devon; and what have been the equivalent figures as a percentage of total work force in other major industrial sectors. [1068]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Statistical tables of redundancies, including by industry, are published regularly in Labour Market Trends, formerly the Employment Gazette, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Information specific to the Brixharn area is not, however, available.

  Outward Investment
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the volume of United Kingdom outward investment in each year since 1979; and what percentage change this represented in each year. [479]
  115
  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: Information on the volume of United Kingdom outward investment is not available. The level of outward investment, by value, is given in current prices in the following table.

  United Kingdom outward investment

  Value (£ million, current prices)

  Percentage change on previous year

  Direct

  Portfolio

  Total

  Direct

  Portfolio

  Total

  1979

  5,889

  887

  6,776

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  4,867

  3,310

  8,177

  -17.4

  273.2

  20.7

  1981

  6,005

  4,467

  10,472

  23.4

  35.0

  28.1

  1982

  4,091

  7,565

  11,656

  -31.9

  69.4

  11.3

  1983

  5,417

  7,350

  12,767

  32.4

  -2.8

  9.5

  1984

  6,042

  9,755

  15,797

  11.5

  32.7

  23.7

  1985

  8,430

  16,754

  25,184

  39.5

  71.7

  59.4

  1986

  11,649

  22,288

  33,937

  38.2

  33.0

  34.8

  1987

  19,147

  -5,324

  13,823

  64.4

  n/a

  -59.3

  1988

  20,863

  11,209

  32,072

  9.0

  n/a

  132.0

  1989

  21,503

  36,524

  58,027

  3.1

  225.8

  80.9

  1990

  10,490

  17,206

  27,696

  -51.2

  -52.9

  -52.3

  1991

  9,056

  29,157

  38,213

  -13.7

  69.5

  38.0

  1992

  10,850

  27,346

  38,196

  19.8

  -6.2

  0.0

  1993

  17,026

  84,828

  101,854

  56.9

  210.2

  166.7

  1994

  18,363

  -17,968

  395

  7.9

  n/a

  -99.6

  1995

  25,546

  40,327

  65,873

  39.1

  n/a

  16576.7

  Source:

  United Kingdom Balance of Payments, The Pink Book, Office for National Statistics.

  Defence Diversification (Scotland)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what public expenditure has been invested in defence diversification in Scotland and the United Kingdom in the current year. [373]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  In the UK, defence diversification is addressed specifically through the European Community initiative, Konver. One hundred and thirty-six mecu, £113 million, from the European structural funds has been allocated to the UK and Gibraltar Konver II programme, which runs until 1999, having recently been extended by two years.
  116
  Up to the end of September, some £16.6 million in structural funds grants were approved in the UK this year, of this, £4.3 million is for Scotland. This figure will be fully matched by national public expenditure.

  Scientific Institutions
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the future of United Kingdom public sector scientific institutions. [480]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: The Government's policy on the future of the public sector research establishments was set out in the Government response to the multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments, Cm 2991, which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade presented to the Library of the House in September 1995. This detailed a range of measures to ensure that the research establishments are able to respond to the changing needs of their customers, and to maintain the reputation for excellence for which they are renowned.

  The measures include a programme of prior options reviews of research establishments. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the timetable for these reviews in January 1996, and the initial results in May 1996. Further announcements will be made as decisions are taken. The intention is that the major part of the work should be completed by the end of December 1996.

  Defence Exports (Indonesia)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what mechanisms the Government have put in place to ensure that defence and defence-related goods are not exported from the United Kingdom to Indonesia. [375]

  Mr. Lang
  The export of military, paramilitary, police and security goods is controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended, and as such require an export licence. Export licence applications are subject to careful scrutiny against established criteria and internationally agreed guidelines to which we are committed, together with other Government Departments.

  These guidelines were placed in the Library of the House in July this year.

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

Lord Thomas of Gresford
Donald Martin Thomas, Esquire, OBE, QC, having been created Baron Thomas of Gresford, of Gresford in the County Borough of Wrexham, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hooson and the Lord Geraint.
Lord Currie of Marylebone
David Anthony Currie, Esquire, having been created Baron Currie of Marylebone, of Marylebone in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Peston, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Religious Education: the Gospels
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that a study of the Gospels is treated as an essential part of religious education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's model agreed syllabuses include appropriate reference to the Gospels. But the legal requirement that religious education in most schools should be in accordance with a locally-agreed syllabus leaves the detailed content of religious education to be determined locally. Such syllabuses must "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian while taking account of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that guarded reply which will not give widespread satisfaction but is no doubt well intended. Does the Minister agree with the following question? As Christianity is to be the main religion taught in schools, bearing in mind that members of other religions represent 3.7 per cent. of the population, to teach Christianity without the Gospels would be like teaching the history of the Napoleonic Wars without mentioning Napoleon or the history of the Lord Chancellors in this century without mentioning Lord Hailsham?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has just said to me, "Which one?"
222
I welcome the last part of the noble Lord's question. I also welcome the first part of his question implying that my standard of answer has improved since yesterday. I hope I can improve yet further in future.
I agree with the noble Lord that it is vital that the syllabus should, as I quoted, reflect the fact that we are broadly a Christian country. To attempt to do that without including the Gospels would be somewhat odd. As I made clear, this is something that ought to be agreed at local level, and it is for that reason that we leave it to locally-agreed groups to develop their own syllabuses. I can assure him that some of the model SCAA syllabuses contain appropriate references to the Gospels.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking to do all that he can to support religious education as an examination subject, given that the GCSE courses, both long and short ones, provide for study of the Gospels and that they are, I believe, the most popular of the courses taken at that level?
Lord Henley: My Lords, precisely what GCSEs, or for that matter A-levels, that individuals take should be a matter for pupils on advice from those who teach them. We do what we can to encourage pupils to pursue religious education, just as other subjects should be pursued. I should add that we ensure that Ofsted monitors the teaching of religious education in schools; and, in due course having looked at what it has to say, we shall take appropriate action.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us who spent a lot of time on the agreed syllabus welcome it? I hope that most local authorities will not stray from the agreed syllabus.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that if the local education authority and the schools can develop their own locally agreed syllabus—that is what I was talking about—then the schools would feel it wise to follow that locally agreed syllabus. The noble Lord makes a very valid point in that it should be up to them to follow those syllabuses.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that where religious studies are taken seriously as a disciplined academic subject, it will be found that pupils are surprisingly eager to study it? I can assure him, from the experience of my wife, who teaches the subject, that if they are given it as a disciplined subject like any other, a good number of pupils will take to it. But if it is not taken as such, they will disregard it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point which to some extent echoes the one made by the right reverend Prelate. I think I can accept what my noble friend said.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that opinion polls consistently show that between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of the population

223
of this country—that is to say, about 10 million people—do not have any religious beliefs? Therefore, does he agree that it is just as important that it should be noted in the RE syllabus that there are so many people who do not hold religious beliefs as, indeed, that we should teach the Gospels, to which I personally have no objection?
Lord Henley: My Lords, opinion polls show many things but they are not necessarily always correct. Having said that, I accept that a certain number of people do not hold any religious beliefs. Obviously, that is a matter which should be taken into account in developing the locally agreed syllabus. But, in the main, most of us accept that our traditions in this country are broadly Christian. For that reason, we believe that religious education should be of a broadly Christian nature and the Gospels should play a large part in that.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there are sufficient qualified teachers of religious education to teach the agreed syllabuses throughout the country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we accept that there is some evidence of a shortage of specialist religious education teachers. We have designated religious education as a priority subject in initial teacher training.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Book of Common Prayer advises us in respect of all Holy Scriptures to hear or read them, and to mark, learn and inwardly digest them? Bearing in mind that students of the Holy Koran regularly commit large parts of it to memory, can he tell the House what methods of study the Government's advisers have recommended for the Christian Gospels? Should our children learn parts of them by heart?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is an interesting idea. I am sure it is one that those other than myself might wish to take up. As I said, we believe that the syllabus itself should be a matter agreed at a local level. It is important that it should be decided at that local level exactly what that syllabus should contain.

Apples: EU Marketing Standards
3.4 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they agreed to the recent Community regulation forbidding the marketing within the United Kingdom of dessert apples of smaller diameter than the Community prescribed minimum.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there are no new regulations that would limit the size of apples on sale within the European Union. Quality and marketing standards have operated in the United Kingdom in various forms since 1928. The European Union marketing standards have
224
been in place in the United Kingdom since 1973 and were last amended, in consultation with the industry, in 1990.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Lord is not aware of the regulation concerned. There has been a deluge of regulations over the past couple of months with which the Government have not yet caught up. Would he care to get in touch with the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Tunbridge Wells, who is also the principal director of Asda, and inquire of him what precipitated his move to dump on the market thousands of such undersized apples free of charge?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, indeed, I have been in contact with Mr. Norman. I think that he had a most amusing stunt which I am sure added greatly to the publicity for Asda and perhaps to his candidacy for another place. I do not believe that it has any relevance to the regulation.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, whatever the state of the regulations, it is appropriate that the diameter of an apple should be assessed by the retailer and the consumer and not by some bureaucratic body?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is a great deal to be said for setting standards. First, it enables international trade to take place and international buyers to know what they are getting. Secondly, it helps to keep the quality image of British produce up at the top where it should be. One has to face the fact that small apples tend to be immature and not to taste so good. Noble Lords may disagree but the fact of the matter is that so far as concerns the English Cox, size matters.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his last reply is most worrying? He will recall that his right honourable friend Douglas Hurd, when he was Foreign Secretary, said that he did not want the European Union to interfere in the nooks and crannies of our national life. It now seems that the Minister is quite happy for the European Union to interfere with our Granny Smiths and indeed our Cox's Orange Pippins. Perhaps he will reconsider his remarks.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as I said in my initial Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, these regulations, or something very similar, have been in place since 1928, when I believe the noble Lord would have been a boy in body as well as in mind. Maybe he enjoyed his time scrumping apples. I am sure that he chose the bigger ones when he did so because apples are best to eat when they are ripe and appealing to the eye. Since 1928 we have pursued a policy that allowing small apples onto the market would tend to diminish the regard in which English apples are held. Before we joined the European Union, I believe that those arrangements were voluntary. Since joining the European Union they have become compulsory because of the way in which size restrictions interact with

225
intervention. I am sure the noble Lord will be delighted to know that today we have agreed a very substantial amendment to the European fruit and vegetable regime which will result in a 40 per cent. reduction in intervention prices and limitation to 10 per cent. of any producer organisation's output. That will take us a long way down the road towards no restrictions and back to the original pattern of recommendations rather than rules.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend accept the saying that many of us have used for years; namely, that you should not judge an apple by its size?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, nonetheless, one can judge a good deal about an apple by its size.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister saying that what was a quality standard is now enforceable by European regulations?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. We cannot market apples that do not conform with the quality standards; otherwise we will have problems under intervention. The noble Lord will recall the extent of the problem with Greek nectarines which resulted in 70 per cent. of an unmarketable crop being accepted for intervention. That was a scandal we would not wish to see repeated in the apple market.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect the Answer he gave me in October last year concerning the sale of nectarines of less than two-and-a-quarter inches in diameter? He told me then that,
"The Commission has sought to tackle this to some extent by limiting the size of fruit that can be marketed and thus limiting the cost to EU taxpayers".
He went on to say,
"In the forthcoming reform of the EC Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Regime, the UK will be pressing for the abolition of withdrawal aid. Then, the needs of the market will determine the size of the fruit that is available to the consumer".—[Official Report, 16/10/96; cols. WA 76–77.]
Is that not an extremely good ambition? Have we yet achieved it?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, it is a good ambition; but no, we have not yet achieved it. We are making progress towards it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a number of factors affect the size of apples; for instance, the number of fruits the tree is allowed to bear and the amount of pesticides and fertilisers used on it? In the case particularly of Cox's Orange Pippins, is the Minister aware that many mothers like the small
226
apples for their children? They can cope with a small apple but not with a huge one. So half the apple goes to waste. Or perhaps that is good salesmanship.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the minimum size for a marketable Cox is 55 millimetres, and that is a pretty small apple.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answers confirm what I have suspected all along? I refer to the fact that the Government are in favour of the right of the Commission to determine the size or quality of all apples sold in the United Kingdom?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, our ambition is clearly to get rid of intervention in these products. When that is gone, all need for regulation will be gone. Nonetheless, there is a need for internationally agreed standards for fruit to be internationally tradeable. As those align closely with the present Commission standards, the Commission is on exactly the right lines.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since the regulations came into force we have been unable to sell good Scottish apples like Tower of Glamis, Bloody Ploughmen and Winter Strawberry?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if my noble friend can persuade Asda to stock them, perhaps there will be a sufficient demand to enable us to persuade the European Union to make the necessary changes in the regulations, which are purely practical. I suspect that those apples are produced in small quantities on a local basis and therefore can be sold freely in farm shops and at the farm gate.

Model Agencies
3.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to change the present arrangements for the registration and supervision of model agencies.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, model agencies do not have to be registered by my department but they are regulated under the Employment Agencies Act 1973. We intend to consult shortly on possible revisions to the associated regulations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. In view of a recent deplorable case, are the Government concerned about residential agencies that purport to provide

227
training for teenage girls? Young girls and their parents usually hope that that will open the door to a glamorous and financially rewarding career on the catwalk.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Government were not only concerned about the case to which my noble friend refers; we were appalled by the depraved conduct of the individual concerned. I should make clear that at present agencies are prohibited from making the provisions of employment-finding services to workers conditional upon the use of other services provided by the agent for which fees are charged. I regret to say that Mr. Peter Martin lured girls into his house and systematically sexually abused them. That had nothing to do with training opportunities being provided for them; it was simply sexual abuse.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Government abolished the regulations which governed not only model agencies but all employment and theatrical agencies? They were entirely mistaken in doing that and that case is an example of what happens if we remove all regulations in that sensitive sphere. I am sure that the next government will recognise the need for those regulations to be replaced.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, Mr. Peter Martin was licensed to run model agencies during the 13 years when he systematically sexually abused young girls. It is correct, as the noble Lord said, that under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act we removed the requirement for licensing. However, it is important to stress that, as it was removed, a power of prohibition on people running that type of agency and others was introduced and the power of prohibition could extend for as long as 10 years.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister saying that his department does not possess supervisory powers in respect of model agencies? If so, is it not possible for many more such abuses to exist that are not drawn to his attention? I understand that his Answer referred to the fact that this is related to employment regulations rather than concerned with consumer protection for whoever may buy the services of such agencies. If that is right, does he not recognise that it is a serious state of affairs? There may well be more abuse taking place than any of us know about.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I did not intend to indicate that the department did not have a supervisory role. I said that following the 1994 Act there was no longer a requirement for an agency to be licensed. The department has a supervisory role and the power exercised at the end of the day is a power of prohibition against those who may be unfit persons to run such agencies. It is also the responsibility of the department to see whether there are appropriate circumstances in which to prosecute the individuals. In both circumstances we seek prohibition orders and also prosecute.

School Playing Fields: Preservation
3.17 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to prohibit schools and local education authorities from selling playing fields.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is the Government's policy that playing fields that schools need should be retained. Those playing fields are protected by the school premises regulations. The Government believe that local education authorities and schools are best placed to take management decisions affecting their assets within the constraints of the school premises regulations.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that on average two playing fields per week are sold by local authorities and school governors? On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister encouraging sports in schools, and for teachers, youth leaders and so forth to participate in sport; but, on the other hand, because of inadequate funding, local authorities are forced to sell their playing fields.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally reject the noble Lord's allegation that there is inadequate funding in education for local education authorities. They received an excellent settlement last year involving considerable sums of money, and it is up to them to spend that money appropriately on providing education. We are aware of anxieties caused because a number of playing fields have been sold in the past, and that is why we have regulations concerning the minimum size for school playing fields. Local education authorities cannot go below that size. Because of the anxieties, last August we brought in the Sports Council as a statutory consultee on any sales that may take place, and in the coming months we shall certainly monitor the situation with the Sports Council as statutory consultee. It would be quite wrong, as the noble Lord seems to be suggesting, to place a blanket ban on sales. Sales can often lead to further and better provision elsewhere.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not a situation where the Prime Minister, with the support of all parties, wants to preserve playing fields but that on average two playing fields a week are disappearing from schools? Is not there a case for a national policy? It is extremely ineffective government for the Prime Minister to be saying one thing and at the same time, for whatever reason, local education authorities to be selling off the playing fields.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have a national policy, which I explained in some detail in my original Answer; that is, that schools must retain a minimum need. It would be wrong to place a blanket ban on further sales when schools could make use of those resources in other ways for better educational provision or even better sporting provision. In August of this year we brought in

229
the Sports Council as a statutory consultee on future sales. We shall be examining how that process works over the coming months. If it is necessary to tighten up the regulations—though I do not accept the noble Lord's figures about the number of playing fields we are losing—because we are losing excessive playing fields, we shall take that action.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn is quite right—most of these playing fields have been sold off in order to raise vital finance to keep the schools to which they belong in a better state? Now that we have the National Lottery, which appears to be rather generous to certain sections of the community, would it not be right to consider making a priority the replacement of some of these playing fields through National Lottery funds? Many of these schools are in inner city areas where there is little play space of any kind. Is it not time that the Government acted definitely and not in a half-hearted manner as appears to be the case at present?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that we are acting in a half-hearted manner. As I made clear, we have minimum space regulations for playing fields. Schools must not fall below those minimum levels. However, I do not think it would be right then to forbid all further sales when those sales could be used to enhance education or even, for that matter, sporting provision both for the school and for the local community. The local community can very often make use of playing fields. I should not like to see the blanket ban for which the noble Lord seems to be asking. As to whether the National Lottery should provide funds, that idea could certainly be looked at where there are schools that are below the necessary minimum level. I accept that some have been below for historical reasons, particularly some in the inner cities.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no point in having playing fields unless there are teachers in these schools willing to teach and supervise organised games? Is that likely to happen when there are so-called educationalists saying that competitive games are bad for children's morale?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that there are probably still a number of teachers of a certain political persuasion who refuse to take part in competitive sports of one kind or another. I suspect that that tradition is dying off. We are seeing more people taking a realistic approach to the teaching of sport; and certainly sport and competitive sport take their place in the national curriculum.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the minimum standard for a school of 500 pupils? How many acres must it keep?
Lord Henley: My Lords, without notice, I cannot answer that question. The standards are not purely in terms of acreage; they also relate to the condition of the
230
ground. It must be capable of taking so many days of such and such an activity at certain times of the year. However, if the noble Lord would like me to write in greater detail in relation, say, to a school of 500 situated possibly in Scotland or, for that matter, the north of England, I should be more than happy to do so.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is it not the case that when the Prime Minister published his document Raising the Game a year ago he very sensibly admitted that so many playing fields had been sold off to the detriment of British sport? He has been trying to rectify the situation since and should be supported—although most of the playing fields sold off are now car parks for Asda and other organisations. Now that the Government have brought in the Sports Council as a statutory consultee, will they go further? The Sports Council should have a duty laid upon it—a statutory duty if necessary—to intervene at planning tribunals, and Ministers should make it clear to planning inspectors that preserving playing fields is a prime object of government policy. If the Government do that they will have the support of the whole House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord and I are very far apart. As I made clear, we brought in the Sports Council as a statutory consultee in August. It can bring issues of changes of use to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, should it feel it necessary to have a public inquiry. It would then be a matter for my right honourable friend to consider the wider issues at that public inquiry and make the appropriate decision.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Beloff, does my noble friend agree that this Question indicates the welcome conversion of the Benches opposite to the benefits of competition in our state schools? Does he share my hope that they may still come to appreciate also the benefits of streaming and selection?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we have pursued a great many reforms in education over the past 16 or 17 years. I think that virtually every single one of them was opposed at the time by the party opposite. I have to say to my noble friend that a few years later on each occasion they seem to come round to our way of thinking. No doubt we shall discuss these matters further this afternoon. But I welcome my noble friend's suggestion. Perhaps noble Lords opposite will come round to the virtues of selection, setting and streaming in due course.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in the spirit of helpfulness and co-operation, perhaps I may offer to the Minister the information which he seemed not to have to hand, quite naturally, and tell him that the regulations lay out a minimum requirement of one hectare for primary schools with up to 300 pupils? I hope he may find that of use. Does he recall that on 20th June last my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington asked him how many playing fields had been

231
sold since the issue of the Education (School Premises) Regulations? The Minister at that time was unable to confirm or deny my noble friend's figure of some 5,000 playing fields. Can he do so now?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no, for the simple reason that we do not collect the figures centrally. As regards the first part of the question, the noble Lord gave only a partial answer. Of course the school playing fields regulations cover size; but—and this is very important—they also cover the condition of those playing fields in order to ensure that they are capable of being used for so many hours a week.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have been in the House longer than the Minister has, and I ask him to take note of what I have to say. When the Education Reform Bill and other Bills were going through the House, the Opposition opposed certain measures. It is since that time that the Government have come round to the Opposition's point of view. They have made the national curriculum less prescriptive and have changed the testing. They have come round to the Opposition's point of view in a great number of cases.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall accept that the noble Baroness has been here slightly longer than I have and I shall accept that the noble Baroness probably has slightly more experience of education Bills than I do. But I have to say that her view of what has happened is the most Humpty-Dumpty view of things I have ever heard in my life.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to intervene since I, too, dealt with the Education Reform Bill. My noble friend's view is precisely right. I can still remember the occasion when an amendment to the Bill on the national curriculum, which was proposed by me and the late Lord Joseph, was opposed by the Government. All the Peers opposite who were not present for the debate then trooped into the Government Lobby and defeated us. But a couple of years went by and the Government completely changed the curriculum exactly along the lines my noble friend suggested.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I change not one word of what I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady David.

Delegated Powers and Deregulation: Select Committee
3.28 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power; to report on documents laid before Parliament under Section 3(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on draft
232
orders laid under Section 1(4) of that Act; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Alexander of Weedon (Chairman),

L. Ampthill,

L. Archer of Sandwell,

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Kingsland,

B. Perry of Southwark,

L. Shepherd,

L. Wigoder;

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on the Committee or a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out; and
That the Committee do meet on Wednesday 30th October at half-past ten o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I must apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for the misspelling of his name in the Motion. It appears in the Motion as Lord Pry-Davies. That is not only wrong but Pry-Davies might give quite the wrong impression, for that distinguished Member of your Lordships' House is neither a prying person nor anything of that kind save, perhaps, in the best traditions of your Lordships' House as a person with an inquiring and investigative mind. I shall seek, with your Lordships' permission, to put the mistake right and therefore beg to move the Motion as amended.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with any Committee appointed by the Commons to consider:

(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

233

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an Order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and any draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994; and

(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures;

with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective;

or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it, and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case;
That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee:

V. Addison,

L. Brooks of Tremorfa,

L. Meston,

V. Oxfuird,

234

L. Prys-Davies,

L. Shaughnessy,

L. Skelmersdale;

That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to agree with any Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by any Committee appointed by the Commons; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with any Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument;
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee of the Committee such explanations as the department think fit;
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time; and
That the Committee do meet with any Committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 29th October at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene to point out that the Welsh language version of "pry" translates into English as "fly".
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am very grateful that this afternoon we have had more than one lesson in the Welsh language.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be appointed as the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session:

L. Aberdare,

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Ampthill,

L. Broadridge,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Burnham,

L. Chesham,

L. Cocks of Hartcliffe,

235

B. Cox,

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Elliot of Morpeth,

L. Geraint,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

B. Hooper,

E. Listowell,

B. Lockwood,

L. Lyell,

L. McColl of Dulwich,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

B. Nicol,

V. Oxfuird,

V. St. Davids,

B. Serota,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.30 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Gray of Contin—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, today it is proposed that we discuss environment, agriculture, local government and education. That is a fairly wide spread. Each subject would comfortably merit a day of debate on its own, but that privilege is denied us.
The environment is important. We are all part of it. We live in it; what we do affects it; and how we affect it determines what kind of place we leave for our children and their children. I am always amazed by one statistic provided by the United Nations in 1960, namely, that there were then 3,000 million people in the world and that that number would double by the year 2000. We are virtually there. When one considers that it took from the time of the Pharaohs, through the periods of our Lord, William the Conqueror, the Middle Ages, the First World War, the Second World War and right up to 1960 to reach 3,000 million, that in 40 years that figure has doubled, and that, according to the pundits, it will double again to 12,000 million in another 25 years, it is quite a frightening thought. These people all have to be "fitted in" to this universe. At the same time we have to protect the wildlife, the natural habitats, the flora, the fauna, the jungles and the rain forests. So the pressures on the environment will be immense.
236
When the human population is multiplied four times over a period of some 65 years, colossal changes will be bound to be made and previously unthought of constraints will have to be invoked. No "hobby-horse" or "interest" can afford to be extracted from this whole equation and pursued by dedicated enthusiasts at the expense of others if reason is to prevail.
I find the statistics devastating. No contemplation of the environment is complete if they are disregarded. So what we do with the environment is vital.
If you ask people whether they like intensified agriculture—I should declare an interest in that I am involved in agriculture—the chances are that, understandably, they will say no. But there is a perfectly respectable argument which says that if we are to prevent as much incursion into the natural forests and jungles of the world as possible and if we are to feed the growing number of people whose standards of living, let us remember, are increasing at the same time, then that part of the world's surface which is used for agriculture should be made to produce as much as possible in order to conserve from agriculture as much of the remainder of the land as is possible.
The Hudson Institute calculates that intensive farming has saved the cultivation of more than 10 million square miles of previously unused land. The combined use of fertilisers and pesticides is estimated to have increased yields threefold in the past 30 years. In the developing countries nearly half the food produced is never eaten either because it is damaged in transit or because it goes bad. In the West though waste has been cut to between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. Much of this is due to the part which chemicals play in ensuring hygienic methods of food manufacturing and preparation.
I find it remarkable that in the United Kingdom 30 per cent. of the energy consumed is for refrigeration which relies on chemicals for coolants. A lot of food nowadays is subject to refrigeration.
I supply these facts because it is important to acknowledge that the tools which have been given to industry and to agriculture are good ones whether they are chemicals, fertilisers or machinery. But we have to ensure that they are used properly, that they are used to the overall benefit of mankind and they are not, by their misuse, used to its detriment. Therefore, they have to be subject to proper and prudent controls.
Agriculture is a very important and very successful industry, even though one part of it is at present facing terrible experiences over BSE. The Government will strive to create the right climate for business development—low interest rates and low inflation—and it will be up to the industry to seize the market opportunities which become available. In order to be able to do that, the industry will have to be, and remain, competitive.
Further reform of the common agriculture policy is essential. In its present form, it holds back the agriculture industry. It distorts markets and imposes excessive costs on taxpayers and consumers. Quotas and other production controls prevent European farming from developing into an efficient, competitive industry.

237
It is essential too that we do our best to conserve wildlife. We have English Nature to advise on this under the distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
Speaking in the debate on the gracious Speech last Thursday, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, whom I am glad to see in his place today, said that he was surprised that it contained no mention of reform of your Lordships' House. I am bound to tell your Lordships that I did suggest to my advisers that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment might "lean upon" my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. My right honourable friend never does such things. It was an erroneous thought from an ignorant junior Minister which prompted such an idea—to declare your Lordships' House a site of special scientific interest. After all, within it, in the form of hereditary Peers, is an endangered species. They are to be wiped out at the behest of one man, the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, ably buttressed, if I may say so, by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House.
I may have some very good advice. I am told that there are only about 1,000 of the species left in the world and, presumably, hereditary Peers—if one can so put it without undue modesty—are a few rungs higher up the ladder than the dung beetle. I am further advised that Peers fall into two categories, the pure bred hereditary species and the feral kind, the life Peers, whose life is like the dragonfly, colourful, energetic and short.
I am told that parliamentary ornithologists have noted that flocks of Peers cluster round such watering holes as the Cholmondeley Room at dusk where food supplies are in abundance and that weekly migrations are also observed to well established feeding grounds, often purpose-built by conservationists such as Repton or Brown.
Migrations further afield to warmer climes in the summer months are also noted, although ornithologists are puzzled by the need to migrate at the hottest times of the year.
I am told that human beings are not covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act and that, therefore, the House in which this endangered species at present exists cannot be described as being a site of special scientific interest and that, anyhow, a site is something upon which building contractors live. It is not a suitable description for the Mother of Parliaments. So my suggestion, as most of them do, came to nothing.
Nevertheless, I am bound to tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that when he extends his imagination—as we all do from time to time—to the limits of its capacity and when he conjures up the thought of being in government, he should desist from the idea of expunging the hereditary Peers from the parliamentary system for one good reason.
Once the hereditary Peers have gone, gone is the restraining influence of your Lordships' House. Those who remain will say, "We were sent here to do a job. Now that we have got rid of 'the baggage' (as they might put it); and now that we no longer have that
238
restraining factor, at last we can do our job properly. We can stand up against another place and we will do so with impunity, without fear and without let or hindrance." Confrontation with another place—and the opportunity for such confrontation—would be frequent. It would be bitter and it would be deeply resented. I just hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will advise his right honourable friend to temper his enthusiasm and to think of that. That is one reason why no such suggestion appears in the gracious Speech, which seemed to be the cause of such puzzlement to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.
Another part of the environment, which does appear in the Queen's Speech, is the Local Government and Rating Bill. This had its First Reading in another place last Thursday; it includes a number of proposals to enact many of our undertakings in the rural White Paper which relate to parish councils. The rural White Paper reaffirmed the Government's support of parish councils, and last week we produced a progress report on what has been achieved since the original White Paper was introduced 12 months ago.
In the Bill we intend to give additional and specific powers to parish councils to promote community transport in their areas. Many rural communities are isolated and are not well served by public transport. Under the Bill, parishes will now have the opportunity to come up with innovative solutions to those problems.
Parish councils can also play an important role in assisting the police with their work. Parishes will be able to fund crime prevention measures, including installing equipment which can help to prevent crime and to assist with crime detection.
The Local Government and Rating Bill will also introduce new ways to create, alter or abolish parish councils. The Bill will allow parishes to be created following a local petition—a proposal taken from the Community Representation Bill which was introduced last Session by my noble friend Lord Sandys. The Bill also includes measures urged upon us by my noble friend Lord Mottistone about the timing of parish council elections.
Not only are we anxious to make the creation of parish councils easier; we are also keen to give them a greater voice in the wider affairs of local government. The proposed legislation will therefore give the Secretary of State power to require districts and counties to consult parish councils on a range of issues which concern them.
The Local Government and Rating Bill will also include important measures to help to ensure the viability of small rural communities. Village shops and post offices are the life-blood of many small rural communities but they have been disappearing at an alarming rate. People like to go and shop in the supermarket because they like the variety, the convenience, and the price. But they also want—and often need—the village shop. The closing of a village store can remove the hub of a village and can be a severe blow to the community, especially to the elderly and to those without ready access to private transport.

239
We intend therefore to halve their rates bills. In order to qualify for assistance, the general store or post office must be in a community of 3,000 people or fewer.
The Bill will also give local authorities new discretionary powers to enable them to reduce or to waive the remainder of the rates bill. They will also be able to use these discretionary powers to help other businesses in the village. Pubs, for instance, have an important social function in the life of a village. Other businesses can provide much-needed employment to local people or may provide necessary goods and services. Local authorities, therefore, will be able to reduce or to waive the rates bills of any business which they consider to be important to the local community.
Local government has always played an important part in our democratic system. Councils account for a quarter of public spending. They provide a number of important public services and help to shape their local communities.
On 19th July the ad hoc Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Relations between Central and Local Government published its report entitled Rebuilding Trust on the present state of those relations. The committee made a number of recommendations, and we shall be publishing our response shortly.
The gracious Speech announced the Government's intention to introduce a Bill on education. The Bill is a further step in the Government's continued pursuit of higher standards in education. Through the national curriculum, testing, inspections, and performance tables, we have enabled parents, the community and the taxpayer to know what is going on in the schools. Schools have now become more accountable, especially to parents. Heads and governors are now—quite rightly—answerable for the standards of their schools.
It may well be that my noble friend Lord Henley will describe the Bill more fully in due course. The main points are that there will be measures which are directly aimed at raising standards in schools. These will include provision for an assessment of children entering primary schools.
The Bill will require all schools to set targets for improving their performance. The powers of the Office for Standards in Education will be extended so that it can inspect local education authorities, and the Bill will allow more freedom for schools to select their pupils by ability or aptitude, including the encouraging of more grammar schools.
But measures to raise standards will be of no use if lessons are disrupted by indiscipline and by bad behaviour. Discipline in the classroom is an absolute prerequisite for learning. The somewhat namby-pamby attitude towards discipline in school, which has developed over the past 50 years, has done little good either to the teachers or the taught. Not only has it frustrated the ability to educate, but it has often discharged students from school with a disregard for the virtues of discipline in society as a whole. It is good that steps are being taken to deal with that. Not all schools
240
or all classrooms, of course, have problems. But where there are problems there have to be effective methods of dealing with them.
Although there is no legislation this Session designed specifically to promote environmental protection, it remains central to large parts of government activity—
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene, not on his point about endangered species but on a more serious point. The noble Earl has been talking about discipline in the classroom. Are the Government, of whom he is the spokesman this afternoon, considering the reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools as the Secretary of State hinted this morning on the "Today" programme, or are they not, as the Prime Minister apparently told her in the course of the morning?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a very interesting subject and I would be delighted to give the noble Lord an answer which would be a colourful one. However, it would probably be better if my noble friend Lord Henley replied to that question as he will deal with education in due course—
Lord Richard: Answer!
Earl Ferrers: Yes, the noble Lord will get the answer. I could give him the answer now, but I would prefer my noble friend to do so—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has had his go. He has made his own speech. He has asked a perfectly good question and he will get his reply, but I shall leave that to my noble friend Lord Henley because I do not want to spoil my noble friend's fun.
Following the Rio Summit of 1992, the Government are committed, through their sustainable development strategy, to reconciling the two aims of environmental protection and of economic development. Economic development and the protection of the environment are not antitheses. They can go together and, indeed, they must go together. It is the Government's intention to see that they do.
The Government are also preparing for next year's Kyoto conference on climate change where we shall seek international agreement to tougher targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions after the year 2000. The pollution of the atmosphere, whether by vehicle exhausts, chimneys, manufacturing processes or whatever, is bound to have to be controlled if we are to preserve reasonable conditions in which so many people will have to live in the future.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said that if we in this country go on as we are, with a bigger population, more second homes, more single parent families, more families regrettably breaking up but each party wishing to live, when separated, in similar housing arrangements as they

241
did when together, then some 4.4 million extra houses will have to be built in the next 25 years. That is quite a problem for the planners, for the environment and for the country as a whole and I have no doubt that there will be plenty of debate on that.
There is much to be done on the environment—on its protection and on its enhancement—in the next year both inside Parliament and outside it. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will not hesitate to take such measures as will be necessary both to protect it and to enhance it.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the noble Earl has pointed out, your Lordships will be familiar with the difficulties of today's discussion which takes place during the seamless debate on the Address. It is always a mish-mash of a day. The introductory speech of the noble Earl—I make no criticism of it—illustrated the nature of the problem. I welcome the fact that the noble Earl, after his tribulations of the summer, is now restored to us in health and, judging by his performance today, full vigour. His plea on behalf of endangered species—hereditary Peers—was most affecting. I am sure that when finally he disappears from this environment he will be able to make that speech elsewhere and produce the same tears as your Lordships produced for him today.
The menu de jour is difficult to address. It contains many subjects of a wide-ranging and disparate nature. I propose to concentrate my remarks on two out of the four principal topics listed for today: the environment and local government. I will not say very much about education, which will be dealt with in greater depth by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris when he comes to wind up. I am sure that it will come to your Lordships as an infinite relief to hear that I intend to say virtually nothing about agriculture. I recognise that in all this your Lordships' intellectual digestion may be somewhat tested—mine has been—but that is the menu before us today. If it provides any reassurance, I propose to be like the dragonfly mentioned by the noble Earl: I will be colourful and short. As that befits a life Peer as opposed to an hereditary Peer, I am sure that noble Lords opposite will appreciate it. Furthermore, in all that I say there will be two unifying themes, which are represented in the amendment to be moved tomorrow by my noble friend Lord Peston: social cohesion and integrity.
To take my list of topics in reverse order, I begin by saying virtually nothing about agriculture. I say virtually nothing partly because there were two debates on agriculture in this House before Prorogation and partly because I find it difficult to address the present major complaint against the Government. The Government's intention to help—I extend them the courtesy of using the word "help"—a large section of the farming community and the subsidiary services which depend upon it has been, at one and the same time, so devious and ludicrous that I find it difficult to refer to it with anything that resembles a straight face. As an outsider to the farming industry, which is what I am, it seems to be no more than an ignoble and unpleasant farce.
242
But I am afraid that I cannot leave it there, much as I would like to. Those of my neighbours in Wales who are farmers are not in a laughing mood. The only laughter that I detected, which was cynical rather than humorous, arose when they noticed that the BSE programme launched by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seemed to have been taken over by a newly-formed Ministry, soon christened the Ministry for Silly Hats. To leave aside that Welsh jeu d'esprit, the truth is that my neighbours are much nearer to tears than laughter as they see their overdrafts rise to accommodate the financial burdens with which the Government have saddled them. On a very sombre note, there has been a marked rise in the suicide rate among farmers in Mid-Wales. The best I can do is to pass over the whole sad shambles in respectful and sorrowful silence, noting in passing that the Government's reputation for integrity has, at least in one section of our community, suffered a fatal blow.
I wish that I could give your Lordships a better report on the Government's reputation in education. I give an example. No doubt your Lordships will recall that in the last Session we were occupied for a time with the Education (Student Loans) Act. The Bill, as it then was, was brought in against opposition from universities, banks, building societies, parents and students. Nevertheless, we were told by the Government in the most authoritative manner that financial institutions would fall over themselves in the rush to secure a piece of this new and lucrative market. The Bill was forced through by use of the in-built Conservative majority in this House. No amendment was accepted and no challenge to the Government's wisdom was entertained. Your Lordships are entitled to ask: what was the result? The result was that deep in the slumber of the Long Recess a government announcement was slipped out to the effect that the whole matter was to be dropped. The message—such as it was—went on to give the reason for that reversal in suitably mournful terms. It was said that there had been insufficient interest on the part of financial institutions—something which the Government had been told all along.
The net effect of the whole elaborate exercise was that your Lordships' time was wasted, the Government antagonised the universities and showed themselves to be not just incompetent—for that they could be forgiven, because they have been forgiven their incompetence often enough over the past 17 years—but dishonest. Their reputation for integrity with a second section of our community took another fatal blow.
We now learn from the gracious Speech that the Government are to bring forward another education Bill. By our calculation, that will be the eighteenth education Bill in 18 years of Conservative government. That is one for each and every year. By any standards, it is an astonishing legislative record. Every year we have stood by while the Government have tinkered yet again with the educational system. But there is no evidence whatever to demonstrate that that tinkering has done anything to solve the problem which really matters and on which the future of our country depends.

243
The simple problem, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his introduction, is: how can we raise the standard of education from its present abyss to a point where the vast majority of our children whose parents cannot afford to send them to public school will be able to compete on equal terms with their contemporaries in the rest of the developed world? That is the real question, and nothing that I have seen so far from the Government comes near to answering it. We are still low, and falling lower, in the international league table. Unless that question is seriously addressed and answered we will continue to fall further behind our competitors. As that happens the social effects will be little short of disastrous. It will then be no good trying to preserve social cohesion, to return to the words of the amendment to be moved by my noble friend tomorrow; it will be a matter of trying to keep the United Kingdom show on the road.
A further topic today is local government. Your Lordships will be aware, perhaps with a degree of weariness, that I have spoken on this matter on a number of occasions, and I do not wish to bore your Lordships yet again with my views. There is one positive note. The arrival this summer of the new Local Government Association will provide a single voice for local government that is much to be welcomed, provided the Government will listen. But against that I must express my disappointment that the gracious Speech was so thin on the matter. Of course, we welcome the provisions for parish and community councils in England and Wales, and I will come back to that in a minute. Small village shops, too, are no doubt worthy of your Lordships' favourable attention, although my preliminary observation is that that particular horse has almost certainly escaped—already out and away into the next county—before the Government have even thought about a bolt to shut the stable door.
But our real and serious charge is that there is nothing in the gracious Speech to suggest that the Government have understood, in any sense whatsoever, the vital need to restore the authority and integrity of local democracy. My noble friend Lord Richard quite rightly pointed out last Thursday that the Government had not understood the need for devolved democracy in Scotland and Wales. I emphasise his point by the supporting assertion that, yet again, the Government have not understood the very simple principle that all decisions should be taken at the democratic level which is nearest to the people concerned compatible with efficient delivery of the service. That is the principle we should adopt. That is the only way to revitalise our local communities and reverse the malign effects of the centralisation to Westminster which has taken place over these many years. I am glad that your Lordships will in the not too distant future have an opportunity to debate the very important report produced by the ad hoc committee of your Lordships' House set up to study the relations between central and local government. I look forward to that. I will have an opportunity then to deploy the arguments of my party in favour of the decentralisation which we advocate.
244
Nevertheless, there are two point that can be made now, since both are relevant to the proposals mentioned in the gracious Speech for parish and community councils. First, I can never understand why Conservatives howl like wounded beasts if power, or "sovereignty" as they like to call it, seems to them to be moving away from Westminster and towards the European Union, and yet will never accede to a devolution of power on sovereignty downwards from Westminster to elected local authorities. Subsidiarity, my Lords, like charity, begins at home; and we cannot say that too often. One of these days, I hope that the party opposite will get the message.
The second point is this. It was all very well having local boundary changes, produced by different methods and with different degrees of confusion in England and in Scotland and Wales, but it is far from clear what the whole exercise served, apart from some attempted gerrymandering to achieve greater Conservative representation on local authorities. "Not much" seems to be the answer, and we must all ask ourselves, since a great deal of money has been spent on this project, "what was the effect?". Not very much.
Oddly enough, the truly interesting result of the Banham Commission (that was the one which was sacked because it refused to give the answers the Government wanted) was in the research it commissioned. The methodology of the research, and some of the results, have recently been published by those in the research organisation MORI who were responsible. They identified a clear distinction between "affective" attachment to a community or an authority and "effective" attachment to a service deliverer. I simplify grossly their conclusions, but they are broadly: 31 per cent. of their very large sample (but, of course, only in England) hardly identified with any community at all. By and large, these were people who were young, had just moved in, or who were in urban or semi-urban areas, with a bias towards the South East. A further 26 per cent. of the sample, however, identified strongly with their village or street community. As for the rest, the percentages tail off: the counties, for example, are the least favoured authorities, commanding a high level of identification only from older, long-standing residents and those who live in, and take an interest in, the historic county in which they live.
Now that identification is described as "affective"—a sense of belonging. But alongside this "affective" attachment, there is a general and clear understanding that "effective" local services are delivered at a level higher than the street or the parish—the district, or the county. That, of course, makes obvious, logical sense. People are not stupid. They know that fire services cannot in the modern world be delivered from the parish pump. The same is true of a large number of local services which we have now come to take for granted. We all know where to go to complain if the rubbish is not collected.
It seems to me and to my noble friends that this is where the political challenge lies—to decentralise as near as possible to the point to which people are "affectively" attached while ensuring an "effective" delivery of service. The corollary—and it would be a

245
fool who ignored this—is the challenge to do our best to generate a greater degree of "affective" attachment to the "effective" local infrastructure. The last thing people want is to see their daily lives being run by unaccountable quangos and remote authorities.
There are many ways of improving the current situation, which we will no doubt debate when the committee's report comes before your Lordships' House. Elected mayors, for instance, or annual elections may be the answer; but for goodness' sake let us all agree on two simple things: first, that we need to generate more enthusiasm in the "local" content of local elections, so that they are not simply a referendum—I realise that the word causes shivers in the party opposite—on what is going on at Westminster; and, secondly, that local authorities can no longer be burdened by central government with tasks for which resources cannot be found.
I recognise that there are those in the party opposite who question the need for local government at all. We take issue with them, not just on the grounds that our society is and should be pluralistic, but also because in our view local government is the steward, protector and enabler in so many aspects of ordinary life. In particular, and here I move on to my last topic, local government has to take the lead, in partnership with central government and the voluntary sector, in the promotion of a realistic environmental agenda. The noble Earl was very eloquent on the subject, but, sadly, there was hardly a word about the environment in the gracious Speech. There was not a word about the follow-up to the Rio Summit of 1992, not a word about acid rain, not a word about pollution in our cities, not a word about sustainable development, energy conservation, Agenda 21, biodiversity, waste management—all has been forgotten. The hopes and aspirations we all had a few years ago seem to have disappeared in an impenetrable fog of half measures and indecision.
Why is this? Why is the environment not given the prominence in the gracious Speech it deserves? The sad answer, I am afraid, is to be found in the approach of the next general election. Environmental worries are not winners in the short term, and the Government are quite obviously looking to the very short term. But your Lordships would be unwise to mistake the concern about the environment that many people have, particularly the younger generations, or the feeling that we are not yet near to coming to grips with the problem of the inexorable destruction of our own planet. And unless we are much more resolute in the matter I am afraid that our children and our grandchildren will curse us in the years to come.
It has been said that a Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy. In case your Lordships cannot immediately recall the source of the saying, it was none other than Disraeli in a speech in the House of Commons on 17th March 1845. Things do not change much, and what is on offer in the gracious Speech is as good an illustration of Disraeli's remark as any of the other destructive programmes which we have seen from the Government in the past few years. What is on offer is not designed to provide good government; it is not designed to promote social cohesion; it is not designed
246
to restore the integrity of the parliamentary process or enhance the reputation of our country abroad. It is designed with only one aim in mind: to preserve Ministers' skins. I can say only that I hope, profoundly and devoutly, that in that objective it fails miserably in the manner it deserves.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in this debate on the gracious Speech I shall be talking, funnily enough, about agriculture. My noble friend Lord Beaumont will talk about the environment and my noble friend Lord Tope will deal with education and local government. As always, I enjoyed the Minister's speech, which contained the usual mixture of humour, fact and misrepresentation. At the start he touched on a good point: in this world we need modern agriculture. We need scientific aids without which, when applied all over the world, many people throughout the world would starve. We must have those aids, and scientific and modern agriculture has done a great deal of good.
That does not mean that we must not monitor what the scientists and firms are doing to promote weedkillers and other various aids. It is true that the public are distrustful of the whole issue. In many cases they are misinformed about it, but that is the fault of those in the agricultural industry and of the Government for failing to make clear that a close watch is kept and that the aids concerned do not lead to vast quantities of residues which can harm human beings. It is remarkable how well the situation has been controlled but in some cases damage has been done to the environment and that is being put right. The number of chemicals and pest controls is falling fast and the controls are becoming more efficient. We must monitor them; but the essential point, as the Minister said, is that without them many people in the world would starve.
In the gracious Speech only one agricultural Bill was announced; it is the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill. It is a good idea. The Government reluctantly own a great deal of crofting land in the Scottish Highlands. Neither they nor the crofters are pleased about the situation. If the Government can set up bodies which will competently manage the estates, promote agriculture and crofting and give the crofters a sense of responsibility by playing their parts in the trusts, that can do nothing but good. I see that they have opened their hearts to providing in Clause 3 of the Bill that the Secretary of State may provide financial assistance for the start-up costs. It is inevitable that he will not provide enough but it is a start. I look forward to examining the Bill in detail when it comes before the House.
In the forthcoming Session agriculture will require a great deal of the Government's attention. We can hope only that the situation will be handled better and that there will be no repeat of the appalling mess that was made in handling BSE during the past six months. It is incredible that, for example, the Minister of Agriculture can make an agreement in Florence and then later go back and say that we have fresh evidence. We had no fresh evidence; we had a scientific evaluation which agreed with the commonsense view that the incidence of

247
BSE was falling so fast that the disease would disappear within three or four years. The Ministers of Agriculture in Europe said, "No, we do not believe that that is true. We should stick to the agreement". Back comes the Minister of Agriculture and we renounce the agreement. How on earth can we do business in that way? It is not possible. It would be almost incredible, except that most things are credible when one looks at some of this Government's actions.
The future handling of the BSE crisis is extremely important. It appears that by Christmas we should have caught up on the backlog relating to animals over 30 months which are being held at great expense on farms throughout the country. But why on earth should the farmers who have held on to their beasts longer receive less money than those who were able to get them away early? It is ludicrous to reduce the price by as much as £50 a beast to the farmers who have kept them longer. I hope that the Government will stick to their promise to look at that situation and rethink the whole question of compensation for the feeders of animals.
The important people are not those in the arable section who buy and fatten the cattle. They have had a good year in cereals, although they will not have such a good year this year. Nevertheless, they have had two or three prosperous years and they can take a chance on buying cheap and selling at a profit. The people who are suffering, have suffered and will suffer more are those in the uplands who run the herds. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, instanced the state of farming in Wales by the simple fact that the number of suicides among farmers has risen. I believe that there is enormous despair throughout the country.
The figures for hill farming are ridiculous. The price that farmers receive for their store cattle, the calves sold, has fallen by 25 per cent.; about £100 a beast. If a farmer has 50 cattle, or 50 calves, that is £5,000. If he has 100 cattle on a hill, it is £10,000. Last year the average specialist beef farmer on the hills was making £9,000. It is obvious that those farmers are facing disaster. We cannot talk about the hill farmers of this country entering into a wider, more competitive market because all parties are agreed that they have another function. In the hills they have an environmental function. Recently Scottish National Heritage and the Scottish NFU issued a joint statement. Magnus Magnusson, chairman of Scottish National Heritage, and the chairman of the Scottish NFU called on the Government to ensure that that function was continued not only for the benefit of the individual farmer but for the maintenance of cattle and the environment. The maintenance of cattle on the hills is most important. As we all know, sheep and deer graze selectively; they nip out the good grasses and leave the rough ones to expand. The cattle beast has a big mouth and broad teeth and he grazes and mows down the grass. He has a great effect on improving the grazing and grass and general environment in the valley bottoms.
Therefore, if we are serious about the environment and supporting the hill farmers, then we must do something about it. So far the Government have restored partially a cut which they made in 1994 on the hill cow
248
and hill ewe allowances but they have not restored it beyond inflation. They need to do much more. I ask the Minister whether the Government are considering seriously a substantial payment towards those farms in the hills this year so that they have a future, although it will still be very uncertain. It is extremely important that the Minister should assure us that the Government will do something about that.
There are many other steps which the Government must take in agriculture. We must have a system of registration. It is very interesting that in Northern Ireland the Irish have set up a completely computerised system whereby they can follow every beast in the country: they can say where it comes from and where to find it, in the same way as one can find out the owner of a motor car from its registration number.
It is interesting that that has been done in Northern Ireland, because in my view among the officials in Northern Ireland there is a residual effect of the Stormont Parliament which was an excellent example of technical efficiency. It was not so good on human rights but as regards technical matters and agriculture it was extremely efficient. It operated well because the people there knew exactly what they were doing in their own country. Also, very good people stood for the Stormont Parliament, much better than those who stood for the Westminster Parliament.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I do not understand why the Government are so against devolution when the examples of it in their own country and elsewhere—Germany and the United States—show that it leads to competence and efficiency. The Scottish Office, which is after all representative of a party which has minute support in Scotland, fights against their colleagues in England but cannot promote anything properly here.
I could go on about that but I shall not. The Government have been told often enough and the evidence before them shows what a mess they have made. I only hope that they will do better, because they are there for some months yet. The opportunity is there if they will take it.
In the future the Government must prepare for the entry of the eastern European countries into the eastern European union. Agriculture is one of the great sticking points. It is all very well to talk about introducing competitiveness, world prices and so on. The Government must persuade the Ministers of Agriculture in Germany, France and in particular in Austria, that that is desirable. They will not succeed if they continue to break agreements on BSE and threaten to withhold support from laudable projects in order to gain concessions. They must realise that if they are to have influence in Europe, they will need to behave properly. The fact is that the eastern European countries—in particular, Hungary and Poland—are advancing fast in agriculture. They will be producing much more cheaply and just as efficiently as us in three years. Therefore, we must aim to support the desirable environmental features by the nations concerned direct from their own resources and with regard to principles of subsidiarity and then we shall have open competition and we can

249
compete in the world. We can do that but we must get over the very proper passion of the Austrians, Germans and Bavarians for their small farms and environment in the countryside. The Government have a lot to do. I hope that they have the wit to do it, but I doubt it.
4.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I begin with an apology to the Minister who is to reply to the debate if I am not in my place when he comes to speak. I hope to be here until 7.30 but I must leave at that time for another engagement. I am well aware of the conventions of your Lordships' House and I ask for forgiveness for transgressing on this occasion.
I listened with great enjoyment to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I am sure that many of the views which he expressed would be shared by my North Yorkshire farming neighbours. However, I wish to speak on an entirely different theme; that is, education.
As I left home this morning from Ripon, almost the last sentence I heard was a request or rather, perhaps, an exhortation from one of my diocesan education team to remember the stress under which teachers are working at present. That stress arises from a number of factors. One of them, surely, is a sense among teachers that the status of their profession in the eyes of others is lowly regarded; that people are pointing the finger and somehow expecting schools, and perhaps schools alone, to solve the problems which are endemic in our society. Low morale is widespread.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, talked about the raising of standards and the level of education. Surely the major key to the raising of standards is the calibre of teachers. If teachers of real calibre are to be attracted and continue to be attracted to the profession, what is most needed is that the profession itself is held in high regard; that teachers are recognised and affirmed in the work that they do.
One of the chief points in the initiative of Mrs. Frances Lawrence, who deserves both our sympathy in her loss and our admiration for the way she has responded, is the raising of the status of the teaching profession.
I am frequently in schools of every kind—secondary, primary, independent, aided, maintained, county, urban and rural—and from those many visits I have an overwhelming impression of committed teachers working professionally and enthusiastically to encourage learning and growth in their pupils. I find that that is especially true in those inner city schools in Leeds which I visit.
Teachers need recognition of the worth and quality of their work. I pay tribute to them. It would be foolish to pretend that the quality is invariably of a high standard or that there are no weak and ineffective teachers. But the overall judgment that I make is that on the whole, teachers are dedicated, concerned for their pupils and professional in their standards. On that basis, there is much that can be built upon to continue to raise standards, as both the Government and the Opposition recognise needs to be done.
250
The gracious Speech makes reference to the Bill which will be introduced. It is difficult to give an undiluted welcome to the proposals of the Bill. I welcome some parts of it. I welcome the assessment of children entering school because I believe that that will provide a kind of base measurement and will enable schools to begin to work with the notion of added value: how much our children are learning from the point at which they started. Many of us have been arguing that it is added value which schools need to be measuring rather than any absolute standard.
I have to say that among the Church-aided heads to whom I have talked there is little enthusiasm for selection. There is widespread enthusiasm for streaming and, indeed, for setting. It seems to me that the reason for that is a fairly simple one; namely, that youngsters differ in their abilities. For example, they may be good at one subject and bad at another. I was bright at mathematics but a total dunce at divinity. I know that some of my dioceses think that I have remained so ever since. The point that I am making is that we are not all good at the same subjects. Streaming—or, perhaps even better, setting—takes care of that, thus enabling youngsters to learn and be taught in a particular subject at a level which is appropriate to them. But that is different from the notion of selection, for which, as I say, I find little enthusiasm among those in Church schools to whom I talk.
Much of the debate in recent weeks has focused on morality and behaviour, particularly in schools. I welcome the undertaking in the gracious Speech to improve discipline in schools. One of the significant factors in maintaining morale, to which I drew attention at the beginning of my intervention, is having a clear, achievable task. It seems to me that one of the difficulties for teachers is that it is not clear what is expected of them, especially in the field of moral and spiritual development.
I heard with interest the suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle yesterday. I should like to ask the Government whether they will perhaps reflect upon that suggestion; namely, that, when heads are being trained for the posts which they are about to take up, part of that training should be in the field of moral and spiritual development. It is a field which receives little attention in initial teacher training. I believe that the teacher training agency would be open to a suggestion that this particular area should receive attention in the professional training which heads receive.
The expectations which we are laying upon heads, upon staff and upon schools generally are considerable. I should like us to reflect upon how one or two of those expectations might be realised. Any community needs boundaries beyond which members of that community should not be permitted to stray. I do not mean physical boundaries but moral and behavioural ones. The setting of such boundaries is an important part of a school's task, but even more difficult is the matter of sanctions when those boundaries are crossed. I am sure that the House enjoyed the exchange between the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on the

251
matter of corporal punishment. Behind that is the vital issue of what sanctions it is proper to use when boundaries are crossed which should not be.
I am glad that the Government are responding to concerns in the area of sanctions, particularly over the issue of detention and over the matter of how long exclusions can be maintained. I have to say that I am less happy over corporal punishment, especially in inner-city areas where the level of violence in families may be high. In my view, heightening the level of violence in schools does nothing to solve the problem.
The matter of exclusions is a highly contentious and difficult one as we have witnessed in recent events. It is a matter of balancing the welfare of an individual disruptive pupil against the welfare of the school as a whole. I believe that that in itself is a moral decision which has to be made. Of course heads must have the right to exclude pupils who have become so disruptive that the welfare of other pupils is at stake. However, it also seems to me that there must be proper provision for those who are permanently excluded. I am glad to see the continuing role which the Government envisage for local education authorities, one of which is the provision of units for excluded pupils. I urge that those units be of high standard. I know that cost is a key factor, but the cost of failing those pupils who are excluded may well be much higher than the cost of providing proper support for them at an earlier stage.
While speaking of boundaries, perhaps I may refer briefly to another one; namely, the actual physical boundary of the school and the matter of security, which, again, has been raised in recent weeks. It is clear that schools need to be safe places, but, at the same time, they cannot be fortresses. One of the tools which is being used is that of closed circuit television. I have been told that some schools are being required to bid for such security provision in conjunction with a much wider local bid. They are not allowed to bid on their own. I should like some comment from the Government on whether that is the case or whether schools do have the possibility of bidding for such a valuable security tool.
Another task for teachers is the furnishing of role models, which is true both in primary and in secondary schools. Here, again, we have the matter to which I referred earlier; namely, the calibre of teachers, which is of such significance. Despite the way in which peer pressure appears to be so predominant in secondary schools, I believe that the task of the teacher in providing a proper role model is a key one. Teachers are highly influential in pupils' lives, not just through the teaching and leaning process but through their common membership of a community in which teachers are the mature members.
I also welcome the initiative from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority directed at placing a new emphasis upon moral questions in A-levels. As I listen to the discussion, it seems to me that there is some confusion over the matter, especially when I read of teaching unions resisting the proposal. This suggestion is not to be confused with moral instruction. That has been made quite clear by
252
Dr. Nick Tate, the Chief Executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Some public pronouncements seem to indicate that all that children need is a knowledge of the Ten Commandments. Of course such knowledge is foundational and I dare to include among the Ten Commandments that which forbids covetousness. I think that that needs to be remembered not just among pupils but also among those in older generations.
Most moral decisions are not black and white ones: they are about weighing and judging. Youngsters need help in how to reach such judgments; for example, in the weighing of elements, the taking into account of previous experience, the reaching of a decision and then living with it and taking responsibility for it. Perhaps we should study how such decisions are reached in, for instance, the context of history. Perhaps I may dare to take one example. I have in mind the way in which the Sykes-Picot Agreement was reached in the Middle East. That decision is of enormous relevance to us now. Alternatively, I could take another example from, say, medicine: the possibilities and the dangers of genetic manipulation. Indeed, to share in the study of how decisions in those areas are reached is also to learn about how we as individuals are to reach decisions. Therefore, I commend that initiative of SCAA.
However, I have to say that I am less happy about the core values which SCAA is proposing, especially when I read that the family is not to be included as a core structure of society. My own belief is that an understanding of the family as father, mother and children is of enormous importance to society. I believe that SCAA is concerned not to undermine the many children in our schools who come from single-parent families. However, I believe that that is not done by asserting that the norm is a particular standard. Unless we assert that norm, we shall continue to drift even further from it.
I have suggested a number of tasks which I hope are reasonably clear. I believe that teachers can undertake such tasks within schools in the whole area of moral development. That will give them clear responsibilities in the field. But, if we are to affirm teachers in this task among the many others that they have to undertake, then we need to remember that morality is not a matter for schools alone but for all of us. The affirmation of teachers is also a recognition of our own responsibilities, for, at the end of the day, each one of us is both educator and pupil.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the subject of today's debate includes education; and it is indeed a great privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. It is a subject on which I propose to speak.
I accept that the raising of the status of teachers is of crucial importance, and that the youngsters need help, especially those with special educational needs and those who come from single parent families—the subject of my speech. Your Lordships have my firm assurance that my speech is in no way politically

253
motivated. It is no part of any contrived rush to storm the citadel of the moral high ground. That is for others, not for me. It is assuredly no reply to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who in this context raised no charge worthy of any reply. I do not believe that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition are either dishonest or gerrymandering, and I would never use such terms about them in this House. Indeed, I have every trust that when the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, replies he will, as always, deal with matters concerning education in a fair and constructive manner, according to his expertise.
In the gracious Speech no mention is made of any measure to amend the regime for children with special educational needs under Part III of the Education Act 1993, re-enacted under Part IV of the Education Act 1996 with effect from 1st November, in a few days' time.
According to the experience of laymen and lawyers who toil in this field, certain defects in that regime work manifest injustice. It is an injustice which was not foreseen either by my noble friend Lady Blatch—I have spoken to her about this—or by any noble Lord when this regime was before your Lordships' House in 1993.
It is agreed that, taken by and large, the regime was a vast improvement. But it was accepted by my noble friend Lady Blatch and by noble Lords on all sides of this House that it was experimental and that if problems arose in the course of implementation remedial measures would be introduced in subsequent legislation. Your Lordships can look at Hansard. It would appear from the Official Report that it was not appreciated in either House that a substantial derogation from the rights of the child with special educational needs would be involved as regards representation, his right to be heard before the special educational needs tribunal, and an appeal from that tribunal to the High Court. It is in that context that remedial measures are requisite.
The main defect which works injustice is that the child with special educational needs, unlike other children, is in effect disenfranchised as all his rights under the regime vest in the parent. This defect may be rectified only by primary legislation so as to afford children with special educational needs who are of sufficient understanding an individual right by a next friend of their own choosing to appeal not only from the decisions of the LEA to the tribunal, but also from the tribunal to the High Court.
By definition, we are concerned with children with special educational needs under the age of 19, registered as pupils at a school, and with parents who need not be natural parents but who may have only parental responsibility or care of the child. And here looms the spectre of the single parent family.
There are many unfortunate circumstances in which a child under the age of 19 has little or no support from his parents: where the parents have lost patience or interest in the child; where relationships have broken down. There are many cases where the child and his parents may disagree as to the appropriate educational provision to be made, especially where the child is over 16 and the parents are not his natural parents but have
254
only responsibility and care. It is a situation not uncommon with children with special educational needs. On occasions brutish, uncontrollable, anti-social behaviour is wholly attributable to conditions such as dyslexia which remains undiagnosed or in want of appropriate treatment—according to the news recently, a relevant factor for indiscipline at the school in Halifax. As your Lordships will appreciate, there is no requirement that the special educational needs co-ordinator appointed by the governors of the school should have any specialist training whatever. And yet, notwithstanding this, the parent alone has the sole right of appeal. In all such circumstances, surely the child ought to have the individual right.
Another problem has arisen because, as this tribunal is a statutory tribunal, there is only an appeal to the High Court on a point of law under Order 55, a far more restrictive right of appeal than that afforded by judicial review. Under the regime as it stands unamended, exclusive right to appeal is conferred on the parent. Such is not the case as regards the interest of any other children in the context of any other educational or child-related matters. Other children, through their next friend, may proceed by way of judicial review with the full benefit of legal aid. Such proceedings are instituted by a next friend in the interests of the child. That has applied across the board in child related matters ever since the Children Act 1989. Legal aid is granted irrespective of the means of the next friend or parent. The situation regarding an appeal from this tribunal is the sole exception to that general rule, and that was not appreciated either by my noble friend Lady Blatch or by any of your Lordships when the measure went through the House.
Although the president's practice direction of March 1996 accepts that the task of the tribunal is to seek out what is in the child's best interest, no doubt in accordance with the overriding provisions of the Children Act, there is no effective means whatever by which that end may be assured; and it is not being assured. The exhortations in the code of practice issued by the department (as in paragraphs 1.3, 2.35 and 3.120) to the effect that the ascertainable wishes of the child should be taken into account are directed only to the LEA, not to the tribunal. The child with special educational needs does not normally attend before the tribunal. His views are not normally heard under the implementing regulations. If he attends, he does so as one of the parents' witnesses and if there are two witnesses, then only by leave, because they are not allowed more than one witness. He has no unassailable, enforceable prior right either to attend or to speak, even if of sufficient understanding.
Concern was expressed in a memorandum, Appendix 15 to the Second Report of the Education Committee in another place, which is available in the Library. It was submitted by the Education Law Association and the London SEN Tribunal Group. The report states that there is a general reluctance to accept evidence direct from children, and that Children Act questions and the decisions of social services were not considered. Members of that association and group include banisters, solicitors, LEA and parents' representatives

255
and educational psychologists. They took the view that the usual allocation of three hours was insufficient in many cases; there was undue pressure of time; and vigorous questioning by the chairman during the course of submissions hindered the presentation and tended to confuse. Furthermore, Regulation 15 was implemented in practice so as to inhibit the attendance of the solicitor before the tribunal if he instructs counsel. As appeal to the High Court is only on a point of law, such attendance is essential in order that a proper note may be taken of the whole proceedings. The effect of such inhibition is compounded by the requirement under Regulation 30 that reasons for the tribunal's decision need only be in summary form: a lesser requirement than obtains for any other statutory tribunal.
In the result and as matters now stand, there is an anomalous two-tier dispensation as regards the interests of children which is tilted against the child with special educational needs as compared with other children who have no such disadvantage. The requirements for statutory tribunals have been relaxed by lesser requirements for this tribunal as regards reasons for decisions and representation. The child with special educational needs may no longer (as was the situation before the 1993 Act) by their next friend appeal to the High Court against education provision by judicial review with the grant of legal aid. Children with special educational needs are wholly dependent upon a parent whose means so often have to be set aside to pay for expenses, special provision or medical treatment for a long, unpredictable period of time; or the disinterested parent; or the parent who disagrees with the child as to appropriate educational provision; or the parent with whom relationships have totally broken down, to mount an appeal.
We are dealing with a situation where the LEA is represented, the parent is represented, but never the child with special educational needs, who may neither be heard nor appeal in his own right. This is the sole exception in child related matters where the parent or next friend is not means tested for legal aid. But this is no mere matter of money. The sums involved are of derisory consequence. Safeguard for the interests of these children alongside those of other children is a question of principle, a domestic realignment of no little consequence.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, as mentioned at the outset, the subjects covered this afternoon are varied, and all are interesting. I therefore make no apology for talking about a subject which is not mentioned in the gracious Speech but which is somewhat related to agriculture. I refer to forestry as a sensible land use proposition. I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party Forestry Group.
As I am anxious to draw the attention of the House to the importance of forestry, I wrote to the Forestry Industry Council, which represents the private sector in forestry. I asked the council for a brief, hoping that
256
anything I might say in this debate would encourage interest in the subject. I received a letter from the secretary stating:
"We are at present engaged in complicated and very delicate negotiations with Forestry Ministers which, taking advice from the Forestry Commission, we cannot afford to prejudice in any way…In view of this circumstance, the present time is not appropriate from our point of view, and regretfully I must…decline your offer to take a brief from ourselves".
I was not sure that anything I could say this afternoon to raise the profile of forestry and its significance could affect in any way delicate negotiations that are going on between the Forestry Industry Council of Great Britain and the Government. The only encouragement I derived from that comment was that negotiations are proceeding. I wish them well and hope that as a result incentives will be worked out which will result in an expansion of woodland cover in our country.
The one advantage from the point of view of the debate this afternoon is that since the private sector did not feel it appropriate to provide a brief, I must concentrate on the state sector, with which I am familiar as a former chairman of the Forestry Commission.
I have never felt that the subject of forestry should be divided between the state sector and the private sector as though they were competitors. Indeed, the great strength of forestry in this country was the fact that it was a partnership between the private sector and the state sector. On the basis of that partnership, we have been able to accomplish a great deal. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who is the Scottish Office Minister who speaks in this House on forestry matters, said at a conference last week:
"British forestry was one of the success stories of this century. We should continue to remind ourselves of that fact".
The basis of that success was that the Forestry Commission and the private sector worked together in a partnership. The Forestry Commission provided research facilities, training, the administration of subsidies, and so on. It has been a great success.
Forestry is important for a variety of reasons. It is important economically because the value of timber imports represents a very substantial sum. Something like 85 per cent. of our timber requirements in this country are imported. Only 10 per cent. of the land surface of this country is covered by trees. The way some commentators discuss this matter, one would think that the Forestry Commission had somehow or other covered unacceptably vast areas with trees, whereas we are the least afforested country in Europe. In Germany 20 per cent. of the land surface is covered, in France it is 15 per cent.; and in this country only 10 per cent. is covered.
I was delighted to hear the references this afternoon to stimulating the rural economy and providing facilities to revive villages by granting them reductions in rates in order to promote a lively rural economy. It is one thing to grant reductions in rates and to give some kind of subsidy, but a revival of the rural economy would have to be based on employment, on providing people with the opportunities to work in the countryside. Forestry provides some contribution in that direction.

257
Forestry is important to our economy. We spend £6 billion a year on timber imports. Medals are awarded for export performance. But it is just as important that we should have import substitution. Six billion pounds worth of timber is imported into this country every year. In the past few years the pulp and paper industry has invested over £1 billion in new processing facilities in this country on the assumption that there will be continued supplies of timber.
How do the Government react to this challenging economic statistic? If one looks at statistics on the planting of woodlands in this country, the Government do not come out very well. When I was in forestry we planted about 42,000 hectares every year, which was equally divided between the private sector and the state sector. The figure for total planting last year was 23,000 hectares. It is not possible to supply timber to the growing processing industry at that planting rate. The pulp and paper processing industry is only being helped because we planted 40,000 hectares a year 20 or 30 years ago.
What is worse about the planting figures is the fact that the Forestry Commission planted in 1971 over 20,000 hectares and in 1982 11,000 hectares whereas last year it planted 888 hectares. The Forestry Commission is the only wood-producing organisation that can give long-term contracts to the wood-processing industry. If under 1,000 hectares a year are planted against 20,000 hectares a few years ago it will not be possible to sustain a healthy pulp and paper industry, in which over a £1 billion has been invested in the past few years.
That lack of planting is one bad aspect of the situation. The other serious aspect is the obvious discrimination by this Government against the state sector and in favour of the private sector. A few years ago the Government set up one of their many committees to investigate forestry. It reported three years ago that there should be an expanding forestry cover. Because of the pressure of landowners, trade unions, conservationists and recreational supporters of various kinds, the review body made it abundantly clear that it was against the privatisation of the Forestry Commission. As a result, the Government did not proceed with privatisation. But what is taking place is privatisation by stealth. The Forestry Commission is not being given the resources to acquire new land or to plant further trees. In addition, the Forestry Commission is instructed to dispose of a large part of its estate. Since the beginning of the sell-off in 1981, 125,000 hectares of the state forest has been sold.
That is bad enough, but one of the important things about the Forestry Commission estate is its ready accessibility to the public. The state has welcomed people to go walking, rambling and camping in the woodlands. This has been an important source of recreation. It is important for people to be able to escape from the trivia of television and the noise and bustle of domestic life to find peace and quiet and contentment, wandering in the forest. More and more people appreciate the ability to do that. But what has happened? Of that 125,000 hectares that have been sold off to private forestry investors, only 34 woods, representing
258
1,488 hectares, are covered by access agreements. Under the state provision, people had access agreements for their own woodlands. Today land is being sold off without adequate access agreements.
I say to the Government: because of forestry's economic importance, its significance for recreation and the contribution it makes in the field of conservation, if they are to create a healthy environment for forestry in this country they must restore the partnership and cease to introduce into forestry ideological judgments that will not help forestry at all. So I suggest to the Government that they look once more at restoring the balance of forestry. New Labour advocates partnerships between private enterprise and the state sector in many areas of our economy. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to accept that that is a desirable course to pursue.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is my task today, partly pleasant and partly unpleasant, to comment from these Benches on the proposals in the gracious Speech on conservation and the countryside, which is the title of my particular portfolio; or more broadly, in the absence of my colleague and noble friend Lady Hamwee, on the environment; or, more broadly still, on specifically green issues. It is a pleasant task because my heart is in these issues. It is in such issues rather than those in the economic field because that is where the future of this country lies as a place in which our children and grandchildren may live in decency and also because it is on these issues that the very existence of the planet as we know it depends.
The Government talk glibly about doubling living standards over the next 25 years. I only hope that they will be in a position to support efforts to ensure that that happens for the very poor, who need it most, and that when they talk about living standards, they mean just that and not just doubled money for coping with more than doubled problems.
Less pleasant is the fact that I find little in the gracious Speech over which to rejoice and indeed very little on which even to comment. It is true that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, devoted some time to the environment, although he became rather distracted by parliamentary reform. In that context, I remind him—I hope that he will read Hansard as he is not now present in the Chamber—that the endangered species of hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House has an outlying colony in the island of Tonga where there are hereditary feudal Peers and no life Peers at all. The result is very unsatisfactory indeed and there is considerable unrest about it.
It is not until halfway down the second page of the gracious Speech that we reach mention of contributing to the sustainable development in poorer countries. That adjective does not appear, although it ought to do so, in plans for our own and European economic development. It is other people who are to have sustainable development apparently; not us.
It is not until the third page that we find the first definite proposal in the field with which I am dealing—the legislation to protect the UK coastline from pollution

259
by merchant shipping. This is largely implementation of the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. It is welcome and overdue, although we shall examine the small print closely. At the bottom of the page are proposals to implement reforms in relation to parish and community councils. My noble friend Lord Tope will deal with those, but we welcome them in principle, believing, as we do, that decisions should be made as far down the chain of society as is practicable. We shall look carefully to see that the proposals do not contain measures—usually so dear to the heart of this Government—further to emasculate conventional local government.
There is a widespread belief, not least on the Government Benches, that this country has far too many elected councillors. That is not the case. A recent DEMOS publication points out that in Britain there is one local representative for every 1,800 people, whereas the average for the rest of the developed world is one for every 350 people. When it comes to deciding things that affect our daily lives, there is no substitute for democratic election. Certainly, unelected quangos are not the answer.
When it comes to rate relief for small village shops, I give a wholehearted cheer, while assuming—I do not know whether I assume wisely—that the Government are keeping an eye on possible depletion of the rate base. Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has already welcomed the crofting proposals, though again we have the proviso that they are properly thought through to protect and encourage one of the few human-scale bits of agriculture left in this country and that this is not just cost cutting.
I am exercised more by what is not in the Queen's Speech. I find nothing on the welfare of animals. I shall attempt partially to rectify that by introducing, with your Lordships' leave, a Bill to,
"protect the health and welfare of broiler chickens kept in indoor husbandry systems",
similar to that introduced in another place last Session by Alan Meale.
One of the great problems in the world now—it will be even greater in the very near future—is water shortage. The aquifers of the world are diminishing daily, not least in the developed countries, even, though one would hardly think it from the weather, in Britain. The rising demand for water is putting severe pressure on the rivers and wetlands on which our wildlife immediately depends as well as on our fisheries, recreation and tourism. In the long run it is unsustainable, from a purely human point of view.
The RSPB has up for grabs a draft Bill which it would be pleasing to see (in principle and with a few reservations) in a future Queen's Speech. I do not address the present Government Front Bench, although it would be a suitable Bill for any Conservative Party which had not long ago ceased to conserve. That Bill is to,
"provide for the conservation of water sources by requiring the setting of performance standards for the efficient use of water and the preparation of drought contingency plans and long-term water
260
resource plans; by restricting the compensation payable on the variation or revocation of abstraction licences; and by requiring a licence for the abstraction of water for use in any type of irrigation".
I should also like to have seen some proposals for the integration of agriculture and the environment as urged by the European environmental councils. I shall not expand on that matter now since I spoke about it in your Lordships' House two weeks ago. I hope that we shall continue with the research which appears to be necessary to move us to a more healthy and more organic form of agriculture—a subject on which I suspect the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, will address us later—and in particular, as my European Parliament colleague Graham Watson has suggested, with research into a possible link between the use of organophosphates in warble fly treatment and the spread of BSE. On those and like matters, I am sure that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and others will continue to press the Government.
It is not a good Queen's Speech. I wish that there had been a larger contribution from the more sensible members of the present Government such as Mr. Gummer and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and less from the Home Office. But as the only good Home Secretary for years has been my noble friend and leader, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that would be too much to ask. We shall do what we can with it while clinging on until the general election. That may well "ease the spring" which, as Henry Reed taught us, is,
"quite easy if you have any strength in your thumb [in spite of] the bolt and the breech and the cocking piece and the point of balance, which in our case—
and certainly the Government's—
we have not got".
5.19 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow Liberal spokespeople, particularly today when they have been joined by another Thomas—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We certainly look forward to his maiden speech in this House, possibly sooner rather than later.
On the four subjects for today's debate—education, local government, agriculture and the environment—there is, as other noble Lords have remarked, a shortage of serious material from the Government. There are two substantial Bills, both on environment and local government, on which I shall comment, but before doing so, I feel I should say a few words about agriculture.
I repeat what a number of us have said in this House over the past six months since the initial Statement in March on the whole issue of public health and agriculture. It is high time the Government realised that this is an issue which can only be resolved by active co-operation with all our European colleagues.
I was pleased to see yesterday such a good turnout of Ministers from the UK from all the relevant territorial and agricultural departments and I hope that today's discussions involving the Irish presidency are bringing results as we speak. My only regret is that the public health aspect—the BSE aspect—of agriculture was not made a clear Union matter from the start so as to prevent the kind of political arguments we have seen in recent

261
months and, more seriously, the resulting insecurity to the income and businesses of farming communities throughout the European Union.
The great restraint shown by the farming industry whose income is severely pressed is a tribute to that industry rather than to the way in which the Government have handled the issue. As a result of the discussions yesterday and today I hope that we will have a clearer timescale for the implementation of policies which can restore confidence. That is obviously the issue. The way in which the Government appear to have been vacillating on the extent of culling capacity and income substitution as a result of the losses already incurred by farmers following the export ban has not contributed to the short-term or even medium-term planning of agricultural incomes. Although there is nothing specific in legislation that can be done, I hope that the Government will respond clearly in a Statement following discussions today within the European Union.
Turning to the broader environmental issue, I agree with what other noble Lords have said regarding the lack of serious commitment to sustainable development in the gracious Speech. Sustainable development is in danger of becoming a term used rhetorically by politicians and governments without realising its serious policy implications in an integrated way across the whole of public policy. The issue of sustainable development concerns the integration of environmental and economic policy. Although the Government are good at producing annual reports analysing the implementation of certain aspects of that policy, there is a failure to extend sustainable development throughout government departments as an approach.
Having said that, I warmly welcome the marine Bill that is to come before us. The Bill is a direct result of the "Braer" disaster. My concern is that the more recent disaster concerning the "Sea Empress" may not have had enough bearing on the content of the Bill. As we come to look at it in detail during its parliamentary passage we will want assurances that the lessons learnt from "Sea Empress" are also to be fed into the process of the Bill. The danger on these issues is that we legislate after the event and do not create a framework for anti-pollution legislation which is sufficiently pro-active.
That brings me to the related issue dealt with in the Bill on the whole question of marine waste management; that is, not just major pollution but pollution which, though it may not warrant headlines, forms a continuing marine hazard. I declare an interest as a voluntary chair of the Keep Wales Tidy Consultative Committee. We have been involved in discussions with the Department of Transport, the Welsh Office, the Environment Agency, Welsh Water and other companies and agencies concerned to try to improve best practice in the whole area of marine litter and marine pollution. I hope that the Government, in advance of implementing the Bill, will look to ways of developing pilot projects, particularly in areas that are currently under pressure, to improve best practice. As a result of that we can implement many of the aspects set out in legislation sooner rather than later.
262
The other major Bill is concerned with local government. Again, there has been a lack of vision on the part of successive governments. The lower level, as it is perceived by government, of political activity—the parish in England, the community in Wales and Scotland—is not sufficiently acknowledged as a real area of community activity and participation. That is my anxiety in regard to the specific local government and rating Bill. I welcome the rate relief measures, the strengthening of parish government in England and the intention to provide for powers for community councils on transportation and so forth at local level. But we need to go much further. We must recognise the community and parish as a genuine and equal partner in government, albeit in a smaller locality and territory than we pretend to be at the level of this House or of our big territorial departments.
There is a great deal of genuine imaginative activity going on at the level of localities and communities—the networked communities throughout the rural areas and also within urban areas. It is high time that that was recognised as a fourth level of community and government activity where the voluntary principle in locality, the statutory responsibilities of government and the voluntary contribution come together. That is particularly relevant in the field of local environment. I declare an interest again as a director of Cynefin Environmental, which is currently running a jigso community development programme for the Countryside Council for Wales and other partners. That activity concerns village appraisal, but it is more than that. It is about communities being able to envisage their own future and input directly into the processes of government rather than feeling alienated from them.
All the exercises in planning after Rio, in devolving management to localities and the Agenda 21 activity at local level are bits of energy that are available for us to work with. Yet, whenever we look at community and parish government, we tend to look at them as the "bin" end—albeit perhaps a tasty bin end—of our activity rather than as an equal partner. That is why some of us in this House will be introducing amendments to the Bill—I warned the Government of this—to bring on statutory consultation with parish and communities over a whole range of unitary local and central government activities. If the Government are not prepared to treat local governments as equal partners, we need to remind them that they have a responsibility to consult. Statutory consultation gives the opportunity for communities and parishes to input directly with the rest of government. There have been recent examples—I cite national parks legislation—of local communities and the well-being of local communities being recognised as part of legislation. It is not just for national parks; it is for the whole of government activity.
That brings me finally to the issue of education and re-education. Governments who indicate that they intend to legislate on the raising of standards are always suspect. Raising standards is not simply a matter of legislation. It is a complex matter to do with the training of teachers, both in-service and initial training. It is to

263
do with the morale of schools; with the attitude of government towards the teaching profession; and with the way in which the profession views itself.
Raising standards also involves the tone of debate about education and training in society. Looking back at the history of cultural and social change, it seems to me that there is always a tendency for moral crises or moral panics to be dumped on teachers and schools. We are going through another period where that is happening. I say to politicians who are trying to win votes out of educational debate that it is a much more serious issue than mere moral posturing for the next election. It is actually about the quality of education and training, the quality of knowledge and the form of culture which is imparted not just to young people at school but throughout continuing education.
For those reasons, therefore, I am not looking forward to yet another education Bill. However, we shall certainly look for ways of amending it as indeed we shall look for ways of amending all the other legislation, albeit that a limited menu has been produced for this Session.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on the problems facing county councils from which new unitary authorities have been separated and, in particular, by way of example but also, I have to confess, by way of special pleading, for my own county of Hampshire, where authorities in Portsmouth and Southampton have been created from the old county council area.
Any reorganisation of this kind is bound to lead to loss of economies of scale. There are the extra costs of transferring IT data to different systems, the extra cost of meeting with new city authorities separately, and the sheer time and manpower involved in co-ordinating activities to ensure a level playing field across existing and new authorities on such issues as staffing and property and setting up the necessary infrastructure where the new authorities wish to use the existing council's services.
The Government have made available some supplementary credit approvals; in other words, extra borrowing powers. There are six counties involved in the May 1997 reorganisations which have elected to utilise these supplementary borrowing approvals in full. Hampshire is alone among them in having to deal with two freshly created authorities—the others all have one—while at the same time reorganising its own reduced area. The expenses facing Hampshire county council are, if not doubled, certainly greatly increased by having to deal with these two new councils. Yet, though the extent of reorganisation is very different in each county, the supplementary borrowing facility appears in each of the six cases to be uniform at £300,000. Hampshire not only has two authorities to deal with but is, in any case, one of the largest, with a residual population, after the departure of Portsmouth and Southampton, of 1.2 million people. Thus the scale
264
of its redundancies, to take only one example, will be proportionately greater than in other smaller counties, yet the grant is a uniform £300,000 across the lot.
In the debate in your Lordships' House on 10th July last year on the orders creating the new unitary authorities, I ventured to remind your Lordships (at col. 1393 of the Official Report) that the Local Government Commission's estimate for the total cost of reorganisation of the Hampshire authorities was between £6 million and £8 million. Current estimates are that these costs will, in total, amount to £40 million. That is between five and seven times the original estimate. I suspect that these figures will be repeated in other counties. Hampshire County Council is being offered £300,000 and the two cities of Portsmouth and Southampton £2.5 million each. There is a gap. Then there are the transitional problems faced by Hampshire and other counties. More ongoing is the loss of the government grant—for in the case of Hampshire a greater proportion of the government grant is being transferred to the newly created city councils than is their current share of county council spending. The effect of this is that the county council is faced with the need to cut the expenditure in its newly reduced area by no less than 27 per cent. Your Lordships will agree that it is unrealistic to suppose that volumes of service and fixed costs can in practice be reduced by that proportion. Indeed, even if this reduction were to be achieved, the loss of grant will add £25 to the average council tax. There is little room for manoeuvre other than by means of reduction of services or an even higher council tax.
In conclusion, the creation of new unitary authorities alongside the existing counties does not simply involve the costs of setting up the new authorities. There is also the massive dislocation in the residual council's existing services and expenditure, the reduction of revenue, the loss of economies of scale and the inevitable contribution in expenditure and manpower necessary to assist the new authorities in their early stages. I suggest that Hampshire is a unique case because of its size. However, other authorities are similarly affected. Certainly in the case of Hampshire, there is no partisanship in this at all. All parties are agreed of the necessity to request my noble friend the Minister to give urgent consideration to an increase in the supplementary borrowing powers.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not in his place because I wanted to offer him a little comfort. I shall still offer it to him and someone else may pass it on. Before I get on to that, perhaps I may say that I think he was quite right to draw our attention to the challenge of population and the problems that it causes. In a free country it is something about which government cannot do very much. Nevertheless, it is at the root of many of our environmental problems.
I was very glad to hear the Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer, say at a seminar yesterday that he hoped that the majority of the 4.4 million new housing units which we have to have can be accommodated on brownfield sites. I understand that quite a lot will necessarily have to go on greenfield sites

265
but we obviously should use up brownfield sites first. We shall have to try to tackle with some intelligence the problem of secondhand land and indeed of contaminated land and the extra costs involved.
The comfort I wanted to offer the noble Earl was on his point about hereditary Peers. I see that he is approaching just in time to be comforted. They are not an endangered species. They are breeding well and with a bit of luck will go on for a long time. They are not to be "wiped out"; they are to be returned to their natural habitat where they can roam at will, doing whatever comes naturally to them. They will be complete with titles and all their other appendages and they can enjoy their freedom, released from the cares of state. We might even take some of the finer specimens and mount them on the red leather Benches here where they can be an example to us all in the future. I hope the noble Earl will not feel too depressed about his future because I am sure that it is reasonably bright.
Unlike other speakers, I welcome the fact that we can again debate together agriculture and environment on the same day. They are inseparable. The gracious Speech contained a promise that action to protect and improve the environment would remain a priority. That would be encouraging if in fact we were persuaded that it had been a priority in the past. But the facts do not support the theory.
For example, the Government seem reluctant to show greater leadership on seeking solutions to agro-environment issues. Agro-environment regulation 2078/92 provides an ideal opportunity to develop agri-environment policies to solve major environmental problems on farms. But the RSPB, among others, has had great difficulty in getting pilot schemes adopted by the Government. The decline of common farm birds which has caused concern to all of us is a case in point. This decline is associated with changes in agricultural production. Yet the agriculture Minister has not yet accepted the case for a pilot project which would seek to intensify the nature of arable farming in the worst hit areas. It would be encouraging to see that given some kind of priority.
The other reference to environmental matters promised a Bill to implement the Donaldson Report, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. That will be welcomed on all sides. Despite valiant efforts to clean up the mess caused by the "Sea Empress" disaster, the area is still suffering some difficulties and the full effect on marine life has yet to be assessed. It was distressing to learn recently of the American experience that, because of the oil they have swallowed, birds which are cleaned with such effort by so many volunteers and returned to a safe area very rarely survive. So it does seem that the real solution is to prevent pollution in the first place.
The present Secretary of State for the Environment has gained a considerable reputation for his attitude to environmental policy. I applaud his outlook on many matters and I willingly praise him for his international efforts, which have been widely recognised. It is therefore all the more disappointing when we find that, against the recommendations of the inspector in question, he has inexplicably taken a decision contrary
266
to the best interests of a very special environment, especially when it follows a long public inquiry. I refer to the matter of speed restrictions on Lake Windermere. The Secretary of State's decision not to approve the proposed by-law has caused dismay and anger, not only among members of the public but also among many reputable organisations.
The Secretary of State will no doubt say—indeed he has said in my hearing—that he has the right to make the decision notwithstanding the inspector's report. Of course, that is correct. But it is a puzzling decision in view of the clearly expressed and very decided findings of the inspector. If the inspector had seemed doubtful, there might have been room to understand Mr. Gummer's attitude, but the recommendations were strong and clear. Today is not an appropriate occasion to discuss the report at length, but I believe that it is an issue which should be debated in depth. I hope for an opportunity to return to it in more detail if a suitable time can be found.
I return to my beginning and to the need to consider the two subjects of agriculture and environment together. Yesterday I attended a seminar to mark the end of the first year of the White Paper on rural England. I congratulate the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission on a good beginning, but there is still a long way to go. The chairman of the Rural Development Commission admitted that in his presentation yesterday. It emerged that one of the problems is the need to integrate environmental objectives across departments and across other bodies responsible for environmental and rural matters. Perhaps this is an "ever closer union" which we might persuade the Government to accept. The present arrangements look well enough on paper but are not working as well as they might. They do need to be examined again. We need a mechanism in particular for integrating agricultural and environmental considerations, including landscape.
In the White Paper, the Government made a commitment to find ways of extending to the wider countryside the kind of protection taken in nationally designated areas such as national parks. That commitment has yet to be honoured. Indeed, there seems to have been a tendency to make even more special designations in the past year in more and more cases. The effect of this can only be to diminish the value of the remaining country which is left outside these designations.
There is also a strong case, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and many others have mentioned, for allowing local communities to be more involved in decision-making on their local environment. I know that the noble Earl said in his opening remarks that parish councils would be consulted more in the future. Consultation is fine, but it is not quite the same as involving them in the decision-making. I hope that ways may be found to do that. Subsidiarity, as my noble friend Lord Williams said, should not stop at our national boundaries. This is particularly important for rural communities because I believe that they have a stronger feeling for community than perhaps urban districts and communities have. It is very important that

267
they should be maintained. I believe that, particularly in rural areas, the people are best able to judge what is needed for their communities.
The noble Earl also mentioned rate relief for village shops and post offices. That is very welcome and it will be very useful. But has anyone looked at the effect of the uniform business rate on emerging businesses in rural communities? Some of these small rural businesses are being very hard hit by the uniform business rate. I have had many complaints about it. Perhaps that too can form part of any investigation or consultation which takes place.
I have so far avoided referring to sustainable development. But our stated commitment in the UK means that it must underpin all our policies and institutions. The points that I have mentioned are some of the building blocks for a successful sustainable development policy. Unless all our efforts, large and small, are properly directed, we shall fail in our duty to the next generation. As the present Secretary of State for the Environment has put it, we shall be cheating on our children. This aim must cross all party political boundaries. We must not lose sight of it, particularly in the next few months, in the frenzied political atmosphere that now exists.
5.46 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, many noble Lords have made reference to the fact that there is little mention in the gracious Speech of the environment. But the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has just spoken in considerable depth about the rural White Paper. I would have thought that that rural White Paper in itself was testimony to the fact that this Government have a great care for and responsibility towards the environment. There are some extremely helpful and sensible initiatives in that document. If it is implemented I am sure that it will have a considerable impact on environmental matters. Obviously, a debate such as the one we are conducting this afternoon, covers a wide range of subjects. I should like to focus my remarks on the state of the British countryside.
I do not intend to mention BSE, but I should like to endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that everybody has great sympathy for the farmers who are suffering under this catastrophe. Like everybody else, I hope that this matter is dealt with as quickly and expertly as possible.
I am the first to acknowledge that, starting with the 1981 Act and through subsequent legislation, this Government have gone some way towards redressing the imbalance that has undoubtedly occurred since the war between modern farming methods and their effect on the environment. However, so much now depends on decisions made in Brussels. Until we see a basic reform or a "rebalancing", which I believe is the technical term, of the CAP in favour of the environment and environmental needs undoubtedly further damage will continue, to the well-being of the British countryside.
Generally speaking, I applaud the introduction of schemes such as that for environmentally sensitive areas, the countryside stewardship scheme and many
268
others which now abound in the countryside. Undoubtedly, the SSSIs designated by English Nature, to which my noble friend Lord Ferrers made reference—whether that includes your Lordships' House remains to be seen—have done much to ensure that specific areas are now managed for the benefit of different species.
But I also welcome the Government's further commitment to unimproved old meadows and pastures and arable field margins as described in Rural England 96.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, made reference to the RSPB and other organisations, who have shown clearly that the decline in many species, many of which until only recently were taken for granted, continues unabated despite the specifically targeted schemes to which I have referred. I believe that that decline is symptomatic of a fundamental difficulty and the quality and health of the countryside itself.
As Roger Croft, the chief executive of Scottish Natural Heritage, was quoted as saying in a recent article in The Field magazine:
"We don't simply wish to see islands of protection in a sea of devastation".
It seems to me that the question that we really must ask ourselves and which really needs addressing is whether it is possible to have efficient and profitable methods of food production at an affordable price along with the necessary habitat and food supply to satisfy the demands of wildlife.
As we all know, the cost to the taxpayer each year of the common agricultural policy runs into billions—whatever the currency in which one chooses to speak. However, the amount spent on the environment—on the agro-environment, to use its correct term—is a mere 2 to 3 per cent. of the total. I ask your Lordships whether that is acceptable. I do not believe that it is. I have no doubt whatsoever that we shall witness in due course the burgeoning costs of those market support mechanisms reduced, although that in itself may well lead to an even greater emphasis on agricultural output at the expense of the environment.
However, whatever systems evolve, there is an urgent need to develop the principle of blending the support paid to farming with the needs of wildlife and the environment in general. I believe that the correct terminology for that is "cross-compliance", but I am not quite sure what it means. However, some form of blending, of integration and of looking at the rural environment as a whole, as the noble Baroness said earlier, is absolutely right and fundamental.
I take some heart from the fact that Franz Fischler, the EU Agriculture Commissioner, has now made some commitments in that direction. I think that I am right in saying that he has said that where appropriate—I realise that this will not always be simple—environmental conditions will be attached to agriculture payments. Furthermore, I gather that he is keen to develop the CAP into an integrated rural development strategy incorporating all aspects of the rural environment. That can only be a helpful step forward. I hope that as a result of his comments he will receive the full support of the Government. I was delighted to read the other day that

269
my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made encouraging comments to that effect.
Despite what I might describe as the sad decline in wildlife species, I do not believe that it is all gloom. There are areas of ordinary farmland (away from the specifically designated areas) where real progress has been made and could still be made. I read a report recently on Loddington Farm in Leicestershire, which is owned by the Allerton Trust, but managed for it by the Game Conservancy Trust of which I am chairman. It was that report which prompted me to concentrate on this topic this afternoon. What has been achieved there is remarkable. It shows what can be achieved despite the difficulties to which I have referred.
On that 800 acre farm there has been a substantial increase in wildlife—not simply in terms of game birds, but of other species also, some of which are in steady decline on more conventionally managed farms. The hare population, for example, which started at fewer than five per square kilometre in 1992, now stands at between 70 and 75 hares per square kilometre. That is an enormous increase. As a species the song thrush has declined nationally by 70 per cent. over the past two decades, but has increased there by 120 per cent. in just two years. The number of skylarks has declined nationally by 50 per cent. since the early 1970s, but skylarks are present in high numbers on that farm and are increasing. The population of yellow wagtails is also increasing there against a national decline. There were only 11 pairs at the last count, but that contrasts with the fact that there were only three pairs when the new management regime started. There is no doubt that the presence of a gamekeeper has made a marked contribution—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us what has happened to the production of food on the farm?
Earl Peel: Yes, my Lords, I can and I shall come to that in a moment because it is a very important point relating to the productive needs of agriculture to which the noble Lord referred.
By introducing well-researched habitat systems, such as managed hedgerows, conservation headlands, beetle banks and the careful use and application of agri-chemical sprays, on that farm arable invertebrates are present in sufficient numbers to provide the necessary food for those otherwise declining species. On that specific point, I also welcome enormously the Government's commitment to developing an action plan on the responsible use of pesticides. That was recently published in the Government's statement on the rural White Paper.
Furthermore, set-aside—so deplored when originally introduced—has, through careful research, been transformed into a highly productive source of cover and food supply through what is now termed "wild bird cover". However, with set-aside having been reduced by more than 50 per cent. and with only 1.6 per cent. of set-aside having been managed in that way, I should like to ask the Government what plans they have to ensure
270
that that most successful method for the encouragement of farmland birds not only continues but may be encouraged to expand.
I turn now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. What has all that cost the farmer? The answer is between 3 and 4 per cent. of profits forgone. I do not believe that that is a very considerable amount of money. If one looks at it in terms of the billions of pounds that have been paid through the CAP into the support of the agricultural system, in my view a further 3 or 4 per cent. spent on the environment to achieve such gains would be money very well spent. I believe that such selective low input mechanisms could and should be an increasing part of the overall agricultural support package, thus providing lifesaving mechanisms for much of our declining farmland wildlife and at the same time allowing for efficient and productive farming.
However, at the very least and until such basic CAP reforms are likely to be finalised, I ask the Government seriously to consider incorporating such low input measures into the appropriate conservation schemes which exist at present or which may be extended in the future. I specifically suggest, first, that the Wild Bird Cover Option should be extended to Countryside Stewardship and augmented to provide incentives. Secondly, low input measures should be incorporated into the ESA mechanisms, for example, conservation headlands as currently proposed for the South Downs ESA. Perhaps I may suggest that undersowing, which has had no support and is now almost extinct, could well be introduced into such areas. It would hugely increase biodiversity in farming. Thirdly, conservation headlands and other low input measures should be stand-alone options within the Countryside Stewardship scheme rather than be linked to field margin management. Of course, I do not expect an answer today from my noble friend on the Front Bench, but perhaps he will write to me on these specific points in due course.
In conclusion, biodiversity and sustainability—those two expansive terms to which the Government have committed themselves on a number of occasions—have largely been swept away by the common agricultural policy. I should have thought that there is no better place to see that commitment endorsed than in the British countryside.
6 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, the subjects of the National Lottery and the health of British sport, which is under considerable strain at the moment, do not appear in the gracious Speech. Therefore, it is not surprising that no time has been allocated to debate the affairs of the Department of National Heritage. With the traditional tolerance of the House, I hope that colleagues will not mind if I deal with those two subjects as I believe them to be matters of great importance.
The National Lottery, the principle of which I supported, is to be subject to a second weekly draw. I am totally opposed to it. There has been no consultation with Parliament, the charities, the football trusts, the arts and sports trusts, the pools, the betting

271
industry or anyone else who is affected. That is disgraceful. It is not in accordance with our custom to make arrangements which affect the interests of others without discussing them with those concerned. In so far as Parliament has not been consulted, it is nearly a constitutional abuse. When the Bill passed through this House no discussion took place on the prospects of a second weekly draw. Not a word about that was heard from the Government or anyone else.
Furthermore, it is in flat contradiction to what the Secretary of State for National Heritage told the Select Committee of another place when she was asked about these matters. She said:
"There is no need at present to further encourage new games and initiatives".
Having, in April of this year, ruled out a second National Lottery, she now says that she welcomes the decision to monitor carefully the introduction of the mid-week draw to ensure that the interests of participants are well looked after. The question arises: what has happened since April? My guess is that the Secretary of State for the Environment has been overruled at 10 Downing Street either by the Prime Minister or, more probably, Mr. Michael Heseltine. In any case it reflects no credit on this Government. It will do great damage and harm. We have already been told by the Public Accounts Committee that National Lottery sales are 70 per cent. higher than forecast in Camelot's application. There can be no justification on those grounds.
What will be the effect on the charities? There has been a 40 per cent. decline in the money that goes to the football trusts, which I played a role in establishing, and a 30 per cent. decline in money given to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, both of which do excellent work. Who will assess the dangers to the charities and the trusts, all of which are suffering considerably, and compare them with the need to increase the gambling mania of the National Lottery? When Mr. Peter Davis, the regulator of the National Lottery, introduced the proposal to hold a second draw on Wednesday, he said that it was his duty to maximise proceeds to good causes. He did not add that it was also to regulate and increase the profits to Camelot. Camelot, which deals with the National Lottery very effectively, makes far more money than was estimated or it anticipated. In addition, it is making £6 million in interest on unpaid lottery prizes which many of us believe ought to go to the lottery itself. None of that has been investigated. Camelot's profit is £77 million a year. If we need to put more money into good causes perhaps we ought to ask—especially as Sir Richard Branson has offered to do it for nothing—whether the profits are excessive.
What about the charities which are suffering grievously as a result of the lottery, apparently without any concern on the part of the Government? According to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, there has been a fall of £57 million in charity giving. One is informed by the Henley Centre that there has been a drop of 15 per cent. from 80 per cent. to 65 per cent. in the number of adults participating in charity
272
giving. I submit to the House that it is the absolute duty of the Government to protect the interests of charities and trusts. There is an obligation on the Government to debate these matters in Parliament before a second lottery is introduced. If the Government run away from their obligations, I hope that my colleagues will help to bring that about. If the matter requires legislation I hope that it will be opposed. We need a statement of the position and a debate.
There is a need for new regulation. In deciding to hold a second lottery Mr. Davis has no responsibility to the charities or anyone else. We need to look at his role and review his duties. In the meantime, we must provide help to the pools so that they can survive and continue their wonderful work on football grounds by reducing the pools duty to 17.5 per cent. We need to compensate the charities which are subject to great stress as a result of the move to two National Lottery draws a week.
I turn next to British sport which has had the most dismal summer that any of us can remember. In some areas it is in a state of anarchy. Total silence seems to permeate the Department of National Heritage. Those going out to play at Wimbledon see the famous quotation above the door. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be familiar with it because I know he likes Kipling:
"if you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same".
I believe that a similar quotation should appear above the doors of the Department of National Heritage. I choose one from Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard:
"Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest".
Not a word ever comes from the mouth of the Minister for Sport. Do we have a Minister for Sport? Where is he? What does he have to say as Rugby Union, Rugby League and cricket go from chaos to chaos? I hope that we can stimulate him into action.
What has happened in sport is that the marketing men have taken over with disastrous results. The principles and ethos of sport, as most of us have known them, have been superseded. Your Lordships will recall the debate, in the context of television, on the need to protect various great sporting occasions. It was opposed by the very people who have got sport into the mess in which it now finds itself. We were informed that marketing and finance were totally independent of considerations of general ethos. One gentleman in Rugby League, who is also chairman of the major spectators division of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, spent a long time writing to us and placing advertisements in The Times and the Guardian to say how disastrous it would be if we protected sporting events. Where is he now? Look where he has got Rugby League, his own sport. There is disarray in New Zealand. When did we last see an English touring side sending half the players home in the middle of a tour because they could not afford the hotel accommodation? I believe Rugby League sold out to Mr. Rupert Murdoch for £87 million, which the clubs were daft enough to accept. If I may be excused for repeating one of my own statements, I remember telling the House at the time that anyone who gets into bed with Mr. Rupert Murdoch never gets out the same man.

273
That is what has happened to Rugby League and its secretary, Mr. Maurice Lindsay, who has also persuaded the CCPR—he is chairman of major spectator sports—to go along with him.
Rugby Union has surrendered to the lure of the pound and Mr. Murdoch. It is in a state of disarray. There is open rebellion between the governing body of the sport and the clubs. It is a first principle that each sport must have a governing body responsible for the whole of its activities, not just for the professional element of its activities. But that is not happening today. Indeed, the reverse is true, as we can all see. Again, we have silence from the Minister, and silence from the CCPR, which is supposed to look after the principles by which sport is governed.
Anarchy goes on in Rugby Union. That is not too strong a word to use. It is only a week or two now—I never thought I would live to see this day in British sport—since the clubs were instructing the players not to turn out for England. That is a very serious situation. I am not surprised that Mr. John Richardson, the RFU president, is quoted this week as saying:
"God forbid that the best players should not be available. The players want to play for England and I hope that they are not used as pawns".
What does the Minister of Sport have to say about that? What does the Sports Council have to say about it? What does the CCPR have to say? Are we in this House the only people to say anything about these matters as our traditional sporting heritage is undermined for money? Even the great Rugby League club, Wigan, under Mr. Maurice Lindsay's new arrangements, finds itself in great difficulty. The gate has gone down. Rugby League which used to be played in winter is now being played in the summer with not very encouraging results. These things are happening now. As I say, Rugby League sold itself to Sky for £87 million. It might now ponder whether it has not in fact sold the soul of its sport in so doing.
I turn finally to cricket. Cricket is to become a limited company. Gone is the concept of an all-embracing governing body which would include representatives of schools, the universities, the forces, the clubs and the counties. That has gone. Cricket is to be a limited company with directors. I mention just one aspect which I took up with the man from Wales who proposed it. I received no answer but it is worth telling the House the question I asked him. I said, "What is the fundamental concern about the future of cricket in this country—all sports?". It is a subject that was discussed at the Dispatch Box today. It relates to the health of schools sports and schools cricket. Could anyone have imagined the new concept whereby schools cricket, upon which the sport's whole future depends, is to be excluded from the board of directors and is to have no representation at the highest level? Have we all gone mad? No, we have not gone mad. We have just become greedy for money and have sacrificed all our principles.
I hope very much that the Government will intervene, not necessarily to instruct sporting bodies, although that might not be a bad thing, but to challenge the direction in which sport is going. That should be the duty of the
274
Minister for Sport. What is the point of having a Minister for Sport who never says anything or never does anything in that area?
I conclude with my view that what British sport needs more than anything today is leadership, of which it seems bereft. However, the Government have taken one initiative which I can welcome. That is their decision to create an academy for sport. I have to declare something of an interest because I am chairman of the Birmingham bid which has just been put in. But the point is not whether Birmingham gets it. The point is that at least the Government now realise that we need an academy for sport, not just for coaching, not just because of our dismal Olympic showing, but to create new thinking and a new intellectual approach to the needs of British sport which should come from such an academy. I hope that we can return to these matters soon and debate both the National Lottery, about which I have the gravest concern, and the future of British sport. Since they are not represented here now, I hope that the Minister responsible for this debate—as I am sure he will—will draw Ministers' attention to the criticisms I have felt bound to make.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, during the past few days the media and politicians have been showing an almost unprecedented interest in undisciplined and dangerous behaviour in schools. Some people have blamed it on the schools and some blame it on the parents. There is probably an argument for both. The Government are to introduce legislation on the subject. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that misbehaviour by adolescents in school has always been a problem. I should like to quote from a book by John Rae, until recently headmaster of Westminster School. He writes in his book, Letters from School:
"There are always some adolescents who need to go on testing the strength of the adult world, not because they want to rebel against that world, as is popularly supposed, but because they need to be reassured that adulthood is worth achieving. If the adult world turns out not to have the strength of its convictions, what is the point of growing up?"
It is tempting to suppose that some of the young people who are pushing against the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in some of our schools today, and finding those boundaries rotten and collapsing in front of them, go on pushing further to see whether they can find firm ground.
I wish to turn to the role of parents upon which I wish to concentrate. Parents do matter. There is no doubt in my mind that good parenting has an effect on the behaviour of young people in schools—both the parenting which they receive before they go to school, which is important in establishing their self-confidence and their acceptance of boundaries to acceptable behaviour, and in stimulating them to be interested in education and in learning. It is also important when they are at school and, in particular, when they are coping with the problems of adolescence.
All the evidence suggests that the vast majority of parents set out with the firm intention of being good parents. However, for a small but important minority,

275
things go wrong. It is important to look at the reasons for that. One of the most important factors is that an increasing number of young parents have never had the experience of growing up in a happy home. Another problem is that life is more complex. Some people are overwhelmed by the circumstances of unemployment, living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, debt—that is a tremendous problem for some people—and a general inability to cope with poverty in an affluent society. Understandably, under such circumstances some people suffer from depression and stress. Substance abuse and alcohol abuse in particular lead to violence and are a cause of family dysfunction. Mothers and fathers fighting and family breakdown cause terrible traumas for children. Step-parents or living-in lovers in dysfunctional families are statistically the most serious cause of child abuse.
When the vast majority of those parents set out, they did not intend those things to happen. What is going wrong? More importantly, what can society do to help? One thing which can be done and which would certainly help—it is not a panacea for all ills—is education in schools for the responsibilities of adult life. That should include the ability to communicate, negotiate and compromise; an understanding about relationships (sexual relationships, parent/child relationships and others); knowledge about the needs of children and the responsibilities of parenthood; learning to take decisions; and the responsibilities of citizenship.
During the past few days, the question has been asked in the media, "Can these subjects be taught in schools?". Features in the Daily Mail and the Guardian have stated that they cannot. Of course they can be taught in schools. The reason why I say that with such confidence is because they are being taught in some schools. Of course, if you stand up in front of a class and say, "Now I am going to teach you about the morals of our society", the yawns will be audible in the next county, and it will be taken as an opportunity to make fun of the teacher by asking personal questions. On the other hand, if you stand in front of a class and say, "Today we are going to have a discussion about how you get on with your parents and ways in which you can negotiate with them and perhaps get them to understand you a little better", I can almost guarantee that you will gain the attention of the class. That discussion can lead on to issues connected with communication, negotiation and relationships, which is the message we are trying to get across. So there are ways of doing it.
Of course, the PSHE—in my view, a boring title which should be renamed Adult Life Skills or something similar—must be delivered in an imaginative, interactive way. It must involve discussion, role play and perhaps the use of videos and discussions on them. It must also involve visiting speakers. For instance, research at Exeter University has shown that the incidence of teenage pregnancy can be significantly reduced and that it is more effective to have trained peer group speakers and medical professionals coming in to talk to the children than having their teachers talk to them.
276
The essential difficulty in delivering such a programme is, first, that we do not have nearly enough teachers and others who are qualified to deliver it. Secondly, I regret to say that there is a serious lack of government enthusiasm either to encourage all schools to include the subject in their curriculum or to ensure the training of teachers. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some encouragement in the light of the recent change of mood on this subject.
I urge the Government to commit themselves, first, to setting up arrangements for training specialist teachers to deliver in each secondary school a lively and interactive PSHE programme including relationships and communications skills and the responsibilities of parenthood, adult life and citizenship. Secondly, I urge them to draw to the attention of Ofsted its obligation to ensure that all schools provide such courses in order to fulfil their obligations under the Preamble to the 1988 Education Act. In my view, children have a right to no less.
I conclude by quoting a job specification from the seminal book on the subject, Confident Parents/Confident Children, by Gillian Pugh and Erica D'Ath. It is a job specification for a parent and it states:
"Wanted, a responsible person, male or female, to undertake a lifelong project. Candidates should be totally committed, willing to work up to 24 hours daily including weekends during the initial 16-year period. Occasional holidays possible, but may be cancelled at no notice. Knowledge of healthcare, nutrition, psychology, child-development, household management and the education system essential. Necessary skills: stress management and conflict resolution, negotiation and problem-solving, communication and listening, budgeting and time-management, decision making, ability to set boundaries and priorities as well as providing loving support. No salary but very rewarding work for the right person".
It is the most popular job in the world, and the most important.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to contribute to the debate on the subject of employment. That has not been allocated a slot in the debate, although since the disappearance of the Department of Employment its functions are performed largely by the Department for Education. I wish to talk about employment and related subjects, in particular training to which I shall devote attention later.
According to recent statistics—the most recent I have are for August—unemployment fell by 15,600 in that month. However, that is claimant unemployment, and I am sure that we are all aware that that is by no means an accurate measure of those without work or those who would like to have work. The introduction of the provisions surrounding the jobseeker's allowance are likely to reduce the claimant count still further but by no means those without work.
Furthermore, while there has been job creation there is no doubt that the new jobs are largely part-time or of a temporary nature. According to the magazine Labour Market Trends, part-time employment rose by 101,000 over the year to June so that that type of employment now represents 28 per cent. of the workforce. I do not wish to decry part-time work. Many women prefer it

277
because it enables them to cope with domestic responsibilities. There is a strong argument that part-time work should carry the same rights as full-time employment and be paid the same rate pro-rata. But it is also true that many part-time workers, particularly men, prefer full-time work if that is available.
There has also been a growth in employment regarded as zero employment and a growth of short-term contracts. In zero employment an employee commits himself or herself to a particular firm and is called in only when the work is available. Literally, he or she is on standby and paid only for the hours worked. Of course, such employment does not entitle the participant to any of the rights or protection available to full-time employees but some people take it because it is all they can get.
Earlier this year I introduced a debate about the changing patterns of employment in financial services, industries in which security of employment was assured. Now insecurity is a major problem for those employees. Not only is there the continuing impact of information technology but the number of mergers between companies is producing a situation in which numbers of jobs continue to be lost. All that leads to a growing sense of insecurity in the workplace. While it exists, the so-called "feel-good" factor is likely to be absent and it is not good for social cohesion. Insecurity breeds stress. A recent survey by the Trades Union Congress of health and safety representatives showed that the most commonly reported concern was occupational stress and overwork. The workforce remaining in employment works longer hours at a higher level of tension because of fears of being involved in the next wave of redundancies. The TUC states that,
"there is further confirmation that British workers risk ill-health as a result of the hire and fire culture which has led to widespread job insecurity and pressure on employees to work longer and longer hours".
Among causes of stress cited by respondents to the TUC survey, longer hours rated highly. It would appear that British workers work longer hours than most other European workers and that against the trend, the working week in Britain is actually getting longer.
Clearly, long working hours must have an effect upon the health and safety of workers. It has long been recognised that accidents are more likely to happen in an environment in which long working hours are the norm. A recent television programme on working hours in Europe made it clear that there is a health problem and that it is an issue of health and safety rather than a social issue, although of course there are social considerations.
Therefore, it continues to surprise me that the Government have persisted with their opposition to the EU's working time directive. The intention of the directive is simply to try to create minimum standards as part of treaty obligations. It really seems absurd, when there is a substantial number of unemployed, to persist with a working environment in which those with employment are working themselves sick in order to retain their jobs, while there is a surrounding potential workforce with no jobs at all—and in some areas, little prospect of obtaining any work.
278
Moreover, the directive is not as strong as many would like since it provides for voluntary arrangements between employer and employee to work longer where that is felt necessary; and there are various provisions for exemptions.
But the important thing is that no employee would be compelled to work longer than the number of hours in the directive. As with all such provisions, it would be important in changing the climate so that it is not always immediately felt that making people work overtime solves problems. That is important. According to the labour market update, which I have just quoted, overtime worked by manufacturing operatives rose by 0.7 million hours in July to a level of 8.6 million hours per week. I really feel that the time, energy and probably money that the Government have put into resisting the directive could have been spent better in other ways. However, I see from a recent newspaper article that the Government may be thinking of performing a U turn on that issue. I am one of the last people to have a lot of respect for what is in newspapers; but, nevertheless, I hope that the Government are changing their view and will put into operation the provisions of the directive.
Similarly, I still find it strange that the Government should continue to make so much fuss about the social chapter. That has always seemed to me to be a set of minimal requirements. It is true that it acknowledges the existence of what are known in the EU as social partners—that is, trade unions. For 18 years, we have had a Government who would prefer that trade unions did not exist at all. In that, they tend to differ from previous Conservative Administrations who at least accepted that unions had a right to exist.
As regards the social chapter, the only directive to emerge so far is that relating to works councils. That covers organisations with more than 1,000 employees and large companies working on a multinational basis are already coming to such arrangements with their UK employees since it really would not be feasible to introduce such arrangements for their employees throughout Europe and leave out those in the UK. The idea that signing up for the social chapter would somehow result in fewer jobs in the UK and would threaten small businesses is therefore absurd. Moreover, in opting out, the UK has sacrificed any opportunity to influence future developments.
It seems to me important that there should be a European approach to the whole problem of unemployment. The Government seem to think that driving down wages with the abandonment of any form of regulation, hence the abandonment of wages councils, and allowing employers free rein to pay as little as they can get away with, and providing as little as possible by way of employment rights, will assist to solve employment problems in the UK.
But I do not think that that can be a viable solution—certainly not in the long term. We cannot hope to compete with the emerging economies of the east on the basis of cost-cutting wages but only on the basis of high value products produced from a highly skilled, highly trained workforce.

279
Recently, I had an opportunity to attend a most interesting conference in London courtesy of the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, who I am sorry not to see in his place this afternoon. The conference was entitled "Visions of Electronic Government", and it was fascinating. It was made clear to those who were attending that we are in the middle of a second or perhaps third industrial revolution in this century, which will change entirely the way in which work is conducted in the 21st century. Information technology, operating on a global basis, will change all our lives.
It seems that we shall be presented with two alternatives. The first is that we shall be living in a world with much higher standards for everyone; where all will be working, perhaps for a much shorter time, but everyone will have a much higher level of skills and education than is now the case; and life will be very much easier and better all round—in truth, a veritable golden age produced through the proper utilisation of new technology.
The second alternative is that we shall have a relatively, small, highly-skilled workforce surrounded by a large, untrained, unmotivated, discontented and almost certainly rebellious population with no work to do at all since the low-paid, low-skilled jobs which occupy a substantial part of the workforce at present will have been automated out of existence.
The alternative chosen depends upon political will and of course on an enormous investment in education and training. I am by no means sure that that has been understood fully by the Government, although a Minister was present and addressed the conference on the need for training and the need to appreciate and understand the technologies involved.
These are very large and important questions which I hope to see addressed by the Government. Unfortunately, there has been no reference to them at all in the Queen's Speech.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I wish to focus upon education, its needs and significance. I find myself slotting in easily to what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has just said. Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology has reported recently on the information society. While I do not wish to anticipate the debate on the committee's recommendations, it seems to me important this evening to say something about the social revolution which will certainly occur because of information technology and to say something, however briefly, about the significance of education in that regard.
We live in an age of convergence, and that revolution is all about the convergence of information. In general, scientific revolutions have a habit of occurring long after the relevant scientific changes on which they depend have taken place. Perhaps I may give an example. The introduction of electricity did not produce immediately great changes in industry. It was about a generation later that the practice was developed in factories using electricity, not to power a general overhead drive but
280
instead to power the individual devices on the shop floor. It was that which enabled great changes to be made in industrial practice.
So it is with the information revolution. First, the integrated circuit developed in the late 1950s permitted an ever-increasing amount of information to be processed and stored on a single microchip. Then came the second development—digitisation; that is, the ability to represent data in digital form. The broadcast media, the music industry, telephony, photography and film making are all converging, being processed in digital form. One of the features of digitisation is that it allows almost everything—for example, words, sound and graphics—to be brought together in a single format and in consequence the multi-media industry has emerged. But behind it is something much more fundamental. There is a fundamental change in the way that people communicate with one another, a fundamental change in how they use information and how they understand knowledge as a product.
One of our difficulties is that we do not know the precise form in which this information revolution will take place. But the one thing that is clear is that we are at the threshold of it. The Bangemann Report pointed out:
"This revolution adds huge new capacities to human intelligence and constitutes a resource which changes the way we work together and the way we live together".
The classical boundaries are dissolving between movies, television, computing and telephony.
We have seen this change coming for some time. In the 1960s almost a half of all workers in industrialised countries were engaged in manufacturing—in making things. By the year 2000 no developed country will have more than one-sixth or one-eighth of its workpeople actually making and moving goods. Indeed, as the noble Baroness pointed out, by the 21st century less than half the workforce in the industrialised world will be holding conventional full-time jobs.
Before I turn to the proposals that have been made, perhaps I may just ask your Lordships to note one thing; namely, what is going for us and what may well help towards making a success of the information society. First and foremost, the English language is the language of the information society. Indeed, 80 per cent. of the world's business is now done in English, 70 per cent. of all movies are made in English and 80 per cent. of all electronically stored text is now in English. Moreover, our telecommunications are probably more competitive and more open than any other in the developed world.
Yet we have such a long way to go if we are to be successful in this new information society. The Americans are far ahead and it will be difficult to catch up with them. The Japanese openly boast that they will beat us, in large part because, they argue, our approach to employment and management is woefully out of date. The only answer is education. Perhaps I may recall for your Lordships that authoritative skills survey which recently estimated that the lowest achieving quarter of British school-leavers do not have the skill levels regarded as basic to enter industry in Korea.

281
My purpose tonight is to draw attention to the information revolution and to try to convince your Lordships that education and training must be given a primary role at the heart of these changes if society is going to be prepared for them. Part of the revolution and part of the training is that all learners must develop what is now called "network literacy", adding to the old skills of information handling, new skills of using networks and working with digital content. As I have tried to explain, this really amounts to new and different ways of using information and understanding knowledge.
The National Council for Educational Technology has pointed out that four steps must be taken within education if we are to be successful. First, schools and colleges must be adequately resourced. One of the important needs is sometimes described—and I am sorry for using such technical words—as "connectivity". There must be electronic communications within the organisation and between the organisation and the outside world. Over 40 per cent. of the computers in schools are over five years old and they must be upgraded to networked multimedia machines. Hence the acceptance of unwanted computers from industry and commerce can be only a stop-gap measure. Recurrent cost is also a problem. Cheaper fixed price access to telecommunication networks is needed for schools, colleges and public libraries.
The second requirement is to develop teachers who use information and communications technology naturally as part of their ordinary work. For new teachers the use of information technology must become an integral part of teacher training courses. Serving teachers must be given the opportunity to develop information technology skills. They should be offered opportunities through the technology itself, through networks, CD-ROMS and the like. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister might possibly consider offering existing teachers finance to purchase their own equipment and thereby gain personal access to this new world.
The third requirement is the improvement of the national curriculum. I am happy to tell your Lordships that the United Kingdom is the only European country where information technology is an explicit curriculum requirement. However, the curriculum needs further amendment to reflect what is required to achieve network literacy. Schools and colleges should ensure that information technology is fully used in their administration and management, improving efficiency and even managing the learning of individual students. I have one interesting example in that respect. Why not use information technology to take education right into the homes of students who have been suspended?
I turn now to my final point. In order to accomplish all those aims, we need a co-ordinated approach more generally outside the schools and colleges. We were among the leaders in understanding the impact of information technology, but we are steadily losing that lead. For instance, educational software is a new industry in which we ought to be commercially dominant because educational software carries the culture of the country. British innovative educational software should be exporting our educational system
282
and our culture. The reality is that the market, including the CD-ROM market and the on-line content of the Internet, is dominated by the United States.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned, it is vital for us to establish new markets to replace those which will certainly be taken over by the developing world. This software opportunity, especially with UK digital content and services, has not only the right degree of technological sophistication for us but it also has the unique quality of being based upon British culture and social values—a market which we must successfully invade.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Turner, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that although education is tabled for debate today, it includes employment because the new department is the Department for Education and Employment.
I wish to speak specifically on unemployment. The word "unemployment", the scourge of society today, is not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech. It should not be necessary to say what devastating effects unemployment has in particular youth unemployment and long-term unemployment. The break-up of families, physical and mental illness, the turn to crime and other matters have been recounted in this House on numerous occasions, although sometimes I am not sure whether that devastation is appreciated by at least some noble Lords on the opposite Benches.
The current unemployment figure is 2.1 million, and I have to say at the outset that there is one aspect of this about which I am particularly worried. I think that some people now believe that that is the norm; in other words, that little or nothing can be done about it; that the situation will never change or will not change to any great extent. The reason for that is that the level of unemployment has remained high for so many years. I remind the House that in 1979 when Labour left office there were 1.3 million unemployed and that number had been decreasing for six consecutive months.
There is one aspect of all government policies from which the Government cannot escape. It is the fact that they have been in power for 17 years. It applies perhaps more to unemployment than to anything else. One of their biggest failures in this matter has been the devastation that they have caused in manufacturing industry. Thousands of jobs have been lost and we still have, unbelievably, 700,000 fewer in that sector of our economy than we had as recently as 1990.
Manufacturing investment has fallen for three quarters in a row and is below 1979 levels. Overall, unemployment has doubled since 1979, even excluding the 31 changes which have been made to the claimant count which the Government have made, all of them no doubt intended to reduce the figures for the number of people unemployed.
There are more than 1 million fewer jobs than when the present Prime Minister came into office. I have seen that figure disputed. In view of its importance, I hope that when the Minister replies he will comment on it.

283
Of course we shall hear the usual litany in reply to the debate: that unemployment has been falling for months; and that it is at its lowest for five years. Let me emphasise that we on these Benches welcome every fall in real unemployment. But what is the Government's answer to this question? How did they get to that position in the first place? That issue has to be dealt with in a debate of this kind.
One of the answers given by the Government is world conditions. I say immediately that that is quite correct; world conditions affect every country. They have affected the economy of this country too—but not for 17 years. That is the point to which we must keep returning. That is demonstrated most graphically by the fact that over that period the United Kingdom has fallen in the world living standards league table from 13th to 18th. That is a long-term view and taken on objective criteria.
Despite those facts we continue to hear about the economic success of the Government's policies. That view, in particular as regards manufacturing industry, is not shared by the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the purchasing managers' index; and I remind your Lordships of the often expressed view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he believes in a strong manufacturing base.
But one has only to read the daily newspapers to see the quite wide fluctuations in, for example, the retail trade, with shops' takings up one week and down to a substantial degree the next; and to read of redundancies, large and small, in so many factories; and of the reduction in the workforce in the financial and commercial sectors of the economy—something of which we have not heard before.
I cannot resist, too, at this point, as a former Member of Parliament representing a mining constituency, saying that 50 per cent. of miners who were made redundant in the 1990s were still unemployed a year later. Many of the miners are still without a job and have little hope of getting one. The mining communities are still reeling from the butchery of their industry in the 1980s, and in particular in the 1990s.
I read that redundancies are running at 800,000 a year. I have another question for the Minister. How is that compatible with the news that unemployment is falling? It is another mysterious aspect of the way the Government deal with unemployment figures.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will refer to the doubts which are frequently expressed about the nature of the new jobs which the Government say are being created, in particular with reference to part-time jobs. Like my noble friend Lady Turner, I do not object in principle to part-time jobs. In the case of women, they are not only useful for families but to the economy as a whole.
The Government's labour force survey—as your Lordships will know it is a quarterly poll of 60,000 people, which is a substantial sample—showed as recently as 16th October that only 14,000 full-time jobs were created in the past year compared with 198,000 part-time jobs. It also shows, significantly, that male
284
full-time jobs had fallen by 36,000. That labour force survey also shows that Britons work the longest average week in Europe at 43.4 hours. That is another point touched on by my noble friend. I am happy to give the figure which comes from the Government's own statistical survey. Is that good, considering the effect on the number of jobs, to say nothing of stress, increased likelihood of accidents and the effect on family life?
In any discussion on unemployment different figures are used to illustrate points of view. It was particularly interesting, therefore, to read in the past two weeks of a disagreement between the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on whether the Government should use the agreed International Labour Organisation definition of unemployment. One would have thought that there could be no argument about the principle of having an internationally agreed basis for figures. It would help everyone concerned. It appears that the Secretary of State has won the dispute on the basis that the cost of the £8 million involved cannot be afforded at a time of financial restraint. The real reason is almost certainly—
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, perhaps I may correct him on a small point. We use the international definition. We use it in the quarterly LFS figures which come out once a month. Obviously we do not use it for the other figures which come out every month because those are quite simply a count of those registered unemployed. The two measures are different, but they are both complementary and they have shown over the past few years more or less the same trend.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am glad to have that comment. As I said, it seems the sensible thing to do. The Minister was not in charge at the time, but only months ago I asked a question on this specific point and reasons were put forward as to why it was not a good idea to adopt the standard. I am pleased to learn that that is now being done. I had intended to make the point that there is so much disagreement on statistics relating to unemployment that something had to be done about it. I hope that that will make a contribution towards it.
I see that the Prince of Wales expressed his concern about unemployment at the weekend with particular reference to youth unemployment. Talking of statistics, I hope that the Government will not dispute his statement that there are 250,000 young people who have been out of work for more than six months. He also mentioned that there is a total of 600,000 young people who are not in work or undertaking any kind of education or training. That, incidentally, is almost double the figure in Germany. I mention the Prince of Wales since there is perhaps more likelihood of the Government taking notice of his remarks than of a rather weak voice such as mine on the Opposition Benches.
The most pervasive feeling in this country is insecurity; and the most important ingredient in that is the feeling that one's job will be lost. Since the present Prime Minister came to office, no fewer than 11 million people have experienced at least one period of unemployment.

285
The fundamental reason for the present situation has been the incompetence of the Government in managing the economy; and there is nothing to suggest that matters will be any different in the future in the unhappy event that this Government are returned next year. This Queen's Speech would be a laughable document were it not such a serious matter for the unemployed.
There are 900,000 long-term unemployed. "Long-term" is defined as being out of work for more than one year. However, the figure includes those who have been out of work for two, three or four years and even longer. If a Labour government had produced that figure after 17 years in office the Tory lie machine would have had a field day.
I take some solace from the fact that I do not believe that machine can produce anything to obliterate from the minds of the electorate the sheer horror of long years of heart-breaking unemployment for so many people. George Bernard Shaw once said, "You can get used to anything—so you have to be very careful what you get used to".
There are many things of which this Government can be accused, but none is more important than creating the conditions in which people become used to unemployment. It has happened to thousands of families, with tragic results in many cases. That, more than anything else, will help to get rid of this Government next year—but it has been a terrible price to pay.
7.3 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that the gracious Speech raises the subject of the control of marine pollution. I must declare an interest. I spent 25 years in the shipping industry; that included taking a Master's certificate of competency after 10 years at sea. However, I regret that road safety, which affects all of us and about which I feel particularly strongly, receives no attention. I shall return to the matter later.
My time at sea encompassed the beginning of the end of Britain's long period as a major maritime nation. I sailed under the British and Australian flags: officers and seamen were well trained; safety was uppermost in our minds; and we took measures to ensure that no oil escaped into the sea. But times change. Oil spills have become more frequent following groundings and collisions which may be due, in part, to less exacting training, more crowded waterways and undue reliance upon electronic technology. The intention of the proposed legislation is, mainly, to protect our waters and coastline from pollution emanating from merchant ships by making shipowners more financially responsible for clean-up operations. It will be interesting to observe how shipowners and their insurers come to terms with their proposed new obligations. Similar measures have been in force for many years in America, albeit in a more draconian form, but, if we can achieve our objective satisfactorily by means of this Bill, almost everybody will be very pleased.
There are many areas affecting road safety which merit attention; however, I shall touch upon only two of them this evening. Before doing so I should declare that
286
I am a civilian holder of the police Class 1 driving certificate and a former examiner of advanced motorists in Australia—a country which is quite innovative in its approach to driving and safety—and am regularly in touch with certain organisations specialising in road safety.
On average, 10 people are killed on our roads every day of the year and, on most days, one of those killed will be a child. While the figures are better than those for most countries, there is still room for improvement. Excess speed and inappropriate speeding have been shown to be the biggest single contributory factor in road accidents—and the relationship between speed and accidents is clear: the faster the speed, the greater the number of accidents and the more serious the level of injury sustained.
I was somewhat alarmed at the cynical, but correct, view of a police officer who noted that, when too many vehicles left the road at a particular corner, a more skid resistant road surface was laid—with the result that vehicles now leave the road on that corner travelling faster and with more serious consequences.
In last year's debate on the environment, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who is not in his place, mentioned that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had, during an earlier debate, admitted to a financial interest in relation to a speed limit. Speed traps were also mentioned, but I am not sure whether the two matters were connected. It is very easy to exceed the posted speed limit when cocooned in a quiet, warm and comfortable vehicle, but regular examination of the dashboard instruments, combined with better observation, will certainly reduce the possibility of speeding. However, it has been proved that GATSO cameras not only help to reduce collisions at crossroads but also help to reduce the average speed of vehicles travelling in their vicinity. It is also agreed that, as a result, there tend to be fewer accidents in their proximity and they are very cost-effective. If it were possible to have more cameras appropriately placed, speed limits would be more universally observed. The Government have stated that that is one of their aims. However, fines levied as the result of GATSOs go to the Treasury. The financial and administrative burden of speed enforcement on the police can prohibit the purchase of further cameras. If that burden were reduced by feeding back to the police a portion of the fine-generated income, a situation would eventually be achieved whereby the whole operation would become self-funding, the Treasury would still receive large sums of money and fewer accidents would result, with less cost to the NHS.
The Transport Research Laboratory has estimated that if all van drivers engaged in local deliveries were to wear seat belts, 25 fatalities, 290 serious and 850 slight injuries could be averted every year. However, the Wearing of Seat Belt Regulations exempt certain drivers from wearing belts. It is understandable that postmen and milkmen in urban areas should be exempted: after all, they move only a few yards at a time. But there is no definition of the word "local" and therefore considerable leeway is given by the police in its interpretation, with the van driver taking full advantage of the situation.

287
Now that seat belt design has provided the retracting belt, van drivers' comments on getting caught up in their belts are no longer valid. It may be that primary legislation is needed to address this anomaly. If that is the case, it should be done so as to minimise the financial and emotional pressures exerted on government and on the families affected. If van drivers were forced to wear seat belts, they would soon get used to the few seconds which it takes to put them on and perhaps realise that it is preferable to being killed in a fraction of a second.
7.10 p.m
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate, as is traditional in the reply to the gracious Speech. I wish to confine my comments to education, as a number of Peers have done before me.
The Education Bill announced in the gracious Speech will, if passed, be the 18th Education Act in as many years of Conservative Government. I believe it is the Government's hope that measures such as the extension of selection, greater freedom for grant-maintained schools and the extension of the assisted places scheme to preparatory schools will win headlines and hence win votes. The reality is that these measures will make little or no difference to the vast majority of children in our schools. They reflect the Government's obsession with a tiny minority of schools and their continuing preoccupation with the structure within which schools operate.
I live in the London Borough of Wandsworth where all secondary schools now have some form of selection or specialisation. The effects of this have been entirely predictable and I believe damaging. In Wandsworth children can look forward to being marked as successes or failures at the age of 11. One school, Gravney School, is now so popular that this year in the first tranche of applications no pupils have been accepted on the basis of their geographical proximity to the school. All new pupils have been accepted by examination or because siblings attend the school. One parent remarked this morning that the school was like an alien spaceship which had descended into the neighbourhood, drawing children in from outside areas and rejecting local children.
Another school, in the north of the borough, is a very unpopular school. It is the borough's sink school. I understand that this year's intake is down in terms of both the quality and the quantity of the pupils accepted. The school is, and will continue to be, marked as a failure by the examination league tables and it is seen as such by local parents.
I believe it is truly a failure of the Government that such schools exist in the first place. It is particularly their failure that, whatever the efforts of the staff, they will not be reflected through benefits in the examination league tables. Here—to use jargon—I am talking about reflecting the added value a school can give to its pupil intake.
Selection exaggerates the success or failure of schools but it also exaggerates the success and failure of children. One story I heard this morning was of a girl
288
who loved art and applied to a Wandsworth school with a specialisation in that subject. She failed the entrance exam. I am told that she was so upset that she has since stopped the drawing and painting which she loved so much. This is no way to encourage the higher standards which we all want.
If the Government's measures are passed into law, their combined effect nationwide will be negligible. Schools and parents have shown no enthusiasm for increased selection in the past. When the DfEE consulted earlier this year on whether to raise the level of selection from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., only 15 of the 1,500 organisations consulted said they were in favour.
The Government also propose to tinker with the powers of grant-maintained schools. The number of schools opting for grant-maintained status has slowed to a trickle, with only 89 schools opting out in 1995–96. Only 1,100 schools of our 23,000 schools have opted for grant-maintained status. Yet the Government still try to revive this sector. They propose to allow the Funding Agency for Schools to set up new grant-maintained schools in all new areas where it believes there is a demand. But this is without reference to the 800,000 surplus places that exist nationally or to local education authorities' school development plans.
This contradicts parental choice, when parents are increasingly voting against grant-maintained schools. It bypasses their views and actively undermines the local education authorities. The proposals may go a long way to introducing a free market to the grant-maintained sector, but they are, I believe, a sideshow. They will do nothing for the standards about which we debate all the time. They will do nothing for discipline, which is so topical at the moment. They will actively undermine the ability of education authorities to plan the education for local children. I may be premature, but I am reminded of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch: this scheme is dead, defunct, no more, and the Government should give up attempts to revive it.
The extension of the Assisted Places Scheme to cover the primary age range is perhaps the Government's greatest admission of failure. I believe it is profoundly unfair that some £140 million will be spent in subsidising 70,000 children in private schools rather than following the Labour Party's proposal to cut class sizes to no more than 30 children for all five, six and seven year-olds. The Labour Party's proposal would benefit some 440,000 children. It is the Government's failure which has exaggerated the demand for private education. I believe it is no role for the Government to perpetuate this divide in our country.
The watchwords of the Government's programme over the past few years have been "choice" and "diversity". Last Session we saw the Education (Students Loans) Bill and the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill—presumably in the name of choice and diversity. These Bills, now Acts, have proved to be mice, and sickly mice at that. This year we have a variety of measures which will increase choice for a minority of able children. I look forward to the day when an Education Minister puts forward

289
measures specifically designed to enhance the choice and diversity of those children least able to meet the demands of today's society.
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, with a subject as all-encompassing as environment and agriculture, I should like to deal with those two matters as they affect the health of the nation—that is, in the agricultural environment and the way we use our farmland and in the food that is produced on that farmland which provides the diet of our society.
The danger that links these areas is the chemical input: the pesticides and the fertilisers, the hormone treatments, the organophosphate dosing and the animal feed, be it to stock or poultry, that are enervating the immune systems of both humans and animals alike.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers told the House clearly in his opening speech of the danger of the population explosion in the next 20 years. I do not take issue with him on that. But he said that intensive farming is vital. However, he went on to say that it was all right for chemicals to be used if they were properly controlled. That is indeed the import of the White Paper which is being implemented by the Government to impose much greater controls on chemical input in intensive farming in this country. We can all agree that chemicals would be of no use in propagating this particular item of endangered species who speaks to you now. I would dread the idea of being fertilised, chemically or otherwise, and the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that perhaps we might be a suitable case for treatment by Mr. Damien Hirst really does alarm me.
However, on the subject of the health of the nation, there is a growing understanding of the importance of diet and its effects especially on young children and the youth of our country. We need only recall wartime rationing to prove that point. Diet may be peripheral but it is very important. Recent events in schools and in society in general are evidence that the quality of home life can be tragically reduced in a number of ways, but particularly by a combination of fast food, typically hamburgers, and those dreadful 12-week-old battery chickens, which are a particularly unsatisfactory source of nutrition, sugars and so on, which are a recognised source of hyperactivity in small children.
It is tempting to add a word about family values. Suffice it to say that the subject is by definition a family matter and one in which the Government interfere at their peril. It is the voluntary organisations, so rightly praised by the Prime Minister, which are able to deliver the advice and support needed in that area. But the Government have proposals where appropriate, both in school life and on the streets, and they are of vital importance. My noble friend can be assured of my support in the rapid passage of the Bills as they come to this House.
On the agriculture front, I refer your Lordships to a recent speech by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. In his Lady Eve Balfour memorial address to the Soil Association—a long speech of great importance—
290
His Royal Highness dealt conclusively and in detail with problems that have been compounded over the past 50 years with the ever increasing intensification of pressures from science and chemistry. His Royal Highness kindly agreed that I might give the following short extract. After quoting Wendell Berry, whose philosophy he noted as,
"farming cannot thrive where nature does not also thrive … the appropriate measure of farming then is the world's health and our health, and this is inescapably one measure",
His Royal Highness went on to say:
"Only now after 50 years is the evidence of that measure beginning to emerge from the process (some would say the experiment) in which we have all, somewhat unwittingly, taken part—the progressive industrialisation of agriculture".
I must emphasise that His Royal Highness has not endorsed any of my other remarks. It is only now that the jury—the public—is out to deliver a verdict on the past 50 years of intensive farming. Indeed, I understand that one supermarket is starting to sell organic food at normal prices. So we shall soon be able to judge that verdict. However, the overstretched organic farmers, your Lordships may be interested to know, can supply only some 40 per cent. of the existing home demand.
Allied to the question of farm chemicals is the equally disturbing problem of the use of antibiotics in our healthcare system. For example, some 30 per cent. of patients who have antibiotics administered suffer side effects. And what happens to the animals? We hear that in perhaps five years' time the drug companies will produce a new wonder antibiotic drug. Why do we need new wonder drugs? It is because the existing wonder drugs are no longer quite so wonderful. Indeed, the bugs have outplayed the pharmaceutical companies. Those companies evidently cannot keep up with the bugs' ability to mutate. The bugs are successfully reacting by mutation to defend themselves from the human invasion of their natural processes. I am not the betting man in my family. I leave that expensive luxury to others. However, if I were to place a bet, I should put my money on the bugs. They are far cleverer than we are; they have clearly demonstrated that fact.
Similarly, farming chemicals continue to be improved. New and stronger chemicals are needed to overcome the problems created by the previous lot. Here perhaps is the point. We need to maintain and promote the fall-back systems that are available today, as they have been since long before the 50-year experiment; that is to say, both alternative medicine and extensive, indeed traditional, farming. They deliver a sustainable environment and a sustainable system of farming. I hesitate to say it in the face of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, but I shall come to the point of demonstrating the case. Certainly, in agriculture, there could be a start by reducing the antibiotic treatment of farm animals. That is not to mention other chemicals such as hormone treatment and dousing (or perhaps I should say dosing) in organophosphates. One can only hope that the latter poison will soon be consigned to the dustbin of chemical history, along with Deldrin, Aldrin, DDT and all the other poisons that have been administered to our agriculture and horticulture.

291
I spoke in the debate on Sub-committee D's report on CAP reform. The report called for urgent action to effect that vital need. That it will be a monumental task is without doubt. I congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lady Chalker, both of whom have proclaimed the need to reform the CAP as much as possible.
The conversion of organic farms and fields provides increasing yields after five years on a year-on-year basis. We have proof of that remarkable fact. Indeed, MAFF has conducted a three-year trial which demonstrates that organic milk production can deliver better yields more profitably than conventional methods.
I have other points to make about MAFF. By MAFF's efforts and those of the Soil Association and other allied interests, the hectarage of organic farming has increased in two years by 66 per cent., admittedly from a minuscule share of 30,000 hectares to nearly 50,000 hectares. So we are grateful to the Government for the well funded research which is producing the proof of the pudding. All we ask is that the Treasury should sample, perhaps with lingering delight, the fruits of that research and "up the ante" on the conversion costs for those taking up organic farming. We should then have extensive, low chemical input farming on up to 10 per cent. of our farmland, producing chemical-free food for the benefit of those discerning people who want an extensive and contented family lifestyle.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may first crave your Lordships' indulgence for having been unavoidably absent from the Chamber during the earlier stages of this debate. Tonight I should like to talk about urban transport and its contribution to environmental improvement.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, discuss the environmental problems of population growth and environmental pollution, which, I am sure each of us agrees, are serious problems facing us all. I should have expected major pieces of legislation to reflect the Government's concern, coupled with proposals for action. All we have is one measure—a very welcome measure—to help combat marine pollution and some assistance to parish councils, about which my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has already spoken. They are both welcome but I should have expected two other measures.
There was a measure, proposed and floated frequently, to control mini-cabs in London—they are the only unlicensed mini-cabs in the country—and check on drivers' criminal records. A Green Paper was published three years ago. Steven Norris, who was the Transport Minister, described the law as "a mess" and totally unsatisfactory. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what has happened to that measure.
Also, a proposal was floated to privatise air traffic control, which is not something that we would support. That was discussed in another place on Monday. I studied the Official Report in great detail and the matter is even more confusing than I thought. Perhaps the
292
Minister can give us some information on that. Perhaps the reason for the lack of new legislation on the environment and transport is that the Government believe that they have achieved so much—bus deregulation, rail privatisation and a virtual freeze on road construction—that there is nothing more to do. I see it more like a deregulated free-for-all where anything goes.
As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also said, the problems of environmental pollution—I add traffic congestion to that—will not go away. On 26th February this year, in response to a Written Question in the other place, the Department of Transport published some interesting maps on motorway congestion. They were published in wonderful colour—red, yellow and black—so they are totally impossible to photocopy. However, if one looks at the original in the Library, it will be seen that in 20 years' time congestion is expected for most of the day on all motorways between Preston and Folkestone.
Around two years ago the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution produced a report on transport and the environment which sought to set a framework for an environmentally sustainable transport system. One of the targets was to keep CO2 levels no higher in 25 years than they are today. How is that to be achieved? The report recommended that the proportion of passenger kilometres should increase from 12 per cent. now to 30 per cent. in 2020—an increase of two-and-a-half times. It proposed that we reduce our urban journeys by car from 50 per cent. in London and 65 per cent. in other urban areas today to 35 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively in 2020.
Then Dr. Mawhinney—the then Secretary of State for Transport—instituted his great transport debate. The Government responded in the Green Paper, Transport: The Way Forward, which laid down seven points concerning urban transport. It stated that traffic growth posed a special problem in urban areas. We all know that. It said that the car would continue to play an important role and that unchecked car traffic would lead to congestion. It indicated that the Government aimed to ensure that local authorities had the powers to take decisions and implement them. That involves the subsidiarity mentioned by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The report then said that the Government would consider congestion charging; controlled vehicle access; a greater role for public transport, especially the bus; investment in local rail schemes; park-and-ride schemes and bigger roles for cycling and walking.
That was a government document published earlier this year. I suppose one could call it motherhood and apple pie, but it is always somebody else's problem. It is up to local authorities to implement its suggestions. It is not a policy; it is not a strategy; there are no tools or finance to enable local authorities to implement the measures. Perhaps the Government's idea of subsidiarity is to keep financial control but pass the blame on to somebody else when it goes wrong. Our towns and cities are grinding to a polluted halt while the buck is passed. It is claimed: "It's not the Government's problem". I believe it is.

293
The Government need to lead by example. We probably all agree on the need to limit the use of cars in towns—I do not mean ownership; I mean the use, particularly in peak times. One statistic which probably relates as much as anything to a remark made by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby earlier in relation to children and schools—I too live in Wandsworth—is that the number of children being taken to school by car increased from 12 per cent. in 1975 to 26 per cent. in 1993 to 1995. That is more than double and we see a lot of it in Wandsworth. It may be something to do with the types of schools we have, but that is a national figure.
We need to set an example. I was in Lancashire around six months ago speaking to 300 transport engineers at a conference on environmental transport. It took me a £10 taxi ride to get from the nearest station to the hotel. I asked how many had come by public transport. Three out of 300 put up their hands. We in Westminster need to set an example. How many Ministers use public transport? I know a few do, but perhaps a few more can on occasion. Do parliamentarians really need to travel to this palace every day by car from round the corner just because they have free parking? We must set an example. We need to encourage people out of their cars and on to buses, to cycle and to walk. We need a policy of encouragement which will not cost a great deal—some of it could come from what is saved on the road programme.
I wish to make a few suggestions. Buses are the quickest and easiest way to encourage people out of their cars. At the moment they are stuck in traffic jams.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, when did the noble Lord last use a bus?
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I came here by bus this morning and I travel by bus at least three or four times every day. In fact I am selling my car because I never use it.
If buses were provided with continuous bus lanes and people sitting in traffic jams saw the buses passing them by, the benefits of travelling by bus would outweigh the advantage of sitting in one's car with the radio on and one's mobile phone—hopefully not in one's hand. I obtained some figures from the Confederation for Passenger Transport for areas outside central London and Birmingham. A recent MORI poll said that buses are mainly used by women, young people aged between 15 and 30, people over 60, those not in full time work and those who do not own cars. Those are the socio-economic groups E and D. They are not opinion formers—sadly. More people would use the buses if sensible timetables could be maintained, whatever the congestion on the roads.
Where are the bus lanes? The Government announced several years ago that in London there would be a 10-year programme to introduce bus lanes. We saw it start. Why does it take 10 years? It is only white paint on the road. If the system was continuous, people would use it.
294
I move on to the subject of cycling. The Government have given a lot of general encouragement to cycling, but little else. Again, Britain spends 20p per head of its transport budget on cycling whereas the German Federal Office of the Environment recommends £20 per head. I appear to have mislaid a recent report.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend left it on the bus!
Lord Berkeley: No, my Lords, I did not leave it on the bus. However, the Government published a National Cycling Strategy last year and it is interesting to note that this year's cycling budget from the Transport Policy Programme—the TPP that we know so well—was only 1.3 per cent.; only 10 per cent. went to local transport and 13 per cent. to local safety and other minor schemes, with everything else going to schemes to encourage cars. Perhaps that is not surprising.
Walking is the third topic. A recent report commissioned by Environ and Transport 2000 indicated that walking has declined by 20 per cent. in the past 20 years. That is a major figure. It says that, if the trend continues, walking will disappear completely by 2025. That may be a funny thing to say, but it is what is being said if one takes matters to the point of absurdity. The report gives a seven-step plan for promoting walking, all very sensible. It refers to,
"education … planning guidance … environmental improvements… integration of walking into a complete transport system".
We may ask why we should encourage walking in that way. But it is important. The report hit the nail on the head when it stated that the Department of Transport is urgently required to give guidance as to how local authorities can encourage walking. That is vitally important.
We seem to be moving still to a lack of government policy and leadership. We have spoken of driving and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, earlier mentioned the lack of enforcement. If the successful London parking system, which involves hypothecation of revenue, was extended to more traffic offences, then the revenue would go to those who have to pay for the enforcement and it would be much easier to carry it out.
The UK Round Table on sustainable development made recommendations in a report this year but I am afraid that all the Government could say was that it was all very difficult; that there were only 1.8 per cent. of vehicle miles by unlicensed lorries and that was very good. I wonder how many miles are covered by unlicensed lorries in a year. The lorries are probably overweight and so on. Hypothecation must be the answer.
There is a feeling that the Government do not care about transport any more—"Let everyone do what they like and the traffic jams and pollution will cause people either to leave their cars at home or to sit in a traffic jam. It does not matter very much." The quality of life diminishes, there is inner city decay and as for those without cars in the country—well, tough! Where is the policy and the leadership—the exciting positive carrot of encouragement, to local authorities, road and rail authorities and the public?

295
To me it is all summed up by a press cutting from the Independent this week about a new building to replace the late lamented 2 Marsham Street headquarters of the Departments of the Environment and of Transport. The winning architect, Gabriele Tagliaventi, plans to increase the number of car-parking spaces from 300 to 1,000. That is against all policy and planning guidelines, but it might make a bit more money for the Government in selling off the land. It is tempting to assume that they do not care about the consequences of this wilful neglect of our quality of life. The lack of content on these issues in the Queen's Speech says it all.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, the gracious Speech gives us an opportunity to embark on the subject of the environment and we have heard a good deal about it already. I want to say a few words about the effect of fly tipping on the environment and health.
The primary law on landfill tax is contained in Sections 39 to 71 of the Finance Act 1996. Landfill tax is paid by the operator of the landfill site, who will pass it on to the householder. Unfortunately, that will encourage the tactic of finding the easy way out of paying—fly tipping. Because fly tipped waste is almost always not deposited in a licensed landfill site, the obligation to pay the landfill tax will not arise. That means that although the landowner has the headache of getting rid of the fly tipped waste, he will not receive an invoice direct from Customs and Excise. However, when that waste is finally disposed of in a licensed site, landfill tax will be payable. This means that the cost of getting rid of the illegally deposited waste has increased—but by the amount of tax. The landowner is fiscally flagellated.
Fly tipped waste is outside the landfill tax system because fly tipping is seen as an enforcement problem of the Environment Agency. Customs and Excise is only interested in waste which is deposited at a landfill tax site. That is the only waste that can attract the tax. Although the National Rivers Authority had a strong reputation for prosecuting offenders, Customs and Excise has been more ruthless in prosecuting transgressors. If the Government could have been persuaded to make Customs and Excise interested in fly tippers, one might have seen a more rigorous enforcement regime. However, as the Environment Agency is supposed to be responsible for all aspects of environmental damage, I can see why the Government might have been reluctant to turn the tax collector into an environmental regulator chasing fly tippers. Nevertheless, why did the Government reject out of hand the notion that Customs and Excise should have an interest in those illegally depositing waste? Apart from anything else, these illegal operators will be fly tipping in order to avoid paying the landfill tax.
The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act was passed in 1978 and is still fully in force. Local authorities were given the power to dispose of abandoned cars and any other illegally disposed of refuse. Local authorities may also prosecute for unauthorised dumping. The Act does
296
not impose an obligation on local authorities to clean up all fly tipped waste at their own expense. Clearly, there is an obligation to clean up and pay up for land owned by or otherwise controlled by the local authority. For example, a local authority could be responsible for paying where fly tipping is carried out on land which it leases or uses for its own purpose—playing fields, children's playgrounds or local amenity parks. How will this be paid for?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. I hesitate to do so but there is a convention which is sustained by Standing Orders that any noble Lord who wishes to speak in the gap, having not given notice of the fact and whose name is not on the list of speakers, should speak only briefly and for a maximum of four minutes. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will wish to bear that in mind in the remaining part of his speech.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for telling me that. I had not taken that into account but I shall do so. I thank him very much indeed.
Unless the Government decide to introduce legislation to make local authorities responsible for cleaning up fly tipped waste, wherever it may have been deposited—and that is most unlikely—the only real way forward for landowners plagued by fly tipping is to lobby for the problem to have a higher priority.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise with a little trepidation after that. At the beginning of the debate some hours ago the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, described the subjects for debate as something of a mish-mash. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in characteristically more measured tones, suggested that each subject was itself so big and so important that it deserved a day to itself. As I rise to speak towards the end of the debate, all I can say is that we have indeed had a truly wide-ranging debate this afternoon.
There is some connection between the four subjects. Agriculture, as has been said, is crucially important to the environment; local government has a vitally important role to play in the environment; and education is, and should remain, a major part of local government. So there is some connection between the subjects for debate today.
On agriculture, I find myself in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I know virtually nothing about agriculture and that will be wholly reflected in my speech. The same is much less true of the environment. Indeed, I have the pleasure to be leader of the council that was recently given the prestigious award of being the greenest council in the land. However, my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley has very ably covered the subject of the environment.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—I shall not continue this line for too long—that local government has a vitally important role to play in the environment. It is best placed to put meaning to the

297
slogan "Think global, act local". Local authorities of all political persuasions are doing just that. They have tackled recycling in a big way and are now moving on to tackle the rather more difficult problem of waste minimisation. They are leading the way in implementing Local Agenda 21.
When I talk to some of my European counterparts I realise how far ahead we are in some places in the UK in implementing Local Agenda 21. This is good and vitally important work which many local authorities in this country are carrying out. I regret that we do not see in the gracious Speech any measures from the Government to support and encourage those local authorities which are at the leading edge of good practice and, perhaps even more important, any measures to encourage what I suspect is the rather greater number of local authorities which are not at the leading edge and, indeed, are not at all sure what Local Agenda 21 is, let alone doing anything about it. I certainly regret that omission from the gracious Speech before us.
It has been said by my noble friends that I am here to talk about local government and education, about which I do know something. I have to speak about local government because, unfortunately from my point of view but perhaps not from hers, my noble friend Lady Hamwee is out of the country. So it falls to me to speak on that subject. However, I am sure that if she were here she would give a cautious but warm welcome to the Government's proposals on parish councils in England and community councils in Wales. I know that those are a particular interest of hers, as they are of mine. As we understand the proposals thus far we welcome them, but we want to look much more at the detail. I am sure that we shall have very much more to say when the Bill goes through your Lordships' House.
I have a particular question on the provisions of that Bill, which I am sure is one which my noble friend Lady Hamwee would also ask because we are both London councillors. Perhaps I may ask whether the provisions of the Bill which is to come before your Lordships' House will also apply to London. At the moment London is the only part of the country where there is no legal power to have parish councils. If there is a provision in other parts of the country for parish councils will the Bill enable these to be established in London? I am sure that that is a point which will be pursued further when the Bill is before the House.
The other important aspect of local government which has been mentioned in the debate today is the report by the Select Committee on the relationship between central and local government. Both my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I had the pleasure, most of the time, of being members of that Select Committee. I am sure that in due course there will be a debate in your Lordships' House, and I shall reserve most of my comments for that debate. I shall be particularly interested to learn from the Minister when he replies when the Government's response will be published. I should be even more interested to know why it was not published last week when it was due to be published, but I suspect that he is less likely to tell me the reasons for that.
298
The title of that report was Rebuilding Trust. That is significant because I believe that is what the committee felt was vitally necessary in the relationship between local and central government. What is perhaps more interesting is that the report of the Select Committee was unanimous. That was the view of us all. It was not necessarily the view that all held at the beginning of the proceedings, but it was at the end. When the Government respond I hope that they will respond positively to the unanimous recommendations of that report.
I wish again to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said. Again, I agree almost wholly with what he said about the need to devolve power from Westminster, to decentralise, and that decisions are undoubtedly best taken at the democratic level nearest to that which those decisions will affect. I believe that everybody in local government, of all parties and none, share that belief. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that almost everybody in local government shares a disbelief that it will actually happen should there be a Labour government. In my experience the people who disbelieve that most strongly are Labour members in local government. I genuinely hope very much that, should there be a Labour government, we shall be proved wrong because above all I believe in the strength and power of local democracy.
I now move on to education. It is the subject on which I made my maiden speech in this debate two years ago. At that time I concentrated primarily on nursery education and on the Prime Minister's then commitment to expand and extend nursery provision in this country. We now know what that meant. I spent a very happy, although at times a somewhat strenuous summer, dealing with the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, as indeed did other noble Lords who have yet to speak.
I have had to deal with two Bills in my comparatively brief time in this House as education spokesperson. One was the Education (Student Loans) Bill, to which reference has been made, and the other is what I call in shorthand terms the nursery vouchers Bill. Reference has already been made to what happened to the student loans Act, as it now is. It has been quietly abandoned. I live in hope that the nursery vouchers scheme will be similarly quietly abandoned. I assure the Minister that if he felt able to say very quietly that the Government will indeed take note of the response of the pilot education authorities and abandon nursery vouchers we shall accept that equally quietly. I hope I tempt the Minister, but I suspect that I do not.
Three of those pilot projects are in London education authorities. I know those authorities reasonably well, but not as well as noble Lords who live in them. I also know the people who live in those boroughs. Whatever they may or not be able to say publicly, and whatever we read in reports—leaked or otherwise—I know, and I believe the Minister will also know, that there is no enthusiasm whatsoever in those boroughs for the introduction of nursery vouchers. They have found the scheme bureaucratic and involves a great deal of

299
administration. It is doubtful whether it has done anything to increase provision. Indeed, there is some evidence that it has done the reverse.
All that is past legislation and those are points that we made many times during the summer, all to no avail. But I still live in hope that the Minister, in a very quiet voice, will make a very quiet announcement.
I now turn to the gracious Speech and the statement,
"Legislation will be introduced to widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools".
As a statement of intent those are good intentions with which nobody would disagree. However, I still believe that it is an incredible statement for the Government to be making as they enter their 18th year and introduce their 18th Education Bill. After all that time and all that legislation, why are the Government saying that they still need to widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools? That statement in the gracious Speech condemns the Government in their own words more eloquently than I could.
We have a statement of good intentions, but the key point is to measure those intentions against the means of achieving them. I shall deal briefly with each of those but I am sure in the months to come we shall deal with them at very much greater length. First, as regards improving discipline, broadly speaking and as far as we understand them, I accept and agree with the measures proposed although I believe that they are somewhat of a hotch potch and do not go far enough. Similarly the measures on raising standards, as far as we can understand them at present, broadly reflect what is already good practice in many schools. Broadly speaking, I would accept them. I have more doubts about the intentions of Ofsted to inspect LEAs. I shall want to know a lot more about that. I believe that there is already quite a lot of concern about the variable quality of Ofsted inspections in our schools. Some are extremely good and very supportive, but others do not match up to the quality and respect which HMIs used to have.
Those measures are all right as far as they go, but they really do not tackle what I believe is one of the root problems in our schools. It was put very eloquently and very well earlier in the debate by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Ripon. I am very sorry that he has had to leave. I agree almost entirely with what he had to say about the teaching profession. It suffers great stress. Morale in the teaching profession is probably at its lowest ebb. It is held in very low esteem. It has suffered years of denigration. I was sorry to hear earlier this afternoon at Question Time the Minister himself make a very slight dig at some teachers when speaking about competitive sports. He withdrew it a little. That is the sort of thing that has had a drip effect over the years—it has sometimes been said in even stronger terms—and it has led teachers and the teaching profession to be held in low esteem.
We have heard a lot over the years—sometimes rightly—about the rights of parents and the responsibilities of schools; until recently we heard very little about the responsibilities of parents and the rights
300
of schools. I am glad that that balance is to start to be corrected now. However, if we are to tackle the problems of discipline and to improve standards in our schools, we need to treat teachers as the valued professionals that they are—or, at least, that they should be. I hope that we shall see a change of climate and some measures which will enable us to involve teachers in the important debate about how best to tackle the discipline problems that exist in schools. I should add that the stories that reach the newspapers are, by definition, the exception, not the rule. We need to remember that.
I turn now to the issue of widening choice and diversity. My first question is: widening choice for whom? I come from a local education authority which, sadly, from my point of view, still has selection. If the Government's proposals go ahead, we shall be widening choice for some schools, but lessening it for most parents. It used to be government policy, if not practice, that parents should have the right to choose a school; it is now the schools that have the right to choose pupils—and, indeed, to choose parents. Liberal Democrats have always opposed selection. We still do. Selection means less choice for most children.
The Prime Minister's much acclaimed dream of a grammar school in every town made no reference to what must come with that—several secondary modern schools in every town. That must follow. The Minister shakes his head. The Minister may not want to call such schools "secondary moderns". Perhaps that is an old-fashioned term. Some years ago the Conservatives in my borough decided that all schools would be called "high schools" and that four were to be selective while the rest were non-selective. You can use whatever name you like to cover it up, but the reality is that if you are selecting a small percentage of children, the majority of children will not be selected and will have no choice about their school. They will go to a secondary modern—whatever the language in which one chooses to dress it up.
In most parts of the country the reality is that most parents and children have little choice of school. We should be concentrating not so much on choice between schools as on choice within schools and on ensuring that each school is able to perform best to meet the different needs, requirements and abilities of its children.
The final point that I should like to raise on the issue of widening choice and diversity is a particular problem for my borough and for a number of other outer London boroughs. I refer to the Greenwich judgment. In my borough we are having to build new schools. We already know that they will not meet the growth in pupil numbers, yet if the Greenwich judgment was reversed our problem would be solved immediately. A couple of weeks ago I was in the London Borough of Bromley where the problem caused by the Greenwich judgment is even more acute. When he replies I hope that the Minister will say something about that and whether the Government are considering reversing that judgment—or at least considering the effect that that judgment is having on some local education authorities. I accept that

301
it is not a problem nationwide, but I assure the Minister that it is a very real problem in a number of LEAs and that it is getting considerably worse.
I turn now to that aspect of the Government's proposals which I find most baffling. I refer to the intention to increase the number of grant-maintained schools. That must be the policy which has failed most demonstrably for the Government. Figures have been quoted and we can see that the Government's earlier ambitions with regard to the number of grant-maintained schools have dramatically not been met. In the past year only 0.5 per cent. of schools held a ballot. Although every school is required to consider each year whether to have a ballot only 0.5 per cent. actually held a ballot and only half of those voted yes. Clearly, there is no popular demand for grant-maintained schools, so why on earth do the Government persist with them? Why are they now about to embark on their sixth attempt to refloat a failed policy? If the Government had any sense, they would quietly let that policy sink.
In conclusion, we are not looking at or tackling the real and underlying problem in our education system. I refer to the problem of chronic under-funding. In the past year alone, we have seen the number of primary classes with more than 36 pupils increase by more than 20 per cent. That has been the increase in just one year. We know that the bill for bringing school buildings into even an adequate state of repair is now in excess of £3 billion and that the problem is worsening. We know that many schools experience great shortages of books and equipment. I am the last person to say that the solution to the problem is simply to throw resources and money at it, but I do say that without more money we will not solve it. That is an important point.
The Government have made it clear that rather than tackling that under-funding, their higher priority is tax cuts. My party has made it clear that our higher priority is better funding for our education system. We are on record as saying that if tax cuts are proposed in next month's Budget the Liberal Democrats will vote against them. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, would very much like to be able to give the same commitment. I know that he cannot, but the true measure of the commitment of any political party to education is whether it gives education a higher priority than it gives to tax cuts. We shall be watching the debate and the vote following next month's Budget—and more importantly, the country will be watching it. It seems to me that, on education, the gracious Speech is very much more concerned with embarrassing the Labour Party—whether successfully or not we wait to see—in the run-up to the general election than with genuinely seeking to improve standards in our education system.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, when I was no more than a poor, provincial Professor of English Literature, I used to read the annual reports of my university with a sharp competitive eye on what other departments claimed to have achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, cheered me up no end when he talked about the importance of the English language
302
because I always felt that it was rather important too. Whenever I read from other departments phrases such as, "Professor Bloggs continues to act as adviser to the Pig-Breeders' Gazette" or whatever, I knew that there was no danger from that department because Professor Bloggs had clearly done nothing new in the past couple of years and had run out of ideas.
I felt exactly the same when I read the gracious Speech. It is packed with "continues". It states:
"My Government will continue to play a major role in NATO's adaptation"—
I should hope so.
"My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights"—
So they should.
"They will continue to promote enterprise"—
Well, what else could they do?
The very word "continues" occurs 12 times in two-and-a-half pages and proposals for new legislation are finally described in less than one page. The evidence is clear. This Government have run out of ideas. They are bereft of initiatives. They are drifting, powerless, rudderless, inert and directionless towards their inevitable dissolution.
Gathered round the patient's bed this afternoon and this evening, we have had a most interesting and wide-ranging debate—from forestry with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe to football with my noble friend Lord Howell. We could not go much further than that. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel made their opening statements in characteristic fashion. The noble Earl told us of the terrors of population growth and produced a most thought-provoking paeon on pesticides. He then gave us an extraordinary and moving defence of the hereditary peerage, after which my noble friend Lady Nicol offered him a crumb of comfort and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, recommended him for some reason to study the island of Tonga. He proceeded to get his teeth into the Local Government Bill. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel was principally concerned with the way in which the gracious Speech had provided such thin pickings on the subject of local government, especially that the Government proposed to do nothing to restore the authority and integrity of local democracy. He instanced the Government's inability to grasp the need for devolved democracy in Scotland and Wales. He reminded us that subsidiarity began at home and that all the money and effort employed in making local boundary changes would be in vain unless the worth of local government in fostering local communities was understood. Sadly, the silence of the gracious Speech on this matter is evidence that the Government have learned almost nothing from this exercise.
As my noble friend has pointed out, similarly there is silence on the subject of the environment. The Government propose nothing but legislation to strengthen the powers to protect our coastline from pollution from merchant shipping—the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out the paucity of that—and rate relief for small village shops. That is a small initiative that we welcome. Why is there nothing on air

303
pollution, whose health costs in selected British cities are estimated at £3.9 billion a year? It should be remembered that the privatised water companies have been prosecuted and convicted of serious pollution offences well over 200 times. The Government's legislation on water is as leaky and wasteful as the water companies' pipes, but there is nothing in the gracious Speech to remedy those abuses.
In the passage of the Government's Coal Bill, my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington hammered the Minister about pollution from abandoned mines, only to be told time and again that everything was under control. Yet the Government have failed to make the owners liable for pollution from abandoned mines and the British taxpayer will have to foot the bill. Can the Government deny that 150 miles of waterways are affected by abandoned coalmines and 300 miles by abandoned metal mines?
Silence also reigns throughout the gracious Speech on the question of housing. It contains not a word on the subject. It appears that the Government are well satisfied that everything is satisfactory, nothing more needs to be done and their present policies are succeeding. However, as my honourable friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras pointed out last Thursday:
"If the Government are satisfied with what is happening they are far too easily satisfied. Just look at the figures. Forty-eight thousand families had their homes repossessed last year. Half a million families were in negative equity at the beginning of the summer. Nearly 200,000 families were in serious mortgage arrears. But the Government propose nothing to help. Instead, they talk of a housing boom, but according to the chartered surveyors the recent house price increases are the product of a shortage of housing—it's the shortage that is pushing up house prices—no wonder there's no feel good factor".
But the Government appear to have no impetus to action.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the buildings of the Department of Transport and so forth. In those miserable megaliths in Marsham Street few lights are seen to burn late at night. As I walk past on the way to my little flat in Pimlico I look up and see them. It appears as though they have more or less given up the effort. They have all gone home to wait for Pickfords vans and the orange Rentacrates.
The gracious Speech covers many subjects, but on agriculture, fisheries and food it is as silent as the Sahara on a starlit night. Not one of those subjects is ever mentioned. Perhaps that is just as well, because one cannot see any programme of legislation brought forward by the Government that can command even a shred of credibility. The Government have failed to protect consumers from bovine spongiform encephalopathy; they have failed to protect our beef industry from the crisis in 1996; they have failed to tackle waste, fraud and inefficiency in the European Union's common agricultural policy. That was made clear in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who provided a well informed analysis of the integration required by the CAP. Further, the Government have let our fishing industry down by failing to fight our corner successfully in Europe or to repair any of the obvious flaws in the common fisheries policy.
304
Look for a moment at the Government's policy on BSE. It is in tatters. The noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Elis-Thomas, drew attention to it. I read in the paper that yesterday there were two U-turns in Luxembourg. The forecast by the Prime Minister that the slaughter policy would be on track by October or November is now completely out of the window. There is said to be a backlog of cattle in the pipeline of between 300,000 and 400,000. Only this week the Government finally reached their target of slaughtering 55,000 animals per week. It will be the end of this year or early next year before the backlog of 30-month cattle is cleared.
Government policy on food and farming seems to have failed to respond to the obvious swing of public opinion away from the pesticides and prairie-style factory farming of the past. In particular, the Government's record has been insensitive to the growing concern for the welfare of farm animals. They did nothing to stop the export of calves in veal crates so cruel that they were banned in this country. They have done nothing to improve the conditions suffered by battery hens. As we heard earlier in the debate, they legislated early in 1993 to permit the continuation of mink farming for fur.
The gracious Speech announces laconically and in a few words that shortly we may welcome the 18th education Bill in as many years. It will widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools. This afternoon and this evening many noble Lords have commented upon that. It says nothing about special educational needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made movingly clear in his splendid speech. It says nothing about parenting, the experience of a happy home and the necessity to bring parents and children into schools together, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, pointed out. It says nothing about employment, to which people will go from schools, as my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Dormand of Easington told us in their speeches.
A distinguished chairman of the former University Grants Committee once said that, if a university applied for a huge research grant to enable a department to unlock one of the great secrets of the universe, almost certainly his committee would enquire how many secrets of the universe that department had previously succeeded in unlocking. In the same way, Parliament will wish to consider the likelihood of this Bill—the 18th Bill—achieving its objective in the light of previous education Bills produced by this Government. The omens are not propitious. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has already pointed out the expensive disaster of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996, which went down quietly with all hands a few weeks ago. I add the almost universal opposition to the ill-fated nursery vouchers Bill and echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
The 18th education Bill looks doomed in the same way and for the same reasons. If rumour be not a lying jade and what we read in the papers is what will appear in the Bill, much of it will be trivial and most of it will be utterly irrelevant to what schools really need. That was the tenor of the speech of the right reverend Prelate

305
the Bishop of Ripon. He said that major factors were the raising of standards by an improvement in the calibre and status of the teachers in schools. That is where it must begin and end. In his splendid speech he praised setting in schools and the way in which people were getting together on the matter. In passing, I, for one, cannot believe that he was ever a dunce at anything he turned his hand to.
The Bill is said to have three main aims: to encourage new grammar schools and extend selection; to give grant-maintained schools:
"new freedoms to decide how they should develop"—
"new freedoms" is a lovely phrase. It reminds me of King Lear on the edge of his madness when he said:
"I will do such things, —
What they are yet I know not,—but they shall be
The terrors of the earth."
So, here.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Hotspur, surely!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, no, Lear. I will have a modest pint on it. The idea is to give grant-maintained schools new freedoms to decide how they should develop. "We are not going to tell them how to develop", say the Government, "they can think of that for themselves". The third objective is to respond to concern over standards of school discipline.
The Government believe that selection improves and widens parental choice. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, and as I have said on many occasions, I can answer that in two words. Not so. Selection flies in the face of parental preference. It is not the parents who choose the school, it is the school which chooses the children. Parents can only apply. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby painted a bleak picture of what happens to the parents of Wandsworth who go around applying to its schools.
Appeals by parents whose children have not been offered a place in a school of their choice have increased by 160 per cent. in the past five years, and, in any case, this practice of "shopping around" the educational system is a benefit only to those with the skill, information, determination and time to advance their children's interests. Durham County Council estimates that, if 10 per cent. of its schools selected, its first year costs would be just under £400,000, rising over time to £8 million if all its schools selected.
Yet the evidence is that neither schools nor parents have shown enthusiasm for increased selection in the past. We have just had the figures, and they are on the record. The DfEE consulted on whether to raise the level of selection from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. Only 1 per cent. of the consultees said that they were in favour—only 15 out of 1,500 organisations.
The proposals rumoured to be in the Bill on raising standards and improving discipline seem, on the whole, to be lifted lock, stock and barrel, horse, foot and guns, from Labour Party policy statements—amending school exclusion law, home-school contracts, the merger of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. We have said it all years ago, so I suppose that we should
306
receive the flattery gracefully and gratefully. But I must confess to a little doubt about the detention proposal—allowing schools to retain pupils after school hours without their parents' consent. It might just about work in urban areas, provided that the pupils concerned do not just raise two fingers in scorn to their teachers and say, "I shan't be in detention at all. I'm going, and I'm going now", which they frequently do. But in rural areas, even ashamed pupils are in difficulties, because school transport is timed and costed. It would create problems. You could hardly imagine the possibility of a schoolmaster saying, "You are in detention tonight, my boy, unless of course you live more than five miles away from the school and you have no alternative means of transport".
But it has not been the happiest of weeks for the DfEE. It started with the moral and disciplinary problems of The Ridings School, Halifax, and it ended with the quite hilarious report of the National Forum for Values in Education and the Community, which seems, inadvertently of course, to have forgotten the importance of the family and the institution of marriage in making its report. I am told that the Secretary of State herself had to tick it off and put it right. Perhaps she will put all 150 of its members in detention for their sin of omission. Alternatively, she may indeed be thinking of bringing back the cane to administer an appropriate punishment for them, although I believe that the Prime Minister this morning brought back the cane for her. I ask the Minister when he replies, now that he has had well over four hours to obtain the appropriate answer from the appropriate authority or the appropriate people in the Box, to tell us: do the Government approve of corporal punishment in schools or not?
As I said at the beginning, this Government have run out of everything—ideas, time and steam. Like Oliver Cromwell in 1653, I can only say:
"Let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!".
8.25 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as my noble friend made clear in his opening speech some five hours ago, today's is a fairly compounded debate, covering four subjects, to each of which, as my noble friend put it, we could have given a whole day. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, described it as a somewhat disparate menu. We have gone through the menu, and I hope noble Lords will accept that I shall concentrate on just one or two particular meals—if I may put it that way—for the sake of preventing indigestion, not just for myself but for noble Lords who have to listen.
I must necessarily be brief, but I shall say a little about the education Bill about which we have heard so much from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, despite the fact that it is not to be published until tomorrow. I shall tell him a little more about it in advance of its publication. I am grateful that in his opening speech my noble friend explained his department's plans for legislation.
My noble friend reminded us, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, of the growing world population. It is worth my stressing, as an education Minister, that we are not just facing a growing population. We are

307
facing a changed demographic shape of this country's population. We are obviously an ageing population. The pensions burden of that ageing population will be borne increasingly by those of working age. We are moving from a time where something of the order of three people are in work for every pensioner to the time when I come to retire when we shall be down to two people for each pensioner.
The dramatic increase in the burden on the pensioner means, as many noble Lords have made clear, that we need an ever more skilled workforce in the future—a workforce that can add ever more to the goods and the processes with which they are involved. That is why I believe it becomes ever more important that we seek to raise standards throughout our educational system. That has been very much the spirit behind the merger of the Departments of Education and Employment—a merger that I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, had not noticed, but a merger which I believe has been welcomed even by the Front Bench of the party opposite, trade unions and many others.
A great many reforms have been made to education over the past few years. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and others spoke of some 18 education Bills. I dare say that they are right. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke of education being still in a state of absolute abyss. I have to say that I hope he will consider carefully those remarks because they are a slur on the educational system. There is a great deal that is very good. There is a great deal that is excellent in the educational system. It is not fair to those involved in the educational system to say that we have slipped into an abyss and to start quoting rather peculiar reports that seem to put us at the bottom of any international educational league table—a report that, as I understand it, put levels of training in the Philippines higher than those in France. That is not a report that I suspect we can take too seriously.
If the noble Lord is making criticisms of the educational system, I would like him to look at the educational system in one or two individual Labour-controlled LEAs. Why not have a look at the educational system in Islington and ask the leader of his party why he does not want to send his children there? Why not look at the educational system in Southwark and ask Miss Harman why she does not want to send her children there?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: No, they are valid points. Those LEAs have been Labour for years and years and years.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, that is cheap.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that it is cheap. I admire them for recognising the fact that they have a choice and for exercising it. However, to say that they will deny that choice to others is not fair at all. Where there is talk of a bad record in education, Labour local education authorities of the likes of Islington, Hackney and Southwark should look at themselves.
308
During the past few years we have pursued vigorously a policy of greater choice—dare I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, greater choice for all? —greater diversity, greater parental involvement and greater availability of information about how schools are operating and performing. That is greater information for all. Through all that and more frequent inspections we are seeing a steady raising of standards. Our education Bill is part of that continuing process. Perhaps I may give an international comparison. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke of our having the second highest graduation rate in the entire European Union. I believe that that is no bad thing.
In looking to improvements in education and educational standards we must not lose sight of the wider role of education in society. Education is education for life, which again is one of the spirits of the merger, and for citizenship. It is not only for work. We must not be excessively utilitarian. Schools have a duty to promote their pupils' spiritual, moral and cultural development as well as their more narrowly academic progress. Recent events have rightly drawn the attention of us all to the need for moral values and decent behaviour both in and out of school.
I shall not pretend that our Bill has all the answers—of course it does not—but its provisions on discipline, to which I shall turn in a moment, are very relevant to the current debate. It is also important to acknowledge what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the need for greater parenting skills and the important issue of teaching personal, social and health education.
Much good work is being carried out in schools at the moment. Much good work is done by dedicated teachers and governors to promote within those schools an ethos which encourages personal responsibility, good behaviour and respect for others. But in this area, as in all areas, there is obviously scope for further work. The noble Lord, Lord Moms, and the right reverend Prelate will know of a report from SCAA's national forum, which is due to be launched on 1st November. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that it is the forum's report and not a report from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It will be putting out a document for wide consultation on ways of supporting schools' contribution to pupils' moral and spiritual development. Those consultations will explore whether common agreement can be reached on the values, attitudes and behaviour which schools should promote. I recommend the noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Morris, and others to read the report when it is published on Friday. I hope that they will find much which fits in with their own thoughts. Indeed, I hope that they will wish to make their views known to SCAA during the consultation process. Following that consultation process, the Government look forward to receiving advice from SCAA some time in February next year. We will then decide what further action should be taken in the light of that advice.
As I made clear, since 1979 we have pursued the policy of greater choice and diversity. The Bill to be published tomorrow builds on that and will allow different types of schools to introduce or extend

309
selection without needing the central approval required at present. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who claimed that the grant-maintained school movement was a failure, that some 20 per cent. of all secondary school children are now in grant-maintained schools. I believe that that is no failure. Grant-maintained schools will now be able to select up to 50 per cent. of their intake without applying for central approval. The LEA schools within the specialist schools programme—that is the language schools, the technology colleges and others—will be able to select up to 30 per cent. of their pupils in their specialism by aptitude. All other schools will be able to select up to 20 per cent. by ability or aptitude. The Government are keen to give new freedoms to grant-maintained schools in particular so that they can respond to local needs and make their own judgments about their future. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that that means they will be able to open a sixth form, set up a new nursery and boarding facilities and expand their capacity by up to 50 per cent. —and all of that without the need for central approval.
The second main theme of the Bill is to help schools in tackling indiscipline and poor behaviour. Only too recently we have seen the problems which exist when children do not accept the rules which must apply within any well run organisation. It is not just the individual's education that is affected. The whole class can be disrupted. Pupils need to know and to understand the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. That is why the Government have proposed a wide range of measures which, taken together, will support teachers and schools and, ultimately, other pupils in dealing with these children. Teachers need support in maintaining discipline; support from governors and LEAs; support from parents and the local community; and support from the Government in the national framework that we set.
Finally as regards discipline, I turn to the issue of corporal punishment which was put to me only a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and put to us all some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I can tell the House that there is nothing on corporal punishment in the education Bill. Teachers and schools have not asked for it. Obviously, Members may raise the matter during the passage of the Bill. I remember that the subject of corporal punishment arose in debates on the nursery vouchers Bill when it proceeded through this House last year. Obviously, there are a wide range of views. But the Government are not persuaded of its practicalities and have no plans to put it into the Bill.
There are a whole range of other measures within the Bill. Time prevents my running through all of them. There is, for instance, the measure to merge SCAA and NCVQ, which I imagine might even have the support of the party opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said that the Bill will contain nothing on unemployment. Perhaps I may tell him that the Bill will contain aspects relating to aspects of employment in respect of which I had hoped I might find a degree of support from the noble Lord. Effective careers education and guidance are vital for our future competitiveness. I can tell the noble Lord that the legislation will introduce a duty on schools to provide a programme on careers education
310
for pupils aged 14 to 16 and it will require schools and colleges to provide access to, and to work with, a careers service.
Finally, on the subject of education, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned the Education (Student Loans) Act, as did a number of others. The noble Lord accused the department of a lack of integrity. I resent that and reject it absolutely. It is absolute nonsense. It was always intended that the legislation was there to test the water. I gave assurances at the Dispatch Box, as did my honourable friends in another place, that we were not going to sign up to anything; that we would sign up only should the right deal be available. We stuck to the assurance that we gave at the Dispatch Box. Is the noble Lord really telling me that I should have come before the House and said, "Actually, we could not get the best deal, but for the sake of keeping the noble Lord, Lord Williams, happy we decided to go ahead with it anyway"? No, we did exactly what we assured we would do at the Dispatch Box.
A large number of subjects going beyond the educational world were raised during the debate and I must comment on one or two. Perhaps I may begin with BSE about which considerable concerns have been raised. I feel a little disadvantaged, not being an expert. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he was not an expert on agriculture; similarly neither am I. Therefore, I feel somewhat disadvantaged in addressing the House on a matter covered in two recent debates. It is important that I point out that the Government have committed fairly large sums of taxpayers' money to support the British beef industry at this time of crisis. An extremely substantial sum of £3 billion has been committed to deal with this matter. I recognise the problems because I come from a similar part of the country mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Mackie of Benshie, who both referred to hill farmers. We consider it right to provide significant new support to the specialist beef sector, and accordingly an additional £60 million will be provided in respect of the hill fanners through the 1997 livestock compensatory allowances.
A vast array of other subjects has been raised, and subjects on which I do not feel competent to speak. We have heard a great deal about school matters and those are matters for myself. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to his anxieties relating to special educational needs. He has put those concerns to me on occasions and we shall be able to debate those on the Second Reading of his Bill which deals with that. I look forward to those debates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, talked about how we should be making greater use of brownfield rather than greenfield sites. I could not agree with her more. I recommend that she comes to see some of the regeneration which is taking place in many parts of the country. I have a particular responsibility in relation to Barnsley and the Dearne Valley, and I invite the noble Baroness to see the transformation which is taking place on what was one of the largest sites of dereliction in Europe. She would then see just what can he done.

311
I greatly welcomed what my noble friend Lord Peel said. He told us from his personal experience of just how much can be done at relatively little cost in terms of environmental improvement.
I was extremely amused by what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the National Lottery and the state of sport. I think he was slightly unfair about my honourable friend the Minister for Sport. I do not entirely go along with the noble Lord's view of the role of that Minister. It seemed to have echoes of the role of the Minister for Sport in the former countries of eastern Europe. I suspect that some of his views expressed on that would be more in keeping with those of Honecker or Ceausescu. But perhaps the noble Lord and I take a slightly different approach to those matters. I do not take the "statist" approach which the noble Lord would like to take.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I was comparing the present Minister with my own 11-year period.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is a very distinguished former Minister of Sport. I remember his enormous success as the Minister for drought followed by the Minister for rain, or was it the other way round? But we have a different view as to what is the natural, right and proper role of government in relation to sport. The noble Lord's view is one which I could not share.
I turn now to employment matters and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I find it slightly odd that the noble Baroness seemed to have forgotten that we have merged the two departments. The Department of Employment has not disappeared at all. It still exists. The department is called the Department for Education and Employment and the two work together very well indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, accused us of making no mention of employment or unemployment in the Queen's Speech. I thought this was a bit rich. Perhaps I should remind the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, of his own past. Does the noble Lord remember that he used to ask a Question regularly on Wednesday or Thursday, whichever was the day for the labour market statistics to be published, to ask the Government what were the figures? Surprise, surprise£ Some three years ago the figures started to come down and we have seen a steady decline in unemployment for three years. Has the noble Lord continued to table his Question every month? No, he has not. That Question has disappeared entirely. I assure the noble Lord that those matters are at the forefront of our policies and it is because we are pursuing those policies and looking for a deregulated labour market that we are seeing unemployment fall, and fall rapidly.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am delighted that I made such an impression on the Government and the Minister. People used to ask me how I knew about that. I told them that I used to telephone the department, get the publication date and then table the Question. Having said that, I repeat what
312
I said in my speech. On this side, we welcome any genuine fall in unemployment. There is no question about that. But most of my speech, as I hope the noble Lord will recall, was devoted to pointing out that there are major questions to be asked about those statistics and what the Government are doing. We must not forget that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for welcoming that genuine decline. I should have thought that he would want to celebrate some of the Government's successes and table that Question. I shall remind him when the figures are about to be published and perhaps he will table his question.
As regards the statistics, I suspect that the noble Lord misunderstood me. There are two counts for unemployment figures. There is the quarterly count which is based on the ILO methodology. That is a survey, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, of 60,000 individuals and exactly what they are doing. The monthly figure which we produce is an actual count of those out of work and receiving benefit. The two are very different but they both show broadly the same pattern. The point at issue earlier was nothing to do with that. The point was whether there should be a monthly figure based on the ILO survey. Quite rightly, many people feel that that is not an appropriate use of very scarce and finite resources.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, our legislative programme and particularly the education side of it, is about delivering opportunity for us all. That is the theme running through our programme. It is about choice and opportunity.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the matter of employment, will he please deal with the question I raised in regard to the working time directive? I put that question to him quite specifically.
Lord Henley: My Lords, a great many questions have been put to me quite specifically, and the noble Baroness will understand that I am not able to answer every single question. But I think it is quite disgraceful that certain people within the European Union are trying to make use of non-employment matters to try to get round our opt-out of the social chapter to bring in the working time directive and to try to destroy our own flexible labour market.
As I said, I look forward to taking the education Bill through this House. I suspect that there will be areas of agreement but I can predict fairly safely that there will be differences of opinion between those on this side and those belonging to the two parties opposite. We are committed to increasing diversity and choice in schools. It is clear that the Front Bench opposite is opposed to any form of selection in schools. How could we forget the famous words of David Blunkett when he said, "Watch my lips, no selection". In the briefing paper on the gracious Speech published by the Labour Front Bench, it is perfectly clear where the Labour Party

313
stands. The Labour Party is opposed to any return to the 11-plus. That is with one or two fairly well-known exceptions of a personal sort which I mentioned earlier.
We believe also that the assisted places scheme widens educational opportunities for able children from less well off families. More than 80 per cent. of those on assisted places come from families which earn less than the national average household income and more than 40 per cent. have totally free places because their parents' income is lower than £9,572. The Labour Party's pledge to abolish that scheme is a tax on the poor. We hear a great deal from the Opposition about how they will phase out that scheme and reduce class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds. That is in the briefing. But quite frankly, those figures do not add up.
Further, we are committed to the inspection process. I was interested to read in the same briefing paper that the party opposite supports broadly the plans for the inspection of LEAs. That is not quite the impression that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Morris. But in the past, the party opposite has been opposed to inspections, and I question their commitment to inspections in the future. As I made clear earlier, it is the party opposite
314
which controls virtually all the worst local education authorities. I repeat, it is the party opposite which controls the worst and it is the incompetence of Labour-run authorities which will be exposed by such inspections.
The record of this Government has been to introduce measures to raise standards in our schools. Indeed, the measures that we introduced—which were opposed by the party opposite and opposed and opposed—now seem to be accepted. The challenge now for the party opposite if its members really believe in raising standards is to support the measures that we intend to produce in that Bill tomorrow.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.
House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.

  Dependent Territories: Banking Secrecy
  Dependent Territories: Banking Secrecy
  Eurostar and Channel Tunnel: Security
  Eurostar and Channel Tunnel: Security
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Waste Exports and Imports: Policy Changes
  Waste Exports and Imports: Policy Changes
  Questions on EU Spending: Currency Unit
  Questions on EU Spending: Currency Unit
  Church Repairs: VAT
  Church Repairs: VAT
  Payments to Witnesses: Consultation Paper
  Payments to Witnesses: Consultation Paper
  MEPs' Expenses
  MEPs' Expenses